Not Only Is Digg Noisy, But Its Comments Are Tedious, Too

Today Scoble has a a story that provides a link to Digg that highlights the exact reason I said a few days ago that Digg is relatively useless as an information source. But Scoble’s pointing out an angle I didn’t, and I feel it should be mentioned.

Scoble is talking about about how Dvorak is claiming that blogging killed Microsoft FrontPage, which is what Dvorak does: say controversial things to get hits and stir the pot. (By the way, FrontPage didn’t get killed: a lot of it lives on in Microsoft Expression Web, but that’s not really the point here). At the end of Scoble’s post, he links to Digg comments and calls the noisy and mainly devoid of any real knowledge.

A few days ago, I wrote a post that condemned Digg for its poor signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio, making sorting through its many, many headlines arduous, even when armed with something like Google Reader.

Scoble brings up another point, which is Digg’s comment quality. In a word, it sucks.

Here, look at the comments about the Dvorak story and tell me you can easily learn more about a Digg topic by reading them. You can’t. No way. Even though, as I write this, there are 144 comments.

So, not only is Digg noisy from the headline, quality-of-story perspective, but unlike news sites like Slashdot, Digg’s comments are vapid and generally flimsy.

Technorati Tags: Digg, Blogging, Social Web, Web 2.0