Reader Discussion: Social Media = Lowest Common Denominator?
Last week, we had our first ever Reader Discussion about whether or not we as bloggers need to be careful what we promote. To my surprise and delight, it went over better than I had even hoped for. We had, and actually are still getting, fantastic comments that resulted in a great discussion. Since it went so well, I thought we’d give it another shot. This week I’d like to focus on the closing line of a recent Open Road post. The author, Matt Asay, finished off his post with these thought provoking questions that actually touched on a discussion I had with several other bloggers earlier in the week:
Are Digg and the popularity sites doing more harm than good? Do they make a cheap headline worth more than real analysis?
I’ll admit, being a fairly avid user of social media sites such as Digg, my first reaction was an indignant “Of course not!” However, as I began to think more and more about the subject, the question became a much more legitimate and difficult question to answer. When I announced that I’d be offering comprehensive SEO site reviews as one of the advertising options on this site, I asked for your opinions on whether or not I had abandoned my goal of documenting this experiment and making it something that could be replicated. Fiar left a comment saying I shouldn’t “set the definition of “anyone” to the lowest common denominator.” As I went back to reconsider the questions posed by Mr. Asay, that comment sprang to mind and I realized that in some sense, that’s exactly what Digg and the other “popularity sites” are doing. By requiring a certain number of votes on an article or submission before it is promoted for the masses to consume, aren’t these sites just rewarding the content that appeals to the widest segment of readers? When so many people with so many different ideas, beliefs, and opinions all congregate in one place, won’t popularity be limited to in essence the lowest common denominator?
As I mentioned earlier, a group of bloggers and I had actually been discussing a similar topic earlier this week. One person mentioned that at times it seems like the pieces of content that we spend the most time on and put the most effort into are NOT in fact the ones that see the most success on social media sites. During the discussion, the idea was floated out there that perhaps some of the more time consuming articles or pieces were in fact too advanced for the hoard that frequents the social sites. My problem with that suggestion is that the crowds of people that use social media sites are not stupid. Granted many of the comments left on submissions are far from what I would call sophisticated but there’s no denying the intelligence level. However, when you incorporate the idea that perhaps these sites cater to the topics and submissions that the majority of the users will agree on, the theory that the more advanced submissions don’t do as well suddenly becomes not only plausible but possibly explainable as well.
So, now I’m putting the questions to you. What do you think? Are social media sites like Digg and others simply catering to the lowest common denominator? Like Mr. Asay asked, are they doing more harm than good? Are they placing more value on a great headline rather than substantive content? If so, is there any way around it? Weigh in with your thoughts and opinions on this week’s Reader Discussion in the comments below. Also, if you missed last week’s it’s not too late to jump in, the more opinions and ideas, the better.
Comments
Pops October 10th, 2007
Great topic! My concerns go a bit farther than yours. I’m not only concerned with “dumbing down” but also with sensationalization and fragmentation.
The first point is obvious. Digg and similar sites reward the outrageous and the scandalous. So, given the same subject matter, the online equivalent of the National Inquirer is likely to get more attention than a well-reasoned article. Also, an article that attacks someone (the more outrageous the charge the better) is likely to do better than an article that attempts to engage someone in a calm debated. I think it’s making the net more confrontational (your post on the Art of E-war – tongue in cheek or not – kind of confirms that opinion).
Secondly, the success of Digg and the failure of certain groups to have success there have led to the formation of specialized Digg clones. Sphinn for SEOs and FaithTag for Christians are two I’m aware of. I’t not too hard to imagine (if they don’t exist already) a whole range of specialized Diggs catering to Republicans, cross-dressers, animal rights activists and who knows who else. Nothing wrong with that I suppose except that pretty soon everyone is reading only what they already agree with. Not a good thing if the Internet is going to remain a true free market for ideas.
Tim October 10th, 2007
Honestly, for me, it’s not about diggers being stupid, so much as it is that they are narrow minded. If it’s not something that they understand or agree with already it will get buried or ignored. I don’t think that there are many of them who use the site to “broaden” their horizons so to speak.
I liken it to a person who is far to the left or right politically. The believe what they believe and hold to it strongly. However, don’t ask them to consider a different idea is credible.
Much of this opinion is derived from the way I perceive diggers to deal with SEO in general.
But, with that in mind, if you have a post that can be dugg and drives the traffic to your site… doesn’t that increase the potential for more people to notice some of your other more prominent work? Maybe it’s not that digg isn’t useful at all but that it’s not as useful as one would hope.
