I love Digg as a lead-generator. Visit Digg regularly and get a kick from it.
But I have three problems with Digg.
The first relates specifically to the Convergence part of this blog's mission:
First, most of the links are to Web pages, not directly to multimedia content. This content can be described within specific Digg entries, but this not often done. So the helpfulness of these links is up to the communications skills - or lack thereof- of those who are doing the Digging.
Second, here's a dirty little secret that I can personally attest to. Many Diggs are planted. This is often done by public relations agencies and special interest groups. I am very familiar with news organizations and blog sites that circulate internal emails, asking colleagues to "please Digg" entries they have submitted. Don't you think this practice produces a self-predictive bias in favor of those Diggs pointing to content authored by folks with a lot of corporate or personal friends? Or both?
Third, what does the public know anyway? I mean, this is a public that generates giant box office receipts for trashy movies, high ratings to dopey tv shows and huge sales for thuggish rappers and formulaic, hat-wearing country singers.
Digg? Take it for what it's worth. A fun but highly manipulateable source.