look. there is no law that says DIGG needs to make their homepage based strictly on a TOTAL NUMBER COUNT... however, changing digg from a vote system to a quazi-vote system seems to take the point out of digging an article. (why vote it its not going to be counted?)
The PROBLEM is that digg doesn't have enough 'casual' viewers (or diggers) to outweigh the few big names. This is ABSOLUTELY TYPICAL of open democracy... most people don't participate and the powerful interests that do get their way.
A lot of people have given Digg a bad rap for upgrading their algorithm. I think too many people are seeing this as taking a hammer to the algorithm, when it is more likely a small tap or tweak.
More or less "weight" (that is talked about in the article) is also a relative term since we have no idea of specific numbers in the algorithm.
"Top Diggers"? How meaningful is it to tell a woman she is awsomely beautiful if I go around the office and another 30% of the staff as well? I dig rarely, and only those stories which are *OUTSTANDING*, not the usual crap. I think this thing about Top Diggers being valuable is actually just the opposite. They pollute the system with their valueless contributions. I'm glad the top diggers left...
Also, for those of you out there who think "what the hell... why not just let the most dugg stories go to the front, regardless", you can look under American History: The Federalist Papers, arguably the most insightful documents to the founding of the U.S. Think of the gangs who promote stories for whatever their motivation is, to be known as the "Tyranny of the minority".