8 Reasons Digg Sucks (or Why I find Digg's Diggs a waste of space and time.)

First let me point out that I like Digg, I like it a lot. I don't, however, like the quality of some of the Diggs. I will explain below in a true to Digg like fashion with a list.

1. Web 2.0, Ajax, CSS fanciness, etc...
• Enough already! They are fads, we jumped on the bandwagon and we learned a lot but come on.
2. Repeat articles
• Yes I know Digg checks to see if the URL has been submitted before and it does some content checking. Even with those checks in place users continue to submit duplicate content. A search for Rounded Corners CSS returned hundreds of articles on the subject. The reality: most people need only a few to figure out how to do it.
3. Blog Spam
• Do I really need to go over this?
4. Comments
• ...I don't think there is enough time in the day to talk about how uninformed and stupid some comments can be.
  
5. The general public isn't always that smart
• Now don't get me wrong I like a lot of the diggs that make it to the home page. From my friend: "This was on the front page:The Best Bird Feeder Ever. Its cool, my grandfather would have shit his pants for something like that, but I don't think a bird feeder is digg material."
6. Content-less or link Diggs
• Goes along with #3. Can't Diggers Digg the actual article and not someone's site with their ever so "witty" comments?
7. [photo], [pic],[picture], etc...
   
• If posters could articulate themselves when posting titles there wouldn't be a need. For example this Digg home page title "The Alar: World's ugliest Lamborghini [PIC]" could be "Pictures of the World's ugliest Lamborghini: The Alar". Its really rather simple and easy to do.
8. Spelling and Grammar
• Do I really need to explain this?
  

So thats my rant. If you agree with me good for you. If you don't I hope you at least realize you do some of these things and stop.

I ask you how many CSS guides do you need in Digg when Google is sitting there?