Gawker
Kevin Rose started Digg specifically to give users the power to decide what's news. It must be a pain to see some of his top users quit the site and write an open letter charging him with "disregard for the Digg community," "lack of transparency," and "flagrant disrespect of top users." They were angry that a sudden change in the site had lessened their influence. This may seem like an intramural tiff, but these users are known for submitting thousands of stories to Digg, driving up to several hundred thousand visits to each story that makes the front page. Gawker Media alone owes millions of pageviews to Digg. And this isn't the first time top users have grumbled. So Rose and his CEO Jay Adelson made a surprisingly sensible move: Late last night, they chatted live with the disgruntled users. Here's why Rose frustrated his top users, why he bothered talking to them, and why it's a lesson for all online media.
The point behind social news is, as I said, to empower users. This assumes that users can produce good news. Obviously Digg's user base, which grew from Rose's fanbase from his days as a host on TechTV, hasn't reproduced the New York Times. Instead, they've curated a site focused on servicey news, workday entertainment, and big scoops: lists of funny old cartoons, studies about pot's effect on the body, and updates on new technology. The content reflects the user base. Theoretically, as the site grows more mainstream so will the news, until Digg is as useful as Drudge for a snapshot of what's important today.
But to keep the site interesting to all users, Digg must balance the influence of top users with that of casual or one-time users. Because core Digg users can find each other and often promote each other's stories, they may dominate the site unless Digg actively balances their role. That's what the company did, unannounced, on Tuesday. And the top users were unhappy.
Every major site has a core user base (on Gawker, it's the commenters), which sees the site quite differently than the casual visitors. They feel an ownership, to such a point that they will directly insult those running the site for not catering to their whims. Thing is, those core users are often as important to (and spend as much time on) the site as its official employees, so they can't be ignored.
A typical newspaper or TV station can only do so much to interact with its mass audience. Even then, audience members don't have much influence over each other; the medium is one-to-many. If the New York Times screws up, it only has to face bad press, not a reader revolt. Rose has to put out every fire whenever he decides to change his business. And surprisingly, he's done a great job at it. He's learned from mistakes and changed site policy; the next major algorithm change will surely be better announced.
Digg may not be as big as Facebook or MySpace, but I get the feeling that if it were, users would still feel closer to Kevin Rose than they do to Mark Zuckerberg or Rupert Murdoch. Sorry for having a banal opinion, but I like how Digg works.
[Photo by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid]
Comments
so...will there be a decline in Cloverfield news and Top 10 lists or not?
also--"Digg may not be as big as Facebook or MySpace"
for serials?
Welcome to the Internet, Digg. Users come to your site, use your service, stick around long enough to develop senses of entitlement, and then bitch and moan as if they own the place. Sadly, this will be the fate of all Internet content or news sites for all eternity. Moral of the story: you should have cashed out back when there was still hype surrounding your venture. Soon you'll join Friendster, MySpace, and eventually even Facebook in the graveyard of flash-in-the-pan internet phenomena.
@Furious_George: Yep.
Also, Nick Douglas: the lesson here is to ignore us commenters almost entirely. I'm not kidding.
And just think, with those millions of hits represents come millions of disgruntled douchebags, each one a veritable fount of ignorance, racism, and misspellings.
@TheHonJudgeSmails2:
the lesson here is to ignore us commenters almost entirely. - Absolutely. Pay us no mind. Just let us talk amongst ourselves.
@Furious_George: @TheHonJudgeSmails2: @theobviouschild: Oh, you three! Little raggamuffins. Come on, I'll make you some soup.
@lolcait: I wasn't being mean! Seriously, I get the sense we're getting to Mr. Douglas. And we shouldn't be. We really don't matter, from an economic perspective, and he shouldn't change his voice and/or approach to get on our "good side".
@TheHonJudgeSmails2: I know you weren't! I was embracing you! Like a Mother Hen! And I - I... Oh, I've just gone and embarrassed myself.
Denton! I wish for more news of the breakfast cereal industry! CATER TO MY WHIMS!
@lolcait: @TheHonJudgeSmails2: I wasn't being mean, either. I just feel much safer in the comment threads than out on the main page.
