1. Not submit any posts to social news sites unless it is actually 'news'. After doing some research, I found that digg does not like random thoughts being paraded around on digg. Here are a couple comments by danhuard (digg moderator):
"STOP submitting stories like this. Digg IS NOT a message board, stop treating it as such. You submit technology and science news content only. Don't use the submission feature as your personal megaphone. As much as you hate exclamation points you're equally cluttering up th digg queue. Please think about your actions before acting on them. You're identifying a very petty problem by creating a much larger one. Think..."
2. Research, research, research. One things that news sites do is research to be sure what they are saying is accurate. Sure some people may disagree, but there is generally some sort of editorial wall before something can be published. Many Blogs do not have this because they generally 'repurpose' news and throw a link to the people that actually did research. Again I will use a comment by Dan Huard to prove digg does not like this:
"submissions like these are exactly why it's so difficult to follow stories completely through the /diggall queue to the homepage.stop treating digg like a message board...it's science and technology news not "whatever comes to my thought process gets submitted."contact digg at firstname.lastname@example.org"
"If you're going to call digg out, you've gotta come in with more credibility3. Change my domain from insidesocialnews.blogspot.com to www.insidesocialnews.com. Many people see the blogspot tag and immediately consider it blogspam regardless of its content value.
4. Keep it ad/adsense free until I have something worth getting paid for to say. Many people put ads up in hope of making a quick buck or paying for hosting or something. As of right now blogger pays for my hosting so there is no need to try and recooperate costs.
Lastly, here is a comment by dan that kind of sums up their feeling on blogs. I think it is relevant to the topic. An please don't submit this to digg.
"After reading this I still don't see how blogs add any value to digg. The people who actually get off their asses and do actual news gathering and reporting should be credited. Generally, blog sites even try to hide the original source and only link internally thereafter. The obvious ones are the Weblogs, Inc. guys (engadget, joystiq, blogging baby, etc.)
Maybe I should retract what I said, "After reading this I still don't see how blogs add any value to digg." There IS a value for blogging (different perspectives, sometimes addtional expert advice, etc.) but bloggers have abused their power too much. It's too easy to submit anything you want. And EVERYBODY wants a few extra bucks from Google Ads so there is the problem, imo.
On another note, digg users still don't understand the administrative toolset digg provides. People complain about how bad the stories are but they don't 'report' the story. The community needs to realize that if you want digg a certain way, YOU have the power to change it. YOU are the admins. It's like voting for our president. You can't complain how bad of a job he's doing if you didn't vote!"