Natural A-Lists, or How Digg is Like the Blogosphere
Posted 8/25/2006 04:56:00 PM |
From time to time, a story will get promoted to Digg's front page lamenting the "downfall of Digg." The general complaint is that Digg is no longer egalitarian, and that cartels of power users control what is raised to the front page of Digg. The power users, it is argued, bond together to jointly Digg each others stories, and they cyclically enjoy the karma and traffic provided by their success in promotion.
Without a question, this occurs. Diggers do band together and form cartels, somewhat limiting access to story promotion. However, what if this behavior was purely a function of the network, and not something more sinister?
As I've previously explored, the problem with the blogosphere is discovery. With 65 million blogs out there, it is impossible to sift through them all to find good content. As a result, we rely on natural screens that emerge in the network - or, we rely on those we know. For example, there are probably 1000 blogs out there just like Steve Rubel's Micropersuasion. However, the reason Rubel gets traffic and A-list status is because of our lack of initiative in discovery. We look around and see Rubel's blog linked frequently, and listed on the sidebars of blogs we trust - this 'link capital' increases our likelihood to start reading that particular blog.
Indeed, we probably could go out and use a discovery process to find blogs like Rubel's, but why spend the time? In addition, the shared conversation that can be had between two readers of Rubel's blog is valuable - almost as valuable as if we all were getting the theoretically best content at all times (assuming we 'discovered' all blogs like Rubel's).
However, our laziness and unwillingness to filter all blogs to find the best content is only half of what it takes to create an A-List. The second half of the equation is the fact that A-listers are just like us. A-List bloggers don't spend all day going through all blogs to find the best content. As Rubel wrote in his Underground Blogosphere piece, it is evident that many bloggers do this for him - filtering up links so it appears that he actually spends all day surfing cool websites. Not the case at all! A-List bloggers operate just like we do - so their linking behavior mirrors ours.
Hence, the A-List is naturally occurring. We only have so much time to process content, and the sheer volume of content, means we, nobodys and A-listers alike, have to rely on the natural hierarchies born in the network. Indeed, the A-list exists because of our inability to cope with the size of the blogosphere - not because of any evil cartels.
Back to Digg, however, we see the same thing occurring. Thousands of stories are submitted to Digg each day, more than any one person could read. As a result, digg users rely on coping mechanisms to deal with the volume of stories submitted. This coping mechanism is the establishment of friend parings in the network. When you friend people in Digg, they immediately act as a content filter for you. Digg is very much like the blogosphere in that you friend your friends (the people you know) and celebrities (Kevin Rose, Digg A-List). Look at the sidebar of your blog...if you're a traditional blogger, you've got some links to people you know, and some A-list blogs you read. It is the same thing in Digg.
The assumption that Digg is purely egalitarian falls apart just as any assumption that the blogosphere is egalitarian. A-lists are created because we simply don't have time to negotiate all the content around us - so we link to those we know, and those we know as good content (the A-List). In essence, the A-lists that occur are purely natural, and something we need to find commonality in the network. If the critics of Digg truly wanted to break the A-lists, they would need to convince everyone on the service to screen all of the stories. Since we are time-limited, we can't do that - so the A-lists will always emerge.
Blogs and sites like Digg create an illusion that networks are flat. In a perfect world, where we all had the time to screen content, the networks would be much more flat. However, since that is not the case, A-lists emerge, and they play a valuable role in the network as a point of betweenness centrality. Sure, A-listers could change this a little by foisting upon themselves a responsibility to link out a little more, but fundamentally, A-listers are just like the rest of us.
Permalink |
|
to this post
View blog reactions | Post to
7 Comments: (Post a Comment)
-
At August 26, 2006 1:46 AM,
Kevin Farnham said...
-
This exemplifies the way in which the Internet world is very much like the "non-virtual" world. To a certain extent, luck is involved in who actually becomes "famous" and watched or listened to. In music, there are many individuals and bands whose music "deserves" much more recognition than it gets. Yet, there is only room for a certain number of songs to be played on the radio each day, and those who are at the top always have their new songs played, because the past response by the audience makes it likely that at minimum the initial interest in the new song will be extensive. This is true even if relatively unknown bands working in a similar style have songs that the general public, if they could hear all the songs, would prefer.
Of course, it's actually a misnomer to call radio a "non-virtual" world, isn't it? We are receiving the content via a device, as is the case with the Internet and our computers. We're not trying to decide which band to listen to among 500 bands simultaneously performing in a field...
Is it ultimately the virtualization of reality that creates this non-flatness? -
At August 26, 2006 2:25 AM,
punk.diplomat said...
-
Wow. What a great post. In fact, it's so great, I dissected it for myself on my own blog about Digg. Check it out: http://diggderivative.blogspot.com.
Maybe I ought to subscribe - I could always use some good weekend reading. :) Again, great post. I love reading about social networks, don't you? -
At August 26, 2006 7:13 AM,
Jonty said...
-
I totally agree with you. Similar thoughts have crossed my mind more than once. I am glad that you carried out such a good analysis on Digg. I have mentioned about it in my blog.
-
At August 26, 2006 10:40 AM,
Fred Stutzman said...
-
Great follow up posts, Jonty and p.d. Glad you enjoyed!
-
At August 28, 2006 3:39 PM,
Charlie said...
-
One problem is that none of the discovery tools don't overweight the originators of content. So, if Steve links to someone for sending him an e-mail on a cool site, but 200 people link to Steve for highlighting that site, the power of those 200 links should actually go to the originator, not to Steve. I'm sure there are people out there who are great "feeders" (like yourself... why you have only 166 readers, I have no idea) but never really get credit for it.
-
At August 28, 2006 4:08 PM,
Fred Stutzman said...
-
Great point - and I think it speaks to our preferences for content filtering. Steve gets 100 great links a day, and he ends up actually linking to 5. While the people who sent Steve the link should get the credit, the link actually works to strengthen Steve's reputation amongs his subscribed audience.
Because I've sent Steve a link, it doesn't really mean that I'm a good blogger, or that my posts are topical or any way in line with what Steve's readership delivers. However, that link will likely interest 50 or 100 people enough to come over and visit my site, and I'll pick up 5 or 10 subscribers. In this sense, Steve is an intermediary between parts of his audience, and they use him as a central point of connection.
As for my readership ;) it grows slowly and steadily. I'm a diamond in the rough! -
At August 29, 2006 12:36 PM,
Ian Delaney said...
-
Just wanted to let you know that I found this very thought-provoking and let rip with some additional ideas on the matter here. Possibly beyond the realms of probability.
