is socializing ruining social news?

many of the quality-related flaws of social news sites can simply be attributed to the fact that they aren’t mainstream enough. as these sites grow larger, we can hope to see them become more diverse and shed most of their biases (i.e. pro-apple and anti-microsoft, pro-nintendo and anti-sony, and so on). at the same time, however, as social news sites grow, the addition of new social networking and on-site communication features are working against any gains these sites would make from become more mainstream and more diverse. could it be that the problem with social news sites is that they are too…social?

from the digg about page:

from the biggest online destinations to the most obscure blog, digg surfaces the best stuff as voted on by our users. you won’t find editors at digg — we’re here to provide a place where people can collectively determine the value of content and we’re changing the way people consume information online.

how do we do this? everything on digg — from news to videos to images to podcasts —is submitted by our community (that would be you). once something is submitted, other people see it and digