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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
12-11-2006 @ 11:21AM
Peter Kirn said...
Here, here. Hey, I think digg serves a purpose ... ironically, to me its wild popularity is kind of a stopgap while more focused communities develop.
Ultimately, it seems like as the blogosphere matures, we'll see traffic coming more from actual bloggers than the so-called social sites. That's what gives you actual, regular, focused readers. You can watch digg spikes alongside RSS -- often, not a blip. I think a lot of us would prefer people willing to sit down and actually read something. And some of these traffic spikes mask the reality for most blogospheres, which is at this point overall traffic is actually too low to sustain those kinds of readers for a lot of the most interesting sites. Even the megablogs from Weblogs Inc. and Gawker are still unfamiliar to a lot of average Joes, once you talk to people from outside our tech-savvy bubble -- which is why I'm often saying to friends, "hey, go read download squad, etc., etc.". (Seriously!) ;)
I think digg is just one step on the way to the larger phenomena, as web publishing grows. And it's certainly not the only game in town. Stumbleupon, while also a social site, has much more interesting content, a sense of "social norms" and politeness that digg lacks ... it just says to me that this space has more developing to do. Interestingly, rather than giant, server-busting spikes, SU tends to deliver traffic over time. (I was very surprised when it started topping my referrer logs.)
And I work for neither AOL nor digg. ;)
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 11:24AM
someguy said...
Funny this coming from a site that depends on digg for a large portion of their stories.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 11:34AM
Christopher Finke said...
I disagree with your inclusion of Slashdot. It may just be because of its age, but Slashdot is a website where the "wisdom of crowds" theory truly applies. When browsing the comment threads at the +1 (or higher) threshold, you'll find a community of intelligent, mostly affable users that are highly informed on the topics that they are discussing, and most importantly, contribute useful information to the discussion more often that just "LOL, me too" posts.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 11:36AM
Smaran (koregaonpark) said...
A lot of what you say is true, Jason. Especially the part about diggers commenting on digg and not on the dugg site. I agree with him about the negativity. All the insults are starting to get me down.
Okay, digg my comment down now. Oh wait, you can't. :-)
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 11:37AM
turtleJP said...
Yeah, I stopped "digging" long ago and have to really agree with the author's comments.
While I love the Digg submission routine I skip the comments section all together. In the end it always degrades quickly into flame wars and the not. Of course this is true on most websites these days but on digg it seems to go to the nth degree.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 11:44AM
Richard said...
Christopher, whilst I agree that Slashdot's moderation removes the uninteresting posts - it too also has the tendancy to bury information that people disagree with (however valid).
For example, a comment from an artist supporting the DMCA with fair and valid reasons would be modded down to -1 in a second because their opinions would not reflect those of the group.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 12:02PM
Kevin Guidry said...
I agree with your general assessment that "Digg sucks." However, I question the applicability of Surowiecki's theory of the "wisdom of crowds."
Your assertion that "Microsoft Windows is an example of an operating system written using the wisdom of crowds" is false. That many people were involved doesn't begin to meet the criteria that Surowiecki set forth in his book for a "smart crowd." Without going into an extensive analysis, that these people contributed in a very rigid, top-down corporate structure is pretty clear evidence that Microsoft's development process fails to take advantage of the wisdom of crowds as currently defined.
Your application of the wisdom of crowds theory to the comments posted in Dugg is also mistaken. IIRC, one of the key tenets of this theory is that the members of the crowd are independent actors with little or no knowledge of how the other members are behaving, voting, etc. at that particular time. That tenet is violated when one can and does read everyone else's responses before posting your own comment. Another key tenet is that the members of the crowd are diverse and I think we can all agree that is likely not the case for those who participate in Digg.
Again, I think your main points are correct. But they are weakened when you try to misapply the concept of wisdom of crowds. I know it's a popular theory right now but let's please try to not apply it to every situation involving lots of people; not every crowd is a smart crowd. Your arguments stand on their own merit.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 12:46PM
Jim Kukral said...
Yeah, we've been talking about this since Jan 06.
http://www.revenews.com/jimkukral/archives/001401.html
Welcome to the Digg sucks party!
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 12:55PM
Jason Clarke said...
Kevin - your point is well taken. I made the mistake of assuming the wisdom of crowds theory was more of a meme than a reasoned theory. In my somewhat pitiful defense, I'd say that I intended 'wisdom of crowds' in the same way that the creators of digg and other social news sites intended it. But I'm willing to admit I was simply ignorant on this point.
You've certainly added to my reading list. Thanks!
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 1:14PM
Tree said...
