racoma.com.phJ. Angelo Racoma on technology, economics, writing, problogging, and getting things done

Here’s one interesting observation I’d like to share. We ForeverGeek contributors sometimes post links to our more substantial articles on DIGG.com, to share and possibly get some inbound traffic (as with what other writers/bloggers are fond of doing). We have had our share of DIGGs, and it was great. Traffic usually rises to absurd levels (but of course, we make sure our servers could handle the load) and we get great feedback from readers and other blogs.

So far, we’ve already had four stories that were frontpaged, according to this query. Yes, this includes the DIGG link to the podcasting article I authored (which I’m quite proud of).

But if you tweak the search query to “include buried stories,” you get nine frontpaged stories, including older ones. But what’s intriguing is that this type of query would include quite a number of stories posted after the FG-DIGG issue where DIGG’s credibility as a reader-driven site was questioned. In particular, that one story was frontpaged by the sheer number (and speed) of DIGGs, but was quickly “buried” because of the sensitivity of the issue.

After that one, no other FG story had actually appeared on the DIGG front page, but the query for frontpaged stories (including buried), as likewise linked above, would say otherwise.

Something seems amiss. The search query classifies one story as “frontpaged,” but the article doesn’t actually appear on the frontpage. Now buried stories are prominently marked as “buried,” and I can understand why those will not appear on frontpage. But what of those classified as frontpaged, but not marked as “buried?” Why aren’t they appearing on www.digg.com?

I am very much confused why the DIGG search query classifies some stories as “frontpaged,” but “buried,” but without the appropriate “buried story” marking.

DIGG founder Kevin Rose mentioned something on the TWiT podcast about moderators actually choosing which stories to get frontpaged (here’s a recap I wrote for FG). So this means among other factors in the algorithm that decides which stories are sent to the frontpage, there are human “editors” who get to select their picks.

So in the end, one might ask, is DIGG.com really the user-driven website it publicizes itself to be?

Once a story has received enough diggs, it is instantly promoted. Should the story not receive enough diggs, or is reported, it eventually falls out of the digg area queue. Digg works because a large group of people actively promote good stories to the homepage. Since this site’s content is user-driven, it is up to YOU to contribute.

I used to be such a DIGG fan. Somehow, I still am–I still find DIGG’s ideals to be something to root for, especially given the collaborative nature of the Web today. But for me, DIGG.com has lost its magic!

Podcasting isn’t always as easy as it seems. First you need interesting content. Then you need to have a well-modulated voice and good diction. And then there’s the need for adequate equipment. Most of all, you’d need passion for audio as a medium of communication.

It’s “Web 2.0″ talk again, and I’m pretty sure some of you are squirming in your seats over this catchphrase, which seems to be hurting your ears (and eyes) at every mention.

In essence, I think the social aspect of Web 2.0 is not all the democratization of the Web it’s touted to be (as I have mentioned time and again). And I write my thoughts on ForeverGeek.

You may be able to successfuly market your brand using social networks and tools. But this is still essentially a hit-or-miss proposition. Successful branding via an organic manner (i.e. simple word of mouth) is quite diffcult to achieve unless you have a truly cutting-edge product or service.