Social news site contributor questionnaire: Part 1 (Sorcini, Siegler and Perkins)
Last week I circulated a questionnaire to some frequent contributors to some social news sites (we've gotten some good comments from NewsTrust members, and I wanted to round out the input with comments from people involved in other sites). I shamelessly stole the questionnaire idea from David Crumm, editor of the open source religion topic, and David Cohn supplied the contacts. So many thanks to both. Here are responses from three people. More to follow tomorrow.
Andrew Sorcini, of Glendale, Calif.
What social news site(s) do you contribute to?
I contribute to digg.com
What made you choose this site? What's rewarding about being a contributor?
I discovered Digg in a roundabout way. After co-founder Kevin Rose left TechTV, where he had been an on-air host, he started a video podcast, "Diggnation". Watching "Diggnation" led me to digg.com
For me, the ultimate reward about being a contributor is exposing other users to sites and news I find interesting with the hope that they're as enthusiastic about them as I am.
What are that site's strong points and weak points?
Digg's chief strength is the reason there are so many Digg imitators: allowing the users to control the content. We choose what gets posted and we choose what gets promoted. Digg users appreciate the democratic nature of the site.
What Digg lacks is interpersonal interaction, other than the comments threads for the individual articles, which can ofttimes be pretty mean-spirited. Also, Digg's promotion/bury process isn't as transparent as other voting sites (which from a business standpoint presumably protects Digg from users trying to game the system, and protects other users from retaliation against buried stories) and this has led to many users to question exactly how democratic and user-driven the process truly is.
How much time a week do you spend participating there? Describe your involvement, and explain why you donate your time.
I spend roughly about 10-15 hours a week, mornings and late evenings, both submitting new content and voting on stories. Participation in DIgg fulfills the same need for me as a hobby. But it's a hobby whose net result is being on the cutting edge of current events.
Describe the attributes of the community on your chosen site. How does community enhance the experience there? Please provide an example of one or two of your experiences.
Community on Digg exists solely in the comments threads. Users often add to the information in the articles by providing additional links, informed opinions, and spirited debate.
What's your opinion on the role of editors at social news sites? Are they useful as filters or guides to content? Or do they get in the way of the free exchange of information?
While editors can provide a useful service in filtering content, often their interaction ends up shaping the site in ways that limit how users can use the site. You may never see a a story about Paris Hilton on Slashdot, but it's not what users of that site expect to see. Digg's users get news that runs the gamut from tech stories to the offbeat, and everything in between.
What's your opinion of the mainstream media? Are social news sites and the MSM competitors, or do they complement one another?
Social news cannot exist without content from mainstream media to drive it. Social news is a channel to disseminate and distribute that content to the widest possible audience in the best possible way, word of mouth.
Do you think crowds have wisdom? Explain.
Crowds don't provide 'wisdom' as much as they are collective arbiters of taste. Most of the time a crowd can accurately determine what will be popular to broadest number of people, however sometimes a crowd's wisdom can backfire. There's a social phenomenon known as the Matthew Effect, wherein things that are a little popular continue to get even more popular, due to people to gravitating towards that which they perceive to be popular. This manifests itself on Digg when popular stories continue to get 'dugg up' despite the fact that many haven't bothered to read the article. On at least a couple of occasions a bogus story has made it to the homepage based on the title alone.
In most cases, volunteer effort forms the bedrock of a social news sites' monetary value. Some people earn money for being an active contributor, but most don't. What's your opinion on this?
When a social news content submitter becomes a compensated employee, you wonder how impartial they can remain. Digg does not pay its submitters. As such, if I were to post an article critical of Digg (and many Digg users do), the worst that would happen is the article would get buried by the community.
Also, many paid submitters are bound by a quota of stories they must submit each week. Too much pressure. If I had to fulfill a minimum requirement to get paid, it no longer becomes a pastime, it becomes work.
Are there ways social news sites could make better use of the wisdom of the crowd? What are they?
Absolutely. Social news sites should listen to what their users want, and use their suggestions to shape their sites. It's the users who make the site, and those same users can break a site if they disagree with an decision by the site's administration. This became shockingly apparent during the recent AACS code revolt on Digg.
Make a prediction: What will social news look like two or three years from now?
The concept of social news is still pretty foreign to most people. In two or three years sites like Digg will become household names, like Google or eBay. I think this can really only happen if they become more communal, in the way that MySpace or YouTube is. Community is the tipping point to success for social news.
Mike Perkins, of Darlington, Ind.
What social news site(s) do you contribute to?
Digg, Netscape, occasionally Reddit and Slashdot
What made you choose this site? What's rewarding about being a contributor?
I got started on Digg back when it was primarily a tech site. The fact that the front page news was controlled by the users and the speed that it was updated were each a big draw for me. I enjoy finding stories that other people find interesting and (usually) the commentary that goes along with it. And, to be honest, there is a certain amount of ego involved when I see a story I submitted on the front page. That may seem odd since all I did was find the story and post a link; I didn't actually do any of the work in writing it.