Show me a comment board that DOESN'T have negative posts or flames, and I'll show you a tech blog that isn't heavily biased. Personally, I could care less about the comment section of digg, unless I want to see classic tech controversies unfold (ps3 vs wii for example). I like Digg the most for it's wide variety of news, and it leads me to find tech news sites that I wouldn't have normally found. I like the short synapses of each story, and I like that the community diggs notable things from the mundane to the uber-geek. And digg is NOT about building traffic for your blog or your website, it is about the community sharing links & information.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 1:25PM
black cat said...
Along the same lines: as the stories get more juvenile and have more and more exclamation marks after their TITLE!!!, the only people left visiting are those interested in these type of stories. Therefore a higher proportion of stories become ever more pointless as the the only community left diggs the stories everyone else has cuts off their rss feeds from. It's a downward spiral that looks like it's only going one direction.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 1:25PM
Josh said...
I'm not exactly sure why you include del.icio.us in the group. I find it to be a good way to find websites and organize bookmarks. I don't even see the parallel between delicious and the others - it not being a site used to share views and opinions about events, products etc. but rather simply a site to share links to websites in an organized fashion. When I use delicious I have no idea what people actually think about the content of the link, just that it's relevant to my search. I really don't get why it's being lumped in with these comment and opinion driven sites.
P.s. other than this inclusion I agree whole-heartedly
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 1:26PM
Russell Heimlich said...
It sounds like you really dislike the comment section of digg. I rarely go digging through the comments as Digg mainly provides me interesting links and a way to keep track of the ones I find interesting.
While Digg users tend not to click on advertisements, you can't overlook the boost your page will get in the search results because front page digg stories generate lots of links. With that frame of mind, being Dugg is valuable for the long term traffic boost your page will recieve granted it is not time sensitive news.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 1:31PM
Jason said...
The one word that never comes up in this article but you practically hear it the whole time - "leadership". People respond to it, people need it and when leadership is missing, even great franchises like digg can fail.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 2:21PM
Machine said...
I used to contribute / comment on Digg until they implemented digging up and down on individual comments... the intentions behind that decision were good... promote good comments... bury abusive and off topic comments... but in the end it just became one more way for people to attack each other.
Near the end of my association with Digg someone was marking down every pro Macintosh comment in Apple centric stories... no matter what their merit... probably because they didn't like "Mac fanboys". The same thing was happening on in Wii stories as well.
It's also too easy to bury a story... something that's dugg by hundreds or thousands of people can be buried by a very small fraction of those people.
The wisdom of the crowds? Don't make me laugh. I'd rather have the wisdom of an editorial department.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 2:35PM
Webomatica said...
Couple of points: I do agree that the "lowest common denominator" of digg is on the negative, populartiy contest, hot chick side, but digg never advertised itself as being a bastion of intellectual superiority. The podcast features two dudes yapping about tech over beers. Second, although digg traffic is brutal and most people come and go, my experience in terms of regular traffic and ads has been mostly positive. It's not the ideal way to build an audience but it sure beats waiting around for people to discover your site through search engines. Lastly, I'll start worrying about digg when I see the New York Times pandering by running a story titled "Top 10 Reasons Why Hot Apple Beer Loving Steve Jobs Fan Boys Wii!". It hasn't gotten that bad... yet.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 2:45PM
doublej said...
ahhh right on the money Jason. Really informative article highlighting the commercial realities of being heavily 'dugg'
It's another example of a utopian idea that we thought the net might enable, but it doesn't because we're still human.
An being human means we are immeasurably diverse by nature and if throw a little mischievousness into that mix, you'll see why it can never work.
I'm as sick as anyone reading petty squabbles on such services but it's hard wired in to our brains !
Two guys see a brand new white train pull of the station. One guy sees are marvel of engineering, the combined efforts of man, science & engineering culminating in advanced metropolitan transportation.
the other guy sees canvas.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 3:32PM
Deepak said...
I would like to echo Josh (#13). del.icio.us does not belong in that category. It is an invaluable resource to me and others as a search engine, which I use to look for all kinds of relevant information. Yahoo has failed to take it to the next level, but it remains among the best of the "web 2.0" (if I may use that term) sites, and probably the one I use more than any other for work and personal use.
I am not a big fan of digg. For whatever it is worth, TechMeme is my favorite source of tech news. Otherwise, I have a feed reader and can participate in the conversation directly on peoples blogs and the like.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 4:28PM
HES said...
I don't know the average chronological age of digg users but their mental age appears to be about twelve (with apologies to real twelve year olds everywhere). Digg's claim of 600,000 users is nonsense. The number of ACTIVE users is never divulged but must be a fraction of that number. I sincerely doubt that many of them click through as potential buyers. Business Week should be ashamed of pumping up what is surely just another worthless bubble.
Reply
12-11-2006 @ 4:42PM
Bob Jones said...
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.
Reply