.02
Ben Cook October 10th, 2007
@ Pops, hasn’t that already happened in all other media forms and really on the internet as well? I mean you have TV and radio stations slanted one way or the other. You have papers slanted one way or the other. You’ve already got a TON of blogs slanted one way or the other. I think Tim’s point of being narrow minded is really the issue and the cause of that fragmentation. I think people in general just tend to be narrow minded and not want to confront or test their beliefs.
However, I don’t really see the social media sites as something that’s making this worse. Sure Digg hates all things SEO or all things Microsoft but overall, I think it these sites can serve to expand people’s horizons, don’t you?
Pops October 10th, 2007
@Tim, my experience is visitors from Diggers (and from social bookmarking sites in general) don’t spend a lot of time on-site (often not even enough time to read the article!). Still, getting a lot of traffic will lead to a few links and, potentially, a few fans so it’s worth pursuing. Still it comes with problems.
And, Ben, just because it’s happened in other media doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The ‘net at least should offer the possibility for something different. It’s not like we can buy a TV station and use it to promote civil discussion but we can create websites that do it. We just need some bright person to figure out how.
Tim October 10th, 2007
@ Ben…
I think that I can use Digg to expand MY horizons. I just don’t think it will do anything for them.
On a side thought… I don’t want to pick just on digg here… even on sphinn which is a “custom” site for SEO oriented work you’ll find censorship and hand picking in relation to what does or doesn’t make or stay on the front page. At that point it isn’t a whole communities bias or opinions driving what is made popular but largely one opinion. Still interesting to say the least.
Tim October 10th, 2007
Not to be completely comment happy here… but is it possible to make a social media site that does not have bias? If you could, would that site be more effective in driving quality traffic to your site and/or to your higher quality posts?
Joel October 10th, 2007
You can’t make a social media site without bias. Humans are biased and all news is biased. It’s how well the social media site or article, content or product hides that bias that helps it win.
Ben Cook October 10th, 2007
I think I’d have to agree with Joel that it’s not possible. However, I don’t know that it’s necessarily hiding it’s bias so much as balancing it. There’s always going to be a popular opinion on any subject though, so long as you have an odd number of people.
I think we’re steering a bit of course here though.
@ Pops, don’t you think it’s natural that people just tend to congregate with like minded people? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s important to challenge your beliefs and be exposed to new thoughts and ideas, but doesn’t social media for the most part do a pretty good job of that right now?
Also, do you think having a bury feature (or something like it) makes a site more prone to the LCD factor? I mean if everyone had to vote on the answer to a math problem there’s a chance we’d have to get down to 2+2=4 before we get enough people not to bury it. Isn’t that exactly what the Open Road was suggesting?
Pops October 10th, 2007
Here’s the thing. In traditional media, no matter how biased, you’re likely to stumble upon other viewpoints. The NYT has an op-ed page, Juan Willians appears on Fox, etc., etc. In fact most media like to bring in people with a variety of viewpoints to generate discussion (or controversy). It might not be “fair and balanced” but you know you live in a world were people disagree with you. Of course it’s possible to self-censor your news intake but you have to try.
On the Internet, it’s becoming just the opposite. You can feed yourself easy-to-digest drivel that reinforces your existing prejudices with no effort. After all what’s the likelihood of the Huffington Post inviting Dick Cheney in to guest post. About ZERO I’d say. And yet you see the VP on the “liberal” traditional media all the time.
Chris October 11th, 2007
Whilst it may be true that sites such as Digg promote stories that are essentially a representation of the masses, I believe this is simply a representation of our society at large.
For instance, if we assume some level of association between intelligence and popularity then it is no suprise that the larger portion of popularised stories aren’t necessarily the most important; most humans fall within the bell curve of intelligence where as those in the upper-percentile are less in number. It might seem absurd to relate intelligence to popularity but I think this is a nice metaphor for showing the way in which the mean of the population will popularise certain stories, like top-ten lists; they’re fun and appeal to a lot of people.
In regards to bias, Digg for instance has a priority leaning towards technology and is accessed via the internet; the bias could not be more evident.
Jonathan Field October 11th, 2007
I think sites like digg are fun, but they absolutely bring things to the lowest-common-denominator. Or at least the most-common-denominator. The problem is that people are diverse, and by forcing everything into an absolute popularity contest, you get only one slice of our world: the most popular one.
