In the past, the top digg users were accused of controlling digg. Digg responded to this by dropping the top users list.
Some folks still think that the digg front page is controlled by a small minority of users. Well, they are partially right in that belief. Not right because the small group controls the content but right in the respect that so few stories make it to the front page that the end result is the same.
See, the vast majority of diggers never get a story promoted to the front page. It's not that there is a conspiracy but that it is a numbers game. Now that digg has over one million registered members it's virtually impossible for every member to get a story on the front page.
On most days, an average of 120 stories gets promoted to the front page of digg. Multiply this out by 365 days and you get an average of 43,800 front paged stories in a year. Even if every user tried to get a story promoted to the front page only 4.3% of users could even expect to get a story promoted! With over 5,000 stories submitted every day only 2.4% of them ever make it to the front page.
I have never thought that a cabal of "top diggers" controls the content that hits digg's front page. I have always thought the reverse, that the content decides who will become a top digger. Well, I used to believe that...
What I am finding more and more is that it is actually the "top dugg websites" that control what gets on digg.
Now, here me out on this.
A front page story on digg can translate into 25K hits easy. Heck, I recently received 15K hits from a story on digg's front page before they pulled it and that was all overnight/early morning traffic! That's a very tempting bit of traffic for a website owner.
That is why I think many of the "top dugg websites" are actually in control of what makes the digg front page. I'm not accusing digg of any involvement in this scheme but try this:
- Top Dugg Website Test
- 1) Do a digg search (url only) for press.nintendo.com.
- 2) Notice how few stories ever make the front page from this site?
- 3) Do a digg search (url only) for a popular gaming site (that covers Nintendo) that is often on the digg home page.
- 4) How many of those stories originated from Nintendo's press site?
- 5) Think to yourself, why is this non-Nintendo site always making the front page when they are just reposting news from Nintendo's press site?
You can try this out in all the sections of digg, the results will be the same.
Certain websites are always on digg's homepage in their respective categories while others, who have the news first, are not.
Just the other day I saw a story hit the front page and when I went to read it, it ended with a source link to a lesser known site. The lesser known site had been submitted to digg first but its story was buried.
25K hits a day times 30 days equals 750K. That's a lot of traffic. You can charge advertisers a lot of money for traffic that high.
PS: Don't bother submitting this to digg, they don't want to hear from me.
It’s a good theory and is mostly true. I think the only way a new user can get a front page story on Digg is by sitting on the RSS feed of one of these sites (or TechCrunch, ARS Technica, etc). He won’t get the votes for the content so much for the number of people trying to submit the same story and voting for it once they realize it was already submitted.
But still, the people who control the Digg front page are the ones with the most friends. If a user who has 700-1000 friends submits one story today (no matter what it is), it will make the front page no questions asked, unless it gets buried in the process.
That’s just it.
If that “top digger” with “lots of friends” submits a story with no competition, it will make it. If they submit a story that competes with a “top dugg website” it will be buried, quickly.
Of course. If you break some important news and TechCrunch copies you, fat chance your story will make the front page.
That’s sort of my whole point!
If a top digger submitted an unknown site with breaking news and an unknown user submitted the same story once it appears on TechCrunch (which copied and sourced it from the unknown site) I think we can all agree that the unknown site would be buried and TechCrunch’s version would hit the home page.
I’ve seen it too many times where a small site posts an interesting article and then a bigger sites links to it with their added “editorial” notes and the original source gets lost and forgotten.
Well, “the rich get richer” type of deal here. Big sites like Slashdot, Techcrunch, Ars Technica & company are household names online, so they carry a lot of weight, and a bigger perception of legitimacy compared to a smaller website.
What’s with all the big sites like slashdot, techcrunch, ars technica? They branded their names! :D Takes time..but hopefully we’ll all be there someday
Thats why at some time or other all bloggers have said Digg is crap…..
Ever since digg went over 100 000 registered users, it’s getting too much attention I think. Spammers dump a lot of crap, forcing digg to adapt, with algorithms that drop a lot of “not prime but still interresting” posts.
Dany, I agree with you. Digg is getting so much attention now and so many people are trying to take advantage of it.
yeah i totally agree.. its like anything though. As soon as something gains attention - people always want to try and take advantage
Really interesting Steve. I think you make some valid arguments there. Plus, I got a kick out of the picture you used.
I recently happened upon your blog, and I am definitely enjoying the posts.
I am a Digg member, and I do my share of reading and providing clicks to the websites that get onto the front page. I neither have the time nor the energy to really be someone that will peruse the large number of submitted stories, but I suppose that I should. I have also noticed that there is a strange phenomenon that occurs when someone can get onto the front page merely by reposting content from another source. There is no way that should be happening.
Thanks for your thoughts and because of them, I think that I’m going to be looking at the summary blurbs first. From that, I will likely be searching for the story. Even as I type that out, it seems like extra work which doesn’t appeal to the American that I am. So who knows how long that will last. :P
Welcome Derek!
I’ve been to your blog a few times myself.
On the subject of Digg… I’ve been a digger for a long time and, even though my blog is on Digg’s ‘auto-bury’ list I still do visit digg. I don’t submit or digg to the degree I used to but, I still check it out every few days.
Digg still has a lot of potential, I just wish they would wise up and figure out who is doing the real gaming of their system and why.
I agree. Digg itself is a good idea. Let people decide what good content is. Unfortunately it is never easy to solve a problem completely (as many people, both programmers and non are very aware of).
‘Tis life I suppose. It wouldn’t be as fun if there weren’t controversy and difficulties, would it?
I am by no means a “Top Digger” but I’ve had several stories make it to the front page. The worst part is, a short while later another blog would duplicate my (original) story and submit it again! Or submit it to other sites like Reddit! That really pissed me off.
So now whenever I submit everything, I cover my bases and submit them to all the social news sites.
Were these other blogs stealing your content or submitting your site?
ROFLMAO at that pic, Steve!
The joke behind that picture is that it is not the majority that controls Digg but a small (Intelligent) minority.
So, how do these sites dominate the front page?? How are they able to repeatedly get enough votes?