Technology & Writing 15 Aug 2006 07:37 pm
Gaming Digg? I don't think so.
I see things on Digg sometimes about how blog networks are "gaming" digg. That is, how a blog network with a decent number of writers pass requests to one another to digg each others' stories.
Is it wrong to digg friends' stories? If it is, why does the "friend" feature exist at all? After all, Digg's top users get to be the top users by making friends. Friends digg other friends' material. This is the nature of a "social" web — that is, Web 2.0.
Is it spamming? The applicable definition of spamming from the Oxford American Dictionary is the following:
spam |spam|
noun
2 irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.
If the topics dugg by blog network writers are genuine articles, and garner lots more, non-blog-network diggs once they hit the magical Digg Front Page Tipping Point™, is it even an issue?
I would argue that if and when a story reaches the front page and starts getting hundreds or even thousands of diggs, the point is rendered moot. The premise behind Digg is that The People determine what's important and worthy of notice. If something is effectively spammed to the front page, the Will of The People should bury it if it sucks.
If it's not buried, then Digg is fundamentally flawed. It means that groupthink rules Digg, and that Digg isn't truly democratic. It means that Digg is simply a popularity contest, and once you've made it, you're set and the content you bring with you doesn't really matter.
And that's exactly what Digg is: a popularity contest. Content is irrelevant — so long as you don't suck entirely — once you hit the Big Time. But it's a popularity contest worth entering because it can mean tens of thousands of new eyeballs, which of course means advertising revenue.
Is it wrong? Is it unethical? Probably not — most of my friends online are through Ars Technica. I've written for Ars in the past, I digg stories from Ars, but I wouldn't digg them if I didn't think they were worthwhile. As such, it has a good reputation, and its content is stellar, so why not digg Ars articles?
Does that mean I'm "gaming" Digg by digging my friends' — who are writers for Ars — stories? If this is "gaming," then why has Digg made it possible for users to add "Digg this" links to their website? Why hasn't Digg issued a Cease and Desist order to Feedburner for their "digg this" RSS feature? Or are these things only ethical when site operators use them unsuccessfully? Is it crabs in a bucket? Sounds like it to me.
Ultimately, I don't really care one way or the other. I just think the allegations of unethical behavior going around are absurd. Marketing is part of being a big-time website operator, and Digg is the perfect marketing tool. Especially if your product or content doesn't suck and appeals to a wide audience. Which defines most blog networks: they wouldn't be in existence unless they were making enough money to support themselves, which means they need enough readers, so obviously someone finds them valuable.