I just saw a related video by Malcolm Gladwell:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/20
It’s about spaghetti sauce, but it’s really about diversity in taste, and also in that we don’t always know what we really want. Interesting stuff.
Caroline Middlebrook October 11th, 2007
No, I don’t think they are. You see, what is loathed at Digg is loved at Sphinn. It’s all about the niche of the social site. But until recently we didn’t have many niche social media sites like these. So of course the big ones like Digg get all the attention and many people try to submit their content there even though it is clearly not what the Digg audience will like.
Imagine if there was a Digg-like site, with the same level of popularity (okay perhaps not the server-crashing level of popularity but enough to make it worthwhile) in every niche. Then any blogger / webmaster could find a good social site to submit his work to then he is appealing to those people who are interested in that topic, and not just the masses.
Ken October 11th, 2007
I consciously decry the tendency of the masses to favor the sensationalist and less-than-substantive stories on social networking sites…yet even I sometimes find myself clicking on the latest Britney Spears ridiculousness rather than an in-depth discussion of Middle Eastern politics.
Perhaps the ideal social news site would organize the news items in two different ways. First, by popularity, to get the lowest common denominator stories out of the way.
Once satisfied with the latest Apple rumors and RIAA outrage stories, you could proceed to the second list, organized by how in-depth the discussion is. Digg attempts this, but it equates number of discussion posts with discussion depth; sometimes this is true, but often it is not. The criteria I would suggest would be to rate discussions with a higher average post length as more in-depth. Thus, the story with a long and complex argument for multiple sides would rate higher than a simple, funny story with a lot of people contributing additional one-liners in the comments section.
This allows you to use a simple Digg model and combine the growth-nurturing LCD factor with the theoretical ideal of a site that brings interesting and thought-provoking news to the masses.
John Rohan October 11th, 2007
I don’t think they do more harm than good, but they could certainly be better.
I have to echo most of these sentiments. An article of mine hit the front page of Digg once, and it defintely wasn’t the best article of mine, I had plenty that were far better that went nowhere on Digg.
So why did it make the front page? It was submitted by a popular user and everyone jumped on his bandwagon. And that’s part of the problem with Digg or Reddit. You have a few users that direct the bulk of the traffic. And these users are not really representative of the average American, and often just push the same themes over and over. For example, love him or hate him, ratingswise, Bill O’Reilly is the most popular TV pundit. But you would be hard pressed to ever find a video clip of his show on the front page. What you could easily find though, would be clips of people bashing O’Reilly, such as Keith Olberman (who is far lower in ratings). That’s just one example. Another example are topics interesting to women. They are almost absent on Digg.
To make social networking sites more useful and give a better variety of material, I would recommend limiting the number of times per day that each person can submit, recommend, and bury stories. That would keep the people who practically live on these sites from totally dominating them.
Erik October 11th, 2007
I think you have point here, but most of the social-news-networks allow you to make “friends” via some sort of feature. After a while, you gather enough friends with like interests (points of view?) and you start paying more attention to what your friends voted for instead of the news on the frontpage. The downside of this behavior: If enough friends gather, a new social-news-network might spring up on the net.
OTOH, I usually give the frontpage a quick glance and proceed to the “upcoming”-section anyway.
Joe October 11th, 2007
I’d like to know what public news sites, or television shows, or radio media currently provide ‘real, meaningful analysis’. If anyone has any recommendations please post them, as I haven’t seen one in a very long time. Please don’t post links to NYT, cnn, foxnews, dateline, 60min, economist, new yorker, washington post, etc. Also, I already read the Onion occasionally, and keep up with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, so no need to link to those either.
Neither digg nor reddit are so bad, and they certainly aren’t any worse than the filtered garbage that comes out of everything other than the tongue-in-cheek parodies that keep my generation believing in our country.
Bogie October 11th, 2007
You think people actually use digg for news? Just how bad would all your other news sources have to be before digg became your first choice?
Don’t you also think it’s a little patronising to suggest that digg stories are popularised according to the lowest common denominator – like where are you in this supposed hierarchy?
And finally as stories are popularised by all users the result will never reflect the views of a single digg user, and I think that’s a good thing. Now will you please vote on my comment
Daniel Quirk October 11th, 2007
It seems to me that this site and digg typifiy the what the web has become. Intelligent use of hypertext. For me a “lowest common denominator” is the the logical result of any group, common interests have to rise to the top to fuel a social discussion and networking ( how they rise is for other people to determine, as I realise not everyone has the same strength of voice ). But likewise to extend the analogy , the highest common factor is also present, that which I think this site represents, a small(er) group who share a specific interest leading to intelligent ( hopely
) debate and insight. Now if these 2 were separate then there would be a problem but I got to this page through digg. Digg is yes a sensationalist , mass media driven site but because its essentially powered by us there it acts as a conduit to many other places which I think is a wholely redeeming feature.
