›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Rise and Fall of Digg

RymRym
edited October 2009 in Technology
For some strange reason, I felt the desire to visit Digg this morning. We determined long ago that it had descended well into the realm of utter uselessness, but I was curious if the descent had ever leveled out.

It has not.

Digg comments have become almost indistinguishable from Youtube comments. The site is 100% spam and garbage now, as opposed to the 90% it was a year ago, and the 10% it was before the masses found it.

My question to you is thus: is it possible to have a mass-appeal user-moderated site that does not rapidly descend into useless garbage? Is niche focus and a barrier to entry the only way to preserve Internet communities? Why are so many people so prolific in posting so much garbage so quickly and with such ferver?
«1

Comments

  • CremlianCremlian
    No, and this is why I use Fark.
  • RymRym
    No, and this is why I use Fark.
    It amazes me to this day how great the Fark community is compared to just about everything else on the Internet. It's sad, really.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    is it possible to have a mass-appeal user-moderated site that does not rapidly descend into useless garbage?
    Most likely not. Think of everything that's been tried so far as experimentation. Digg was a test of a hypothesis, and the evidence points to massive failure. The interesting question is: where did Digg fail?
    Is niche focus and a barrier to entry the only way to preserve Internet communities?
    I don't think niche focus is necessary. Barrier to entry is the necessary thing, and I think that's where Digg failed. I'm a huge fan of using grammar and spelling as the entry barrier; give somebody a typing and reading comprehension test before you allow them to post comments. I think that would do a lot to improve the quality of comments posted in any online community.
    Why are so many people so prolific in posting so much garbage so quickly and with such ferver?
    I would contend that the vast majority of people in any community like Digg are there for entertainment almost exclusively, and are disinclined to care about the quality of the mark they leave on the community. They're basically littering on the Internet. Why do people litter in life? Because they don't care enough about the place they're at or the the thing they're doing to not litter.
  • AprecheApreche
    I think it is possible, but incredibly difficult. Remember, the interface you create determines how people will behave. Something like Stack Overflow isn't a real example of success, because the community is all programmers. However, you can see how by adding badges (achievments), reputation points, etc. they can get the users to behave in a certain way.

    Digg changed their system with the goal of getting the most visits, clicks, and ad revenues. That was their metric of success. That happened to coincide with stupidity. They could have, if they chose, hire some psychologists and tried to use comment "quality" as their goal. Then they would have a user interface which gets people to post and act intelligently.
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    I think that both Fark and Reddit are, so far, exceptions to the rule, probably because they are both basically a commenting system around a news/whatever article and an upvote/downvote system.
  • RymRym
    edited October 2009
    probably because they are both basically a commenting system around a news/whatever article and an upvote/downvote system.
    Fark has nothing of the sort. Fark doesn't even have threading. Fark is also a straight-up autocracy: the admins decide every single link that gets posted.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • SailSail
    edited October 2009
    The HD-DVD cracking code thing may have been the beginning of the end for Digg. The staff did all they did to surpress it, but due to the inherent nature of the site, they could not. I think that was really the day where Digg showed its true colors as an overly democratic system that was too easily broken down.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    probably because they are both basically a commenting system around a news/whatever article and an upvote/downvote system.
    Fark has nothing of the sort. Fark doesn't even have threading. Fark is also a straight-up autocracy: the admins decide every single link that gets posted.
    My bad, as you can see, I mainly go to Reddit. :P
  • AlanAlan
    edited October 2009
    My question to you is thus: is it possible to have a mass-appeal user-moderated site that does not rapidly descend into useless garbage? Is niche focus and a barrier to entry the only way to preserve Internet communities? Why are so many people so prolific in posting so much garbage so quickly and with such ferver?
    One of the problems I think on the mass appeal side is the problem with being completely unaccountable for what you say. It's so easy just to make another account or spam on most sites with no punishment. I really think a barrier to entry helps on some sites to filter people that, in some cases, are there just to cause trouble. For the most part I agree with TheWhaleShark but, I'm not sure what type of barrier could be used on a site the size of digg. There is too many users to check all the spelling errors and grammar. Most of the people on digg seem to be sheep that are just following what everyone else does since there really isn't a benefit for making a good post on that site. The lack of people that can hold a good conversation isn't there and the thread system they have is like you tube comments.

    Anther issue is how the community markets itself. A good example is Digg's podcast dignation. They never really discuss anything in great detail or in depth. It's all surface level entertainment going for the cheap thrill. This seems to focus back onto digg itself. It's a quick and cheap "oh look how cool this is" type of site. They don't promote much discussion on the topics other than surface level comments. When people do try to make a good comment they get ridiculed for being too serious. This is the reason I don't see a site with mass appeal ever being user moderated not turning to garbage.

    Rym, I think you could think of this as the train you ride to work every day. What if metro train rules were user enforced and made by everyone on the train? Throw that indignant lady off the train for being too loud! But, what if there is more than one of those ladies? Since you all hold an equal standing on the train as riders there is a point were the rules set by group will fail due to the many more indignant people. Also say you all agree to kick the indignant people off before they become a problem. Without the metro police there as an absolute authority to keep this in check the current system fails. With current websites the cops would act like the mods on a website. The problem is on a website it's very easy to fool the police and put on a disguise and they could even pretend to be someone else. This is a big barrier that is preventing user moderation on a mass scale and until someone solves this problem I don't see user moderation working.
    Post edited by Alan on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Once Digg (and Diggnation) started down the sponsoring road they started to fail. The HD-DVD key was the beginning of the end for them but the downward movement was started well before that point in time.

