Did I mention that I hate digg.com? I’m just saying. Among the myriad of problems that digg.com has is the comment section. Actually, pretty much any comments section of any site is usually worthless unless you moderate it, and who wants that hassle?
ONCE in a blue moon, you’ll get a gem, but it’s like finding gems in red dirt. It’s possible that it’s beneficial, but you’re not going to be liking the method that gets the results. Some stains just don’t come out easily.
Why do I say stumbleupon is better than digg? Because it’s the same without the hype. Stumbleupon is the best of digg because I won’t ever EVER be tempted to read what anyone else thinks of the link, unless I have a real desire to do so, and I won’t have to be subjected to an endless array of the self righteous posturing of people who have nothing better to do than to posit themselves as know-it-alls who slam people who have legitimate gripes on things such as Nintendo, Windows, Apple, and even *gasp* Linux.
Digg is 3 lines of content, a history of breaking sites, and 3 pages of pontificating. The fiefdom already exists, and no, you are not a part of it.
Regards,
Gerald
No comments:
Post a Comment