Doubts about diglog

Recently, diglog has undergone significant changes. Initially, it attempted a model combining digg and slashdot, then it started aggregating Feeds sources. However, it seems that after some attempts at improvement by the person in charge, Kaka, he began to feel confused. Today, I read his thoughts on the aggregation of Feed, which seemed somewhat naively common, so I'll add a few words. Here's a quote from Kaka's article: "Diglog should guide users to submit high-quality links, making them feel like they are the website's editorial staff, publishing news rather than simply submitting a link to an article with a brief summary. The former is creating information, while the latter is copying information. Let users describe the submitted links in their own words (as original content) and include their opinions and doubts in the description. This way, the link will have value, attracting other users' attention, participation in discussions, and problem-solving."

The first concept is completely wrong (I'm not sure which expert misled him), the digg mode itself is a general application for ordinary users, not about promoting so-called 'high-quality links'. Instead, it achieves a final 'high-quality' output and related discussions through group filtering. So far, Kaka, as the person in charge, hasn't understood this point, and I find this very disappointing...

...

To continue...