I'd bet Google's Ph.D collection could could come up with an algorithm that performs as well as Digg's (that is, not very) on their own... The UI is of course no problem either.

The whole deal seems pointless. Some would claim it's for the userbase, but Digg/Reddit by now have self-selected themselves down to a notoriously bad userbase. Would you pay $200m for those guys?

Bad user base from what perspective? From the eyes of someone who likes the conversations on Hacker News, sure. From the perspective of a company that makes their business selling ads, probably not so much.

It's interesting speculation, but I think it's just as likely that once Google peered behind the curtain they realized that there is really nothing special or unique about any part of Digg.

"The algorithm" has been reproduced in various formats on many many other sites (including this one). And it's not like Digg's algorithm "works" in the sense of promoting only the best stories, banishing spam, and just generally being intelligent.

Isn't that also true of YouTube, that there's nothing special or unique about any part of it? (apart from the userbase and being known)

True, but YouTube beat Google Video into submission. Google tried everything but still lost out to them.

exactly. my point is that there is something more to it than the parts being special or unique.

In the financial world, we made potential acquirers sign non-disclosure, non-compete, and lockup agreements that usually lasted for a period of 12-24 months.

It's Google has enough negotiating leverage to get out of signing all of that.

Nah, no way. Google believes they're smarter than everyone. They could make a digg-like algorithm trivially.

They only pay big bucks for userbases.

I agree.

However, anyone could make a digg like algorithm trivially. The value to digg is the userbase.

How clever could the algorithm be, anyway?