I surf Digg.com nearly every day. And the more I use the site, the more problems I see with it. Granted, the experience has improved over time, but we're still a long way from perfection. One side effect of the democratic approach to news posting is the introduction of stories not worthy to be labeled news. Sensationalist stories show up there all the time, undoubtedly posted by people who know absolutely nothing about the topic. Recent headlines to this effect include "Autistic or just a geek? Take the test!" and "40+ suggestions for better desktop" (yes, that headline is grammatically incorrect). Do you see where we're headed?

An internet "test" isn't news, nor is it a scientific way of determining whether or not you have Asperger's Syndrome. Likewise, a collection of suggestions for improving desktop software is purely opinion, not news. "So vote against the story," you say. "It is, after all, a democratic process."

Well, not exactly.

To "digg" a story, a user need only click once (after logging in) on the associated "digg it" button. But to vote against a story, a user has to click three times: once to open the "problem?" drop-down menu, once to select the problem, and then once on the JavaScript alert that pops up, indicating that the story has been "reported." Reported? To whom? I thought this was a democratic process!

So, voting against a story requires three times the effort. No wonder so much crap makes the front page. If Digg would make it easier to vote against a story, using only a 1-click process, I predict things would get much better.