Digg is an innovative example of supply and demand: the users provide the supply and define the demand by their control of the ratings. I do notice the Digg button when I view articles on websites but have never voted.

Like search engines, there is no formal search term structure or subject headings. In the library, we tend to be more constrained by subject headings and defined categories. This is sometimes advantageous, but less intuitive to our users.

The voting on Digg is analogous to our weeding process: if no one is interested, the item is discarded. However, we move in a much slower time frame.

While I found some great articles (such as one on tablet computers), and I got a chuckle out of "What did the Google phone say to the iPhone?", a lot of the entries seemed superficial. Confession time: I read Newsweek and Wall Street Journal instead of People magazine, and I read more nonfiction that fiction. I understand that entertainment is an important component of life, and Digg could be entertaining.

I was surprised to encounter commerically sponsored entries (such as AVG anti-virus) as I did not know this was part of Digg.

So should the library create a Digg account and recommend articles? In my opinion, there are more effective ways to promote our services.