What are that site's strong points and weak points?
The strong point for Digg would have to be the rate at which the front page is updated. There is always fresh content there. Netscape and Slashdot would have to be the comments. There is usually a decent commentary on any story.
The week points for Digg would have to be the "bury brigade" and lately the comments. They have really gone down hill lately. Netscape's week point would probably be the speed at which new content makes the front page; it's slow.
Slashdot has the same problem as Netscape with the addition of editorial control. They generally have interesting stories, but the site definitely reflects the editors' opinions and bias.
How much time a week do you spend participating there? Describe your involvement, and explain why you donate your time.
Waaaaay too much. If I have free time (it happens on occasion ) I am on one or more of these sites submitting, voting, or commenting. I probably spend as much as 20 hours a week I guess. I suppose the reasons I donate my time are community and again, ego. There are groups of people on each site with whom I have developed a kind of rapor, as close to a friendship as you can get when your only contact with someone is through a web page. I guess, now that I think about it, this is probably tied to the ego aspect as well.
Describe the attributes of the community on your chosen site. How does community enhance the experience there? Please provide an example of
one or two of your experiences.
The community as a whole at Digg has lately become rather inane and juvenile. Before that, though, they used to be a pretty tech savvy bunch. The site, as with real life, tends to develop its own little cliques. I tend to "hang out" with the same people on the different sites and we tend to read each others blogs, etc. I have had people email me stories they thought I would find interesting with a suggestion that I submit it. And generally, they were on the money. They knew I would like the story based on my history on Digg as well as my blog.
What's your opinion on the role of editors at social news sites? Are they useful as filters or guides to content? Or do they get in the way of the free exchange of information?
I think editors can be useful, but it's tricky. I think Netscape just about has it right with their Navigators. They seem to be far enough in the background that they don't get in the way and they compliment the site navigation rather than dictate it. Whereas anything on Slashdot has to get by an editor. It seems like every story over there has someone complaining about editorial bias.
What's your opinion of the mainstream media? Are social news sites and the MSM competitors, or do they complement one another?
I think they do compliment each other. The social news sites don't actually produce any content, so they are reliant upon MSM for that and the MSM gets the traffic the social news sites drive their way.
Do you think crowds have wisdom? Explain.
I think crowds can have wisdom. It depends on the crowd. I think that crowds tend to sink to their lowest common denominator and unfortunately tend to turn to the herd mentality.
In most cases, volunteer effort forms the bedrock of a social news sites' monetary value. Some people earn money for being an active contributor, but most don't. What's your opinion on this?
I think that so long as the paid contributor is providing some kind of "value added" service, it's ok. As I understand it, Netscape's Navigators have additional duties in helping to police the site (I may be wrong on this, but it's my understanding) which justifies their paid contributor status. I'm not sure that paying someone solely on the basis of their submissions is the right way to go; especially since there are a whole lot of people willing to do it for free. And if a site starts to develop a two caste system, it's natural that a certain portion of the have-nots will start to get disgruntled.
Are there ways social news sites could make better use of the wisdom of the crowd? What are they?
I think a way to pursue a goal or cause would be great. Right now, participation is limited to the submit, vote, comment cycle. If these sites could find a way to allow users with a common goal to get together, like a chat room, or message boards perhaps, that would allow the conversation to continue outside the story comments. Digg users have shown the ability to band together to promote an agenda; they just need a more constructive forum to do so.
Make a prediction: What will social news look like two or three years from now?
I think it's going to look a lot like Digg with proper adult supervision. Probably with more channels or topics, and definitely more moderation. At first users are going to complain about the mods, but I really don't see how any site that relies on user generated content can survive by letting the users police themselves.
Matthew Siegler, of La Jollal, Calif.
What social news site(s) do you contribute to?
I mainly use Digg, but also use Netscape, Reddit, Newsvine, WTF, and StumbleUpon to varying degrees.
What made you choose this site? What's rewarding about being a contributor?
I started using Digg a little over a year ago mainly because I had heard a little buzz about it and remembered Kevin Rose from his days on Attack of the Show/The Screen Savers. Mostly I would digg a few stories here and there, then I decided to try submitting stories. At first I had absolutely no luck, then one day a story I submitted about Battlestar Galactica hit the frontpage and was getting hundreds of diggs - I was hooked. The thought that other people enjoyed a story I found was exciting to me.
I really enjoy spreading the word on stories that might not otherwise be seen by such an audience (the mainly tech crowd). For a while I was all about submitting stories from various sub-sections of The New York Times (other than the front page news). These were still stories from a major publication, but ones that would almost for sure be overlooked by communities such as Digg.
What are that site's strong points and weak points?
The biggest strong point is obviously the massive number of users that Digg has accumulated. A story on the frontpage of Digg for anyone can mean massive (although fleeting) exposure and can definitely help bring stories to the forefront that might otherwise linger in obscurity.
