Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Why digg is destined for failure
If you've ever had the good fortune of having one of your websites or blog posts dugg to the point of showing up on digg's homepage, you've enjoyed a huge traffic boost to your site. This is wonderful for web publishers, and I'm not going to lie and say that we don't care about it here at Download Squad; in fact, since the success of a given post is measured in large part by the traffic it drives to our site, it's certainly a goal of ours to have our posts make the homepage on digg. But how valuable is digg traffic, really, and is the digg community one that we should even care about? Unfortunately, after observing the digg community for about a year, I'd have to conclude no, it's not. Now, at this point I should point out that AOL owns Weblogs Inc, who own Download Squad, and AOL also owns Netscape, recently converted into a social news and media voting site that is in many ways similar to digg. So if you don't think I can be objective about this, you might want to just skip this post. But I'm not here to sing the praises of Netscape over digg either. Overall, I'm not certain that social media sites like Netscape, digg, reddit, del.icio.us, or even the granddaddy of them all - Slashdot - will have any relevance whatsoever in five years.
Okay, so now that I've condemned a whole class of website, or really a whole class of online community, I should point out that while digg drives the largest amount of traffic of the bunch, the community at digg is actually rotting from the inside out.
This is a very inflammatory statement to make, but all it takes is to browse through the comments on few random frontpage posts at digg, and you'll see what I mean. The sheer level of superiority, sarcasm, and general negativity is overwhelming, and makes digg a place that is not only not fun to visit, it's certainly not a place to "share, discover, bookmark, and promote the news that's important to you", as digg's tagline optimistically claims.
Wisdom of Crowds?
The problem with the whole concept of taking advantage of the "wisdom of crowds" is that crowds have no wisdom. Microsoft Windows is an example of an operating system written using the wisdom of crowds - in business they're called committees, and at Microsoft they're BIG committees. And don't get me started on the majority of large open-source efforts (of course there are obvious exceptions). This isn't to say that collaboration is worthless; in fact it's extremely good. But when the crowd involved reaches a certain threshold size, the value that is added by extra voices is more than negated by the "groupthink" that occurs as people begin shutting off their brains.
Although digg claims to be a news aggregation service, in the scheme of things digg articles skew much further towards the Entertainment side of the online content spectrum than they do to the News side. Therefore, a better analogy to illustrate the problem with the digg community would be to liken it to a rock concert that gets out of control where a riot breaks out. The people in the crowd at the concert weren't looking for a riot when they showed up at the concert, they were there looking to be entertained. The problem is that when a few idiots in the crowd begin taking part in antisocial behavior, the "wisdom of crowds" tells the people in the crowd (particularly those who feel anonymous) that it's okay to take part in the nonsense.
To be fair, digg has not been complacent about dealing with this issue; in version 2 of the site digg introduced a new commenting system that allows users to "digg up" or "digg down" comments. The idea here is to suppress the completely irrelevant or offensive comments. But the problem is that it actually empowers a new set of antisocial behaviors. The crowd at digg immediately decided that the new comment system was in place to allow them to support points of view that they agree with, and bury those that they disagree with. In the "wisdom of crowds" paradigm, the reality of this implementation is catastrophic. You regularly see well thought out comments that happen to take an unpopular stance dugg down heavily, and "me too!" comments that add zero value dugg up because they agree with the prevailing opinion. For example, have a look in the digg comments of any article for a comment that bashes Microsoft - something as eloquent as "Microsoft sux!!!" will have a positive number of diggs. Conversely, a well considered comment describing virtually anything positive that Microsoft has done will be buried, not because the information is inaccurate or unhelpful, but because it mentions Microsoft in a positive light.
Digg traffic - more trouble than it's worth
Finally, what is the value of having your content linked to by digg? Right now it can be financially lucrative if you are able to convert unqualified page views into dollars reliably. Advertisers that pay per page view do so based on sheer traffic numbers because there is no easy way to measure the quality of that traffic. Of course, if your advertising requires users to click before you make any money, you're more likely to induce a net cost on your site by being dugg than you are to earn anything. Consider this post from tech-recipes from over a year ago; this was back when digg was less than a year old, and had not yet overtaken slashdot. Even then it was clear that digg users are not valuable for a site that relies on advertising clicks to generate revenue, since they drop by for a cursory look, then head off looking for another distraction. The problem has compounded considering digg has grown in leaps and bounds since that article was written.
