Allen Stern’s argument:
If you look at Digg, from a true standpoint, what does it really offer? It offers a link to the actual story, a 1-2 line overview of the story and sometimes comments from Digg users.
My belief is that this is not enough to warrant a listing in Google. Since at its most basic sense Digg only offers a link to the actual story, then that story should occupy that position within Google, not the Digg link.
I believe content publishers actually lose the chance to see that visitor because the person has to click twice and even understand that they must do that. And I am talking about mainstream non-diggers now, not the group who already understands what Digg is for.
William Burn’s rebuttal:
Digg.com is acting as a gateway to the great content which would (usually) have been lost in Google’s monolithic index, never to be found or stumbled upon by searchers.
Additionally, as a counter to his “the person has to click twice and even understand that they must do that” statement, the Digg.com interface is very easy to use, it’s almost an exact clone of a Google result (a big blue link/title with description underneath) so the user will already be familiar with it, as a result the user would not be confused by it and will find their way to the content they were looking for; that’s if the content still appeals to them after reading the accompanying description.
Do you feel that Digg listings should be ranked highly in Google, omitted, supplemented or perhaps penalized a point or two below the initial story they are linking to?