For weak points I would definitely have to say the lack of transparency. Though Digg likes to pride itself in being totally democratic and user-driven, most regular users realize it is not and recent incidents like the HD-DVD situation as well as rumors of internal burying are bringing that to the forefront more and more.
For a while there was talk that the top-users (of which I was one) were in complete control of the site, then the talk shifted to cabals of users known as 'bury brigades' who would simply seek out content from either a certain site or certain submitter and make sure it go buried. Digg, in my opinion, has done a poor job of responding to any of this. I would love nothing more than for Digg to simply open up its bury data and show who is burying a story just as they show who is digging them. I think this could really go a long way in easing some tensions on the site and make for a better overall experience for anyone wishing to use it.
I also consider the comment section a weak point. The stories that become popular should be engaging readers in great conversations and debates, sometimes that is the case but much more often the comments are simply littered with immaturity, distasteful attempts at humor, and simple ignorance. I realize the Internet as a whole suffers from this as a result of the feeling of complete anonymity that is inherent, but Digg seems to have the worst of it.
How much time a week do you spend participating there? Describe your involvement, and explain why you donate your time.
Before I had a full-time job I would spend MUCH more time on the site then I do now. I was probably using the site or looking for stories to submit a solid 10-15 hours a week. Now it's much less, down to a couple of hours.
I would donate my time because as I said above it was nice and somewhat empowering to think that I was finding stories that massive amounts of people liked enough to give it a digg. It felt like there was a pretty good community, especially within the top users, who were consistently submitting quality stuff.
Describe the attributes of the community on your chosen site. How does community enhance the experience there? Please provide an example of one or two of your experiences.
Community is extremely important on Digg. The ability to see what your friends have dugg and submitted is what allows a user to gain some focus (outside your own stories) in the vast amount of data incoming to the site. I think without friends it might be a little too overwhelming.
Personally I've made contact outside of Digg with a lot of users I've met there. I now write for one site with another former top user and regularly IM or exchange emails with a handful of others.
What's your opinion on the role of editors at social news sites? Are they useful as filters or guides to content? Or do they get in the way
of the free exchange of information?
At first I was very against the idea of editors on social news sites. When Digg was smaller there didn't seem to be much need for any and I think when Netscape launched with them a lot of users wondered how that would really be any different then Slashdot or a regular news site for that matter.
Now I've done a complete 180 on my stance and think that Digg should employ moderators (beyond the few internal ones that its admitted to using) UNLESS as I said earlier they want to be completely transparent. I think Digg is currently in a very gray area and risks a lot more incidents like the HD-DVD thing unless they go one way or the other.
Moderators on Digg could certainly improve the comment situation and also help ease the burden on the mysterious algorithms that run Digg.
Digg has said for a while now that there were working on innovative new ways to moderate the site without using moderators - they've yet to show us anything, so it'll be interesting to see what they've come up with when/if they finally do.
What's your opinion of the mainstream media? Are social news sites and the MSM competitors, or do they complement one another?
I think they very much complement each other. If you look at Digg a large portion of the frontpage are simply the big stories of the day as reported by the likes of CNN, the BBC, etc. The mainstream media still has far more resources than any blog or social news site does and so they are still definitely needed. I think both can exist very well together though, each one holding the other in check.
Do you think crowds have wisdom? Explain.
Yes I do. Digg is a great example of a place where stories that one person or a few people might have felt were important but failed to catch on can gain an entire new life and go to extremes the original authors could have never imagined.
BUT, and not to return to the HD-DVD situation, but we can clearly see that this wisdom can just as quickly and as easily degrade into a mob mentality if certain circumstances arise.
In most cases, volunteer effort forms the bedrock of a social news sites' monetary value. Some people earn money for being an active contributor, but most don't. What's your opinion on this?
Tough call, money always changes things. If Digg had started to pay some users as Netscape did there would probably have been a lot more cries of corruption and elitism. Netscape has done okay with that because it started out like that, but a move to compensate a select few when so many are working hard seems dangerous. YouTube is of course starting to do this with revenue sharing for top users, so we'll see how that goes.
Are there ways social news sites could make better use of the wisdom of the crowd? What are they?
I think that stories on the rise, those that aren't quite popular yet but are gaining momentum are an important area to explore. Digg is awful as a breaking news site simply because it takes too long for a story to hit the frontpage. They have some nice visualization tools and the 'hot in upcoming' sidebar that starts to explore this, but I think a lot more could be done. I imagine that there are some stories that start to get hot really fast, but then fizzle out because not enough people see them. If any site could better catch these quick spurts I think it could only help the diversity of the news that does become hugely popular.
Make a prediction: What will social news look like two or three years from now?
I think that most news sites will be a mixture of traditional news with social news aspects. USA Today has obviously already taken steps towards this, The Washington Post is starting to, even The New York Times added a Digg button to its stories. As I mentioned earlier, I see the traditional media and social media as forces that can make sure the other maintains balance - if they worked together more seamlessly we'd have more complete pictures of stories.
5/21/07