Hopefully I answered the actual question, first time I’ve ever posted on a blog
LightningCrash October 11th, 2007
You’ve seen the bounce rate and time on site, you judge for yourself. For me, Digg users are about 95% bounce rate and under 1 minute site time.
I did a statistical analysis of headlines from 300 top Digg stories, and it looks pretty bleak.
http://icanhaslinux.com/2007/09/10/analysis-of-300-digg-top-stories/
StumbleUpon seems much better for that, in all honesty. I get thousands upon thousands of Stumblers every day, and they stick around. Bounce rate is 25%, time on site is 2m30s+, pages are around 1.8. Stumblers are the best!
Carl Ballard Swanson October 11th, 2007
It may be the case that social networking sites are lowest and common – granted, but at least they are a denominator. Unless you are some kind of conspiracy theorist you may need to think about all markets as lowest common denominator kinds of places.
Two observations of fact to try on for size – One, the average user of digg is educated, intelligent, has some surplus time and energy, and are willing to communicate, in terms of world changing demographics you do not get better than that. Opinion – If you can’t get any traction to provoke change or enlightenment in that group you should adapt your appeal before insulting your audience.
Fact Two, digg is very effective at gathering obscure stories and viewpoints. I use multiple sources for getting news about current events and developments and digg has a near perfect record for all of those sources over the last six months or so. Does it get everything? No but it is the best at finding significant information.
My point is that “denominator” trumps “lowest” and “common.”
Matt E October 11th, 2007
Great discussion topic, seeing that digg is how I found your blog I think that it is very useful. I think they might need to consider collected relevancy information. It can be time consuming finding really good articles, you get the latest or the most digged.
I agree with Mr. Rohan as well, but not catering to the average American might be a good thing, the beauty of a digg like site is that you will find articles that you don’t necessarily find on your daily trip around the blogosphere, it gives a voice to the little guy.
Name October 11th, 2007
Of course popularity will kill Digg. This is why: take a moment and think of something in this world that really makes you *you*. For me it would be the band The Kinks, or perhaps using the software Reason. Whatever topic it is, do you really think it will ever make it to the front page of Digg? Of course not – it is stories about the things that are uniquely *you* that are going to be the most rewarding for you to read about. So the more popular Digg gets, the less often anything uniquely *anyone* will wind up on the front page.
Take a moment and Google for surveys on the world’s “funniest joke”… you will find they are terribly unfunny. That’s what you get when you put matters of entertainment to a vote. If you try to please everyone, you will please noone.
Resim October 11th, 2007
If any blogger / webmaster could find a good social site to submit his work to then he is appealing to those people who are interested in that topic, and not just the masses.
Ben Cook October 11th, 2007
Wow, I picked the wrong time to head to bed, it looks like.
@ John R. I think Digg has already taken steps to limit the power of their top users. Sure you still see many of the same avatars/icons up there but their submissions require a lot more votes to hit the front page. To me that seems ludicrous though because they are essentially punishing those people for using the site too much. Just seems odd to me but there has definitely been a backlash against the top users so maybe Digg was representing the majority on that issue.
@ Carl, I think your point is a valid one. In fact, in the examples pops discussed earlier, wouldn’t the fact that Digg and Reddit and the rest have stayed popular be a good thing? I mean sure there have been knockoffs but the popular sites have stayed very popular. Maybe the specialized versions aren’t a result of splintering and trying to hear what you want to hear, but rather just a spreading of the social media methodology? Also, these sites aren’t one or the other. I personally use a few on a daily basis and several more on occasion so even if some of them are specialized, I’m still getting a wide array of opinions and ideas.
Fiar October 11th, 2007
I’m getting name-dropped all over BlogEx.
I think that Social Media contributes to the short attention spanization of society. You see all the posts about how to get hit big and they all say to make sure that you catch peoples attention as soon as the page loads, which needs to happen fast as well.
How many great movies dragged you in instantly? How many great books start out grabbing your attention?
I think in a lot of ways, Digg and others are like making a decision whether or not to read a book based solely on the first page, or to watch a movie based solely on the first scene.
