Comments on: A Contrarian Digg http://www.eministrynotes.com/2006/12/13/a-contrarian-digg/ A place to record notes on effective web ministry Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:15:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: rob http://www.eministrynotes.com/2006/12/13/a-contrarian-digg/#comment-27059 rob Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:08:43 +0000 http://www.eministrynotes.com/2006/12/13/a-contrarian-digg/#comment-27059 Yeah, I'm not so sure either. I fill like there will continue to be niche sites like this displaying what they currently like. The thing is, what will that community tolerate? If there are too many submissions that the main people don't like, they will either tighten it down or get run out. Either way, it's a very interesting thought about how social communities work. Yeah, I’m not so sure either. I fill like there will continue to be niche sites like this displaying what they currently like. The thing is, what will that community tolerate? If there are too many submissions that the main people don’t like, they will either tighten it down or get run out.

Either way, it’s a very interesting thought about how social communities work.

]]> By: Joe Suh http://www.eministrynotes.com/2006/12/13/a-contrarian-digg/#comment-27031 Joe Suh Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:59:59 +0000 http://www.eministrynotes.com/2006/12/13/a-contrarian-digg/#comment-27031 I think the argument is flawed. The comments on a Digg story are vintage 90/9/1% rule of internet contribution. The minority of cacophanous commenters are not representative of the majority of quiet content-consuming clickers. I've gotten our site (MyChurch.org) on Digg's front-page twice. On both accounts, traffic was unprecedented for a day and then dropped off sharply. I knew this spike would happen, and that the residual retention would be minimal. But I equate a Digg front-pager to a NY Times or USA Today article. Tons of new eyeballs, most of which are not your demographic. But brand equity is being built and the viral effect starts to snowball. Any publisher or media company wants to be on the front page of Digg. A front-pager brings in 50K unique visitors - who wouldn't want that? I'll tell you who - the opportunists who are hoping to translate the eyeballs to immediate Google AdSense dollars and cents. If you look at the exposure in short-term monetary lenses as opposed to long-term brand equity or awareness, then of course you wouldn't care to be on Digg, Slashdot, NY Times, or any large audience for that matter. Just my 2 cents :) I think the argument is flawed. The comments on a Digg story are vintage 90/9/1% rule of internet contribution. The minority of cacophanous commenters are not representative of the majority of quiet content-consuming clickers.

I’ve gotten our site (MyChurch.org) on Digg’s front-page twice. On both accounts, traffic was unprecedented for a day and then dropped off sharply. I knew this spike would happen, and that the residual retention would be minimal. But I equate a Digg front-pager to a NY Times or USA Today article. Tons of new eyeballs, most of which are not your demographic. But brand equity is being built and the viral effect starts to snowball.

Any publisher or media company wants to be on the front page of Digg. A front-pager brings in 50K unique visitors - who wouldn’t want that? I’ll tell you who - the opportunists who are hoping to translate the eyeballs to immediate Google AdSense dollars and cents. If you look at the exposure in short-term monetary lenses as opposed to long-term brand equity or awareness, then of course you wouldn’t care to be on Digg, Slashdot, NY Times, or any large audience for that matter.

Just my 2 cents :)

]]>