What's worse is that companies that are attempting to create new products are often popular topics at digg, and can generate a large number of "early adopter" sign-ups. But digg users tend to be those that will sign up for almost any beta product or service, then bore of it quickly and abandon it for the next big thing. Worse, they are extremely unlikely to give any beta feedback to the product or service originator - rather, they save their comments for the digg site itself. The new product or service provider is then stuck trying to sift through the heavily biased and noise-laden digg comment system to try to uncover a useful post, many of which have been hidden from sight, rather than acquiring useful feedback directly into their feedback system. And God help them if they haven't previously been exposed to the digg vitriol; experiencing it for the first time in regards to one's own product could be a crushing experience.
Conclusion
Social media sites are an unproven phenomenon, in terms of the value that they provide to content creators. Digg in particular is the biggest of the bunch, and also seemingly the most negative. I predict that in the near future sites will start to attempt to block digg as a referrer, since getting a link from digg will simply cost them money. And over time I believe users will tire of the constant negativity that characterizes digg, and move on to better endeavors, unless digg can find a way to clean up their collective act.
[Update]
It turns out that this article was submitted to digg, and has been amassing diggs at a steady rate in the Technology / Industry News category for the past two hours. At this moment, it has enough diggs that it should be listed 3rd 1st with more than double the number of diggs as the next highest entry on the list of most dugg upcoming stories in the Industry News category, but mysteriously it doesn't show up at all. It seems that this can only be attributed to digg's quiet use of moderators. Although it is claimed that Kevin Rose has admitted that they have moderators at digg, his constant refrain that digg's stories are chosen exclusively by digg users makes the concept of moderators that quietly bury unflattering stories pretty hard to stomach. Add the unsettling point that digg has hidden moderators that make arbitrary changes to the status of stories regardless of what their actual users want to the list of reasons digg is destined for failure. I'm not saying don't moderate, I'm saying if you are going to moderate, at least be above-board about it.
Comments
44
Subscribe to commentsMike KelleyDec 11th 2006 10:02PM
This perfectly encapsulates everything I have felt about Digg for some time. I am a Kevin Rose apologist and think he's done and is capable of great things, and I love his weekly podcast. However, each week the online behavior is more and more riotous. Threads are hijacked in no time at all, and all-out flame wars ensue about topics completely unrelated to the stories.
For instance, in this story (which hasn't yet hit the front page as of this moment and may never, if you believe some of the points raised in the article), you've already got a few utterly worthless comments (see Jammerdelray and edmondodantes). Kevin's constant mantra that "the community polices itself" is no longer a benefit to me.
Essentially, Rose claims that the site *is* moderated, but it's okay because the users themselves do it. I don't understand why it's anathema to him to have actual moderators. He's claimed (as recently as on netatnite with AmberMac) that there are too many stories to police effectively, and trusts his users and burial algorithms to do the trick. This is not a solution--it is a restatement of the problem: there are too many stories, most of which are junk, and the junk makes it prohibitively difficult to upkeep the site.
What he hasn't yet come to terms with is that a *social* website comprosed of living, breathing people cannot be governed by a mechanical algorithm that moderates the content. If his vision is to bring people together, people need to oversee it. Digg (before v2) used to be the first site I visited every day, but I only visit if I have time once I have read through moderated blogs. Honestly, the quality of writing is vastly better, and I have a chance to learn something. Digg = aggravation.
The final straw for me was the numerous James Kim stories that surfaced on Digg when the man passed. Seeing a story about Kim on a site designed by Rose, colleagues and friends for some time, with comments that said things like "James deserved to die" and "Who cares if this guy's dead? He's not important" made be angry. The legacy of Digg is that it allows one set of users to police another set of users, neither of which is every going to change, and instead of being enriched by the content, Diggers have to wade through the mess.
Bob JonesDec 11th 2006 4:42PM
Not only is the userbase made up of whiny anti-Bush liberal base, who have no regard for fact or personal respect ... they abuse the system, and the site suffers.
I can't stand the amount of liberal hysteria and tin-foil conspiracy theories the site holds.
Scot DukeFeb 3rd 2007 10:07PM
I have always thought that DIGG was not heading anywhere other than the three or four dudes who are getting hundreds of people to DIGG their sites so they would bask in the Homepage traffic that the site provides. So, yes, rotting from the inside...I can agree.
Matthew WandererDec 11th 2006 5:31PM
While I agree with the notion of questioning the true value of Digg.com, I'm reminded of the axiom, No publicity is bad publicity.
"since getting a link from digg will simply cost them money."
Perhaps another way of looking at the social website category is not whether it's good or bad, but how to capitalize on the referral.
Joe DuckDec 11th 2006 5:37PM
Very insightful though I think much will shake out that can't be known. Digg's concept is brilliant, but challenges come from a user base that is tech oriented, young, male, with way too much time on their hands. So Britney's crotch will trump Global health.
labarksDec 11th 2006 9:35PM
Kevin Rose take digg into the real world.
