It seems as we drive furiously closer to web 2.0 being the new black, there are going to be some casualties in it’s wake. And as social news sites rise in popularity, news websites today as we know them could become a thing of the past.
Digg.com, by now everyone’s probably heard about it. The co-creator and face of Digg.com, Kevin Rose, was featured recently on the cover of Business Week and Netscape has even taken to copying Digg.com’s structure almost tag for tag. Digg is the leader of the social news phenomenon and it has the user count to prove it.
Here’s the basics: A Digg.com user finds a news story, either by way of RSS or random browsing. That user then proceeds to submit that story to Digg. Once the story has been submitted others vote on it (or digg as they call it) and the story either gets enough diggs to be promoted to the front page (in essence being labeled a story folks care about) or is left to wither and die in the obscurity of Digg’s database filled with other stories just like it. A lot of things can affect a story’s chance of being promoted to the front page and they include (but are not limited to): topic, popularity of the topic (how many other people submit a different link of the same story), and the news day. On a slow news day a topic that really isn’t all that important can end up on the front page to be seen by millions worldwide while a fast news day a really good story can be left on the sidelines waiting for people to hit the “digg” button. Also people can comment on the stories and those comments can be “dugg” or “buried” as well. This creates a way for people to discuss the items being posted and in turn have their comments rated.
This whole concept my sound a little familiar to those that have been using Slashdot for years. Slashdot works in a very similar way except for one thing, the stories submitted are filtered through an editing system. This allows for duplicates to have less chance of making it but it can also allow those in control of the editing process to control the flow and feel of day just by selectively choosing one set of articles over another. However almost all the other elements remain relatively the same. Instead of “digging” a story all the user has to do is comment on it. Since all the stories posted went through an editing process, no voting is required to get a story on the front page because it’s already there.
The Slashdots of the world rely on the number of comments to determine a story’s popularity, but popularity is not necessarily the goal. On sites like Slashdot it is the discussion that is key. On Slashdot for example, once a user reads a story they can comment on it. Other users who have earned a chance to moderate, go through the comments and give moderation points to different comments. Other users can then use a comment threshold (similar to the one on Digg) to limit the comments they see. This allows the readers to only see the comments that others deemed worth while. So how does a user earn moderation points? Well they comment on stories. On Slashdot, the more a user comments and meta-moderates (a process by which you moderate the moderators) the more likely they are to be given moderation points to use to moderate other comments. Now a user can elect to never moderate and no one is forced to use their moderation points so you never have to feel obligated to do something. With sites like Slashdot there is an editing process, moderation, and moderation of the moderators all designed to not allow people to moderate something inaccurate or idiotic up to high. It’s a vicious cycle, but one that has worked wonders for years.
On sites like Digg there is very little in the way of this instead the users are left to fend for themselves. This is not what I would consider a bad thing. Both sites are set up with different goals in mind. Digg is set up so that the users have to fend for themselves to get their stories out there. The user has to pick the title and the description. These are both key to winning the popularity contest Digg incites. It is all about salesmanship, put the best face forward but make sure it’ll turn heads and people will want to hit that “digg” button.
The other thing that Slashdot (and Fark) had was what had become largely known as the “Slashdot effect” in that when a story on Slashdot was extremely popular it would draw tons of traffic to the web site with the posted article. The website on the other side could not handle the amount of requests and would thus stop responding and/or shut down entirely. Digg does this now and the “Slashdot effect” has become the “Digg effect” and when it happens the race to find a mirror is on and often over quickly.
So will Digg.com take over websites like Slashdot and Fark as a news central for geeks? I’m not so sure, since I still read both Slashdot and Digg on a regular basis throughout the day. People on the internet are pretty loyal at times and are not easily swayed by the latest and greatest web technology as a selling point for switching sites. In fact I believe that many users of Digg are also readers of Slashdot, Fark, and other sites like them. I doubt Slashdot and Fark are going anywhere anytime soon, but only time will tell as to who outlasts who.
What’s your opinion?
[Technorati Tag: Commentary]
[Technorati Tag: Technology]
[Technorati Tag: Internet]
[Technorati Tag: Web]
[Technorati Tag: Digg]
[Technorati Tag: Slashdot]
Michael Koby 
Is Digg the New Slashdot (or Even Fark)?