@lolcait: Wait, lolcait is a hen?
@lolcait: Oh, oh, okay. Make mine tortilla soup, extra aguacate.
@La Cieca: Evidently.
@theobviouschild: @lolcait: Anything but beef barley.
I'm going to waft around here for days shouting "CATER TO MY WHIMS!!" seriously, try it - it feels really good!
I like how Digg works too, and I don't think they will ever be able to truly prevent gaming of their ranking algorithm. Also, their commenting system is annoying. By burying comments, they actually drive more people to those comments out of curiosity for how bad they might be. They've lost sight of the principle of KISS (lame late 90's business acronym, I know, but still holds true), which is why I prefer the reddit.com clone.
I wonder if Kevin Rose knows he could totally bone JA.
@mitchel_stevens: Jeez, I meant it like "Hitler may have been a douche, but he had a mom." Learn to parse.
Do I get any soup?
@fiveinchtaint: They forgot to rock and roll all night and party every day?
@the supergoddess: See it's when you guys turn my poorly chosen words into catchphrases that I forgive you for asking if I sucked off Nick Denton to get a part-time job in blogging.
@CodePink:
No soup for you!!!!
sorry, couldn't pass up the opportunity for a Seinfeld reference.
aww, look at that face. Kevin didn't mean anything by it (the new algorythm). I want to buy him an ice cream cone.
@Nick Douglas: You seem pretty thick-skinned. I think that's good...you're also really cute!!!
@Nick Douglas: I was being serious! you made me laugh! muppie, allow me to introduce myself: I'm the giggling drunk slut in the corner who'll happily do your ironing. I'm not one of the meanies! (but I love the meanies!)
@CodePink: lady, I make the clumsy passes around here, you dig?
or should I say "digg"? HAHAHAHAHASOMEONEHELP.
@CodePink: Tits or GTFO.
@CodePink: @the supergoddess: @IBentMyWookie: omg what just happened and why are we all flirting with nick douglas??? our baby is growing up! he's got groupies!!
@che_leo: Doesn't he look like Jim Halpert?
@the supergoddess: Learn to parse!
@the supergoddess: No, I'm not flirting with him, just reserving the right to have first dibs in the future, when he's less annoying and more willing to pose on the roof in his skivvies.
@lolcait: Lolcait - YOU are the only one who is legally obligated to cater to our whims.
@Conbon: Sorry for having a banal opinion/
@Nick Douglas: he does, the carefully planned floppy hair works.
@Nick Douglas: Oh...no, ha! What I meant was...you thought that I...hold on here. Let me explain. This principle intends to remind folks to not get too cutesy with bells and whistles (i.e., avoid complexity) and can be applied to many disciplines such as product development, porn, and blogging.
I thought all the commenters here were interns.
@TheHonJudgeSmails2: Gawker commenters, by nature, have an opinion on the banal.
@nutmeg: Chicken/egg
@fiveinchtaint: Especially porn.
@TheHonJudgeSmails2: It's the commenters.
@Conbon: @TheHonJudgeSmails2: boys, boys - take it easy with the intramural tiffs please!
@jinxremoved: Given the insane amount of time most of us spend commenting, it's logical to assume we have no day jobs.
What makes Digg different from other sites is that, by definition, the users don't just comment on the news and opinion, they determine which news and opinion most other readers will even see. So any political or interest-group manipulation becomes that much more important.
Yet, at the same time -- unlike with, say, the Drudge Report, or the New York Times -- people expect the content selection process to be completely neutral and without bias. But given the problems these "disgruntled users" claim to be having, maybe that isn't really possible. If some of the people determining what's most popular are more equal than others, the site will always give people a false sense of impartiality.
@Nick Douglas: @the supergoddess: @Conbon: LEARN TO PARSE! is my new catchphrase. Right after I finish typing I'm going yell it repeatedly while running around in circles. That is what one does with a catchphrase, right?
@fiveinchtaint: Yes. And I ignored that and made a joke.
@Nick Douglas: Ditto! You know better than I how it works around here.
Not shitting here: I would like to see what you'd put together on the digg clone phenomenon and how some copies may/may not be better than the original. Or maybe that's getting too techy?