I’d say you have a valid point, Ben.
Ben Cook October 11th, 2007
@ Fiar, that’s what happens when you leave great comments!
I don’t know that your book or movie example holds up really. I mean how many movies do you go see that you haven’t heard anything about or seen any previews of? I know I don’t do that. I see previews and think, that looks awesome. When I pick up a book, I flip it over to read the back cover and find out what it’s about. Maybe Digg and the other social media sites are just forcing bloggers to adapt our styles and methods? I mean don’t magazines suffer from the same thing? And yet I find myself still reading several articles in each of my favorite magazines. Why? Because I get a teaser on the cover or the headline is good.
Maybe we as bloggers just need to adapt?
Kyle Z October 11th, 2007
A comment on my views on how digg has changed:
Digg used to be a great site that almost all of the content was interesting and intellectual news, links, papers, etc. As it has gotten bigger the
audience has changed some. Digg used really only be about technology, science, and world news, though it had entertainment, gaming and the other categories there. As it’s audience changed that changed as well. Now many of its stories revolve around mass media, entertainment, and less intellectual, more popular news. Worth while articles concerning innovative technology, science discoveries, and the like has diminished, while gaming, gadget, entertainment, and what the mass audience enjoys more. For example the top stories at this moment are:
– [PIC] What Should You Do if You Find an Athiest?
– What the F***?
– How to Create an “Invisible” Folder for Your, um, “Private” Files
– The Honest Monopoly Board [Pic]
– iPod Touch Glitch? I don’t think this is supposed to happen [PIC]
– Vicente Fox admits he and Bush have ’agreed’ on common currency.
– iPod touch now running Mail and more
– Mario Kart Wii gets bikes, Spring 2008 release date
– And The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Madonna Dumps Record Industry
– Shuttleworth on Ballmer
Most places change to their audience as they grow bigger, I remember when most digg articles where at least a page long, now there are three things that are pictures on the top stories, and two concerning only the ipod touch. This is mainly the reason I don’t go on the normal digg homepage, I go to the technology page where it’s a little better than this, but still has many stories concerning the ipod, or the newest gadget out there. Where I used to be able to read interesting articles one after another almost all day if I felt like it, now I have to search through previous days and upcoming stories that never reach the homepage.
Social Sites can be great, but as their audience increases, most of the time they change with the audience. Digg is based on what the users choose to be on the homepage, so they have no control over the change unless they change the rules. It is practically inevitable that if a social site become big, the quality of its content lowers. Especially since I used to not even think digg as a social site before, just a news site with better news and information on it than any other one site.
thejynxed October 11th, 2007
I would think that the comment section of any given Digg article totally proves the LCD theory and refutes any argument suggesting that the average Digg “user” has more intelligence than a trained monkey.
At least on sites like Slashdot there some worthwhile comments, and not just a 90ish-odd comment list of one or two line off-topic gibberish posts and flames like I tend to see all over Digg.
Not to mention, generally speaking, any informative post showing any real knowledge at all about the article topic tends to get buried because others viewing the article comments don’t like what they see, or can’t seem to wrap their shriveled gray cells around the subject matter.
C’est la vie, I guess.
Don’t get me wrong, Digg has some great gems buried beneath all of the cruft that actually makes the home page. Those are why I keep reading Digg. The social aspect seems to have been a mistake, or just really poorly implemented. Kevin and his employees should have left it a commentary/voting-free technology news site. Lack of quality control is starting to really show on that site.
Ben Cook October 11th, 2007
@ jynxed, to be fair, I think it’s the voting and commentary that has made Digg the juggernaut it is today. Otherwise it would have just been another Slashdot knockoff.
Derek Eugea October 11th, 2007
I have know I am kind of late to the party on this one and someone may of already made these points, but the problem with the Internet today is there is so much information being created, where are good places to aggregate this into a more manageable way, that is where digg comes in. I think the other issue with digg and sites like digg are everybody (well maybe not everybody) knows about these sites, so people are submitting anything they find to them. This might sound bad but I know I am guilty of it, but sometimes I submit stuff just to see how many diggs I can get.
Derek Eugea October 11th, 2007
I just posted my comment but I thought of something else to add. Is digg.com merely becoming a way for Kevin and Alex to have something funny/interesting to talk about on diggnation?
Googlelady October 13th, 2007
I agree what Kyle Z. Kyle Z, do you think that Digg will be more saturated or just change to a “new” era?