It seems as we drive furiously closer to web 2.0 being the new black, there are going to be some casualties in it’s wake. And as social news sites rise in popularity, news websites today as we know them could become a thing of the past.
Digg.com, by now everyone’s probably heard about it. The co-creator and face of Digg.com, Kevin Rose, was featured recently on the cover of Business Week and Netscape has even taken to copying Digg.com’s structure almost tag for tag. Digg is the leader of the social news phenomenon and it has the user count to prove it.
Here’s the basics: A Digg.com user finds a news story, either by way of RSS or random browsing. That user then proceeds to submit that story to Digg. Once the story has been submitted others vote on it (or digg as they call it) and the story either gets enough diggs to be promoted to the front page (in essence being labeled a story folks care about) or is left to wither and die in the obscurity of Digg’s database filled with other stories just like it. A lot of things can affect a story’s chance of being promoted to the front page and they include (but are not limited to): topic, popularity of the topic (how many other people submit a different link of the same story), and the news day. On a slow news day a topic that really isn’t all that important can end up on the front page to be seen by millions worldwide while a fast news day a really good story can be left on the sidelines waiting for people to hit the “digg” button. Also people can comment on the stories and those comments can be “dugg” or “buried” as well. This creates a way for people to discuss the items being posted and in turn have their comments rated.
This whole concept my sound a little familiar to those that have been using Slashdot for years. Slashdot works in a very similar way except for one thing, the stories submitted are filtered through an editing system. This allows for duplicates to have less chance of making it but it can also allow those in control of the editing process to control the flow and feel of day just by selectively choosing one set of articles over another. However almost all the other elements remain relatively the same. Instead of “digging” a story all the user has to do is comment on it. Since all the stories posted went through an editing process, no voting is required to get a story on the front page because it’s already there.
The Slashdots of the world rely on the number of comments to determine a story’s popularity, but popularity is not necessarily the goal. On sites like Slashdot it is the discussion that is key. On Slashdot for example, once a user reads a story they can comment on it. Other users who have earned a chance to moderate, go through the comments and give moderation points to different comments. Other users can then use a comment threshold (similar to the one on Digg) to limit the comments they see. This allows the readers to only see the comments that others deemed worth while. So how does a user earn moderation points? Well they comment on stories. On Slashdot, the more a user comments and meta-moderates (a process by which you moderate the moderators) the more likely they are to be given moderation points to use to moderate other comments. Now a user can elect to never moderate and no one is forced to use their moderation points so you never have to feel obligated to do something. With sites like Slashdot there is an editing process, moderation, and moderation of the moderators all designed to not allow people to moderate something inaccurate or idiotic up to high. It’s a vicious cycle, but one that has worked wonders for years.
On sites like Digg there is very little in the way of this instead the users are left to fend for themselves. This is not what I would consider a bad thing. Both sites are set up with different goals in mind. Digg is set up so that the users have to fend for themselves to get their stories out there. The user has to pick the title and the description. These are both key to winning the popularity contest Digg incites. It is all about salesmanship, put the best face forward but make sure it’ll turn heads and people will want to hit that “digg” button.
The other thing that Slashdot (and Fark) had was what had become largely known as the “Slashdot effect” in that when a story on Slashdot was extremely popular it would draw tons of traffic to the web site with the posted article. The website on the other side could not handle the amount of requests and would thus stop responding and/or shut down entirely. Digg does this now and the “Slashdot effect” has become the “Digg effect” and when it happens the race to find a mirror is on and often over quickly.
So will Digg.com take over websites like Slashdot and Fark as a news central for geeks? I’m not so sure, since I still read both Slashdot and Digg on a regular basis throughout the day. People on the internet are pretty loyal at times and are not easily swayed by the latest and greatest web technology as a selling point for switching sites. In fact I believe that many users of Digg are also readers of Slashdot, Fark, and other sites like them. I doubt Slashdot and Fark are going anywhere anytime soon, but only time will tell as to who outlasts who.
What’s your opinion?
[Technorati Tag: Commentary]
[Technorati Tag: Technology]
[Technorati Tag: Internet]
[Technorati Tag: Web]
[Technorati Tag: Digg]
[Technorati Tag: Slashdot]
Share this:
Related