Jump to content
  • Advertisement
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Finally, someone says it.

Sign in to follow this  


Regardless of your personal feelings about The Inquirer, I know some of you have shared my utter displeasure with Digg in the past.

So take a look at this. Thanks, Run_The_Shadows.
I first became aware of the repost when I started getting flame mails, the likes of which make PS3 fanboys looks smart and Apple zealots look like utter geniuses. From the mails I got to the comments, it is painfully obvious that the vast majority of the Digg set isn't much for reading, and possesses far less comprehension skills than their meagre reading ability. Translation, they are for the most part dumber than rocks.


With the Internet now open to anyone, and the barrier to entry dropping with every new Web 2.0 app or site that hits the market, we now get to see how shatteringly bad the lowest vocal subset of average is. Go to Digg or Wikipedia, and you will quickly see what I mean. The domains of the interesting and smart were invaded by the stupid and loud, and as always happens, the smart lived up to their name and sought out higher ground. With each passing day, the sites shifted downward until you were left with the reality TV set. You know, those who watch pro wrestling with utter amazement at the deep plots, snorting while they laugh at each twist and turn.

I laughed and laughed and laughed and I honestly agree 100%.
Sign in to follow this  


Recommended Comments


I definitely thought that Digg was a good idea back in mid-2005, but now it's just a horrible mess. It's sad, really. I keep forgetting that in large numbers, people are pretty much retarded.

Share this comment

Link to comment
Guest Anonymous Poster


Whatever the failings of Digg (I know nothing about it), I thought the guy who wrote the article came across as a bit of an arrogant idiot. The fact that you are lent an anonymity online that you can never in the real world means that the web has always been prone to the flinging of unimaginative insults (although perhaps not in the alleged Golden Age described by the author of the article), and he didn't really strike me as an exception. The only thing really separating this guy from the people he is criticising is a slightly extended vocabulary.

I've found that how a person is online is not necessarily representative of how he or she is offline. Some people who I find bright and engaging in the real world write in a fashion that I would call retarded when they're online, so I find the great haste with which some leap to judge the so-called 'stupid' quite distasteful. (Let me reiterate at this point that I have no experience of Digg - it sounds like it may indeed be a bastion of idiocy.)

And what was his problem with Wikipedia? I find it to be an excellent resource, which works a lot better than I would expect it to.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!