Digg.com and digg style websites popularity are fading. Because they are totally dependant on user interaction and voting and there is no known way of stimulating growth of the user base. They will constantly be plagued by the lack of a business model that would allow growth which makes them very poor investment choices. They are not unique and are very limited in what they can produce. They are the pet rocks of the 21st century.

Digg is land locked by the language barrier and the lack of a unique niche. This is made very apparent by the fact that competing websites on the same scale are usually in another language. Software that emulates or clones digg like behavior is popular among those that want to create a digg.com in their own language. But even these and those clones that are particular to a specific area like music are not growing in popularity.

Five reasons for failure

Even if digg does overcome some or all of the growth limitations presented by real life social standards and geographic location it can never get past the following list of truths.

1. Visitors hate voting. Voting for a Digg post is the same as voting for a politician. Regardless of how many times they tell you your vote counts you still feel like it does not when what you voted for does not win. In this case winning means getting to the front page. There is also no cure for the non-voting. Just as it is true in other social networking systems lurking is the enemy. Without positive user interaction there is no website.

2. Pack mentality. Many times a post will make to the front page and people will vote for it because it is on the front page. They may not even read the article gong only by the teaser and the number of previous votes. They just join in the pack and they do it often. This type of voting makes users feel like winners and gives them that warm cozy joiners comfort. Why vote for a story that only has one digg? It's probably crap anyway.

3. Turning off the voting and algorithim would reproduce the same results. This is hard to prove but looking at the type of stories and where they come from, the Digg front page would more than likely look exactly same. Because the digg algorithm literally gives weight to certain users opinions on what is good and what is not so good the same thing can be emulated by human editors. Nothing different from a human newspaper editorial staff deciding on what goes to the front, back or middle pages

4. It's not "unique" social news. Large and popular sites dominate digg.com as much as they dominate google and other search engines. The fact that digg influences the other search engines makes this even worse. A blogger writing a great article on a little known website may get struck by lightning and hit the front page. But this is not the norm. The most common news on the front page is the same news that is on the front page of most other media and websites. Scrapping the domains used in postings and setting them in a hierarchy would quickly reveal that the websites that enjoy top Google standings and are most prominant on the web are the same ones that are enjoying frequent front page activity at digg.

5. If Google pageranking can be gamed then so can Digg. I find it very hard to believe that Digg is not being controlled by groups that are paid to get stories to the frontpage just like there are companies being paid for their SEO expertise. It is more than likely these are the same companies.

A business model that works

The only hope that Digg has are the same alternatives that tradional media has had and that is to syndicate. Network Syndication is the only real way for news media to expand beyond their geographic and social boundaries. Digg is U:S:A-centric and can never escape this no matter how they try. The news that is shown on digg is invariably influenceed by the American view point of the world. Nothing on war, poverty or business will ever make into digg unless it orginates from the U.S. or is presented in a manner that U.S. readers can appreciate. Syndication would allow them to escape this very confined shell. I personally would never invest in digg unless something like this was in the works. The internet is growing everyday but without a plan for expansion with the internet Digg is just a trend and not a business. If you are not familiar with trends like the 70's petrock craze then wikipedia can enlighten you.

You just never see CNN, the New York Post or Chicago Sun Times writing " ... according to a blog on the frontpage of digg.com ..." on the contrary the reverse is always true. The reason for this is news media already knows what will appear on the frontpage of digg.com they have over a hundred years of experience in dealing with needs and wants of social groups. The fact that those groups are using the internet does nothing to change the psychogical profile of the news reader.

The ultimate Digg.com killer

If U.S.A. Today came out with a digg clone then digg.com would be dead in the water. No manner of rebellion and "the man" could stave off the hemmoraging of users. The chance of having a story on the frontpage of a website owned by a major world-wide newspaper would override all rational thnking. The chances of getting on the frontpage of a USA Today digg clone would most likely be the same as those provided by digg.com

Happy Publishing!

This article brought to you by the Hiveminds Magazine - Staff. Contact us if you want to post an article or announcement anonymously