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/901.html
BalaDec 12th 2006 1:08AM
I dont this Digg Sux, its pretty good stuff ,the failure is due to reliability of the content.Nowdays even Wikipedia is turning to one such
Pramit SinghDec 12th 2006 2:55AM
Mediablog has run a seris on stories on problems plaguing Digg and solutions.
MarkDec 12th 2006 5:10AM
I second Josh´s view that del.icio.us isn´t part of this issue. I´ll be saving this story to del.icio.us right after thi scomment so that my friend can see this discussion when she gets back from vacation. Whether she or anybody else wants to trash or flame it is up to them, fact is it won´t happen in in my del.icio.us sphere and clutter my space. I like my privacy in the social space :-)
P.S. I don´t digg or dugg or even use the site
JCDec 12th 2006 6:42AM
Your article is perfect. Thanks.
Jeff VenturaDec 12th 2006 9:51AM
I could not agree more -- in fact, I just blogged about this on Graceful Flavor, in two separate parts:
Part One
and
Part Two
Jeff VenturaDec 12th 2006 9:53AM
Let me try those Graceful Flavor links again, because they didn't take the first time:
http://gracefulflavor.wordpress.com/2006/12/07/diggs-signal-to-noise-ratio-just-too-upside-down-for-me/
http://gracefulflavor.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/not-only-is-digg-noisy-but-its-comments-are-tedious-too/
Pete AbillaDec 12th 2006 12:35PM
Digg is an experiment in social choice and game theory. The behavior we see is fully explained by Game Theory. No matter how social one would like to be, people are still, at bottom, self-interested.
GregDec 12th 2006 9:43PM
I completely agree with your comments. Digg has become an utter waste of time for me. You can get much more relevent news just be reading key blogs. And the secret gestapo who digg down stories they don't like is a little sick in my opinion.
Sinisa DukaricDec 13th 2006 12:02PM
I have to say that i share your opinion about digg and similar sites as well Jason.
Digg is not source of my news or entertainment anymore - mostly for the reasons pointed out in your post.
Although I like "digg-alike" sites which are more focused on one topic area or one location (be it country or a city). Digg obviously grew up into huge pile of faceless geeks and nerds looking for a flame and bash ...
But mentioning Slashdot in the same context is just plain silly:)
Slashdot has a great commenting/moderating system, great amount of really intelligent users collaborating on the topics and what is most important - hot news are !== "Kid Gets Lightsaber for Christmas, Lops Off Grandma's Torso".
Cheers.
Coleman McCormickDec 19th 2006 5:13PM
Jason and Bob, you both hit the nail on the head. I used to be an avid Digg user (around the first half of 2006), but of late, I've completely tired of the site. I go on occasionally to check out what's up in the tech news, and sometimes to see my friends' comments, but that's it. The comments section is just an embarrassment to the site. It's like wandering into a 6th grade class with 5000 students and no adults. It's of no value to me. The only value I get is the occasional link that doesn't appear in my feed reader.
alexander haysDec 21st 2006 1:08PM
uhh, I think thats the reason Digg will continue to be a strong site, same with slashdot, etc
Sure, this alienates a lot of people, but that central group that comment on those sites LOVE IT. They love the argument and the cutting down of others and the feeling of superiority derived from it.
They have an incredibly strong, albeit select, group of visiters that are addicted to this type of commenting. They also happen to be the reason why I, and many others, never comment on those sites, but hey, they dont need us.
stephenJan 12th 2007 3:09AM
I'm in agreement with this article. I've watched Digg's user base deteriorate over the past year - to the point now that I don't bother anymore. I'm curious though what would happen if select constraints were built into the 'consensus' system - for example, allowing people to only vote on a few stories per day, or keep comments to a certain length, or any other number of measures that would get people to think more before posting rashly.
Michael @ SEOGJan 12th 2007 1:44PM
A lot of the comments on digg are negative but sometimes you can find useful information. I mostly skip the comments and look for interesting new stories. Often when you browse or search for a topic you can find relevant articles that may not be as easy to find just with a Google search.
Digg and there like still have their place and not everyone who submits or uses the site is even interested in commenting or being part of the "forum" on an article.
Pat McDonoughJan 19th 2007 4:20PM
Say what you will about the quality of feedback at digg (or are we really talking about demographic preferences here), but that doesn't at all dilute the power, impact, and disruptive promise that sites like digg offer.
For example, digg swarm is probably exactly what you will be seing on your TV set within the next half decade. It'll be the "what's everyone else watching" as opposed to channel surfing as we know it.
The problem lies in segmenting that feedback to those whose opinions you respect. This is basically what eBay had to tackle when they first came out - hence the ratings system.