    One thing that contributed to their downspin was the emergence of "top diggers" and Digg managements attempts to counter their influence. Digg has always been a game yet Digg management never wants to admit to it. As soon as a group of members figures out the system behind the game Digg changes it.

    One minute friends are good to have and then the next minute having friends counts against you!
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    Steve, I actually agree with you. I think Joe might, too.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Steve, I actually agree with you. I think Joe might, too.
    Damn... I'll try to be more trollish in the future ;)
  • beefturkeybeefturkey
    Not necessary a barrier to entry, but one possible way of maintaining good edict is to tie something either physical or real world related along with every account/user. For example the use of actual names, which removes anonymity from the equation (not going to go into the issues of purposes and uses of the internet and the functions of identity upon it). This is some cases does work (the forums which is built within each subject provided by my University ties the users with their actual names and the edict there is quite good, especially when I know some of these people and there norm on the internet elsewhere can be considered as social retardation), but as with all things needs further and constant evaluation.
  • ErwinErwin
    Today I stopped using digg and move to fark and hacker news. Today was a good day.
  • RailithRailith
    Is niche focus and a barrier to entry the only way to preserve Internet communities?
    That's how you do it.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    I wonder how badly you could cripple Geeknights for the cost of two Total Fark subscriptions.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    edited July 2012
    The fall continues: seems Digg's been sold for chump change, $500 000. Sadd.
    Post edited by thaneofcawdor on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited July 2012
    Apparently they sold various other assets before that for around $16 million in total, though.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Good to know. Still, it's a long way from the heady days when they were competing with Facebook to be The Next Big Thing.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    I'd forgotten Digg was a thing that existed.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Digg's been around so long, but had only been relevant and interesting for a small fraction of that time, maybe a year out of its 7 year history, that forgetting it entirely is completely understandable.
  • AprecheApreche
    Articles are saying Digg still has lots of users. Who are these people?
  • Not nineNot nine
    Articles are saying Digg still has lots of users. Who are these people?
    Ghost accounts maybe? If you never delete inactive users you can claim that they're still there.
  • NeitoNeito
    Articles are saying Digg still has lots of users. Who are these people?
    Or people who came in to Digg around the time when it started going to shit. If they happened to agree with those opinions, they'd stick around.

    Plus, remember that Digg especially has a lot of lurkers, if I remember right.
  • DevilUknowDevilUknow
    edited July 2012
    Reddit can be good if you are extremely pro-active and specific to what you subscribe too. It does seem like sheer numbers is eventually what destroys community moderated sites since you can see these microcosms of founding -> ascension -> apotheosis -> decline -> ruin as subreddits attract more and more people seeking karma and the "elites" or whatever migrating to a new place where they can recapture what was good about about how things used to be (see gaming -> games -> truegames -> etc). I've really grown tried of the experience after several years using it as my source of internet. Maybe I'll go back to Fark...

    Another good one is MetaFilter. They charge some minimal fee (like $5 or something) to allow users to comment or post so you really only see people who are there to contribute and every entry is usually a sort of meta-entry containing multiple links all revolving around one theme (and sometimes its a youtube video of a dog being chased by a turtle but those are the exception and not the rule).
    Post edited by DevilUknow on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited July 2012
    One of diggs biggest failings was when it turned against its top diggers.

    That and they never could figure out how to remove Kevin Rose without killing the personality cult.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    edited July 2012
    Reddit can be good if you are extremely pro-active and specific to what you subscribe too. It does seem like sheer numbers is eventually what destroys community moderated sites since you can see these microcosms of founding -> ascension -> apotheosis -> decline -> ruin as subreddits attract more and more people seeking karma and the "elites" or whatever migrating to a new place where they can recapture what was good about about how things used to be (see gaming -> games -> truegames -> etc). I've really grown tried of the experience after several years using it as my source of internet. Maybe I'll go back to Fark...
    The problem with the Reddit lifecycle is people reflect on the ascension as if it was some sort of utopia, and yet no one can agree what was great about the Golden Age. The elitists shouldn't just migrate to some new, more pretentious name and expect to be safe from the hordes. In an ideal world, a category that hits critical mass would collapse into many smaller categories, each of which would take on its own piece of the original category. So gaming would split into gamingnostalgia, pcgaming, gamingnews, gamingdiscussion, indiegaming, gamingpics, gamingmemes, and so on.

    I still really enjoy reddit, but, then again, I don't subscribe to this inane "mod is god" belief.

    And Digg failed because the businessmen tried making serious money off of it.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • DevilUknowDevilUknow

    The problem with the Reddit lifecycle earth is people reflect on the ascension as if it was some sort of utopia, and yet no one can agree what was great about the Golden Age.
  • RymRym
    I stopped going to Digg the day I discovered that I could only block so many people before I couldn't block any more. I tried to block anyone who ever posted anything stupid.
  • AprecheApreche
    I stopped going to Digg a few months after the peak. They never fixed the podcast section to stop sucking. They also filled up with almost 100% Ron Paul when they opened too many non-tech categories.
Sign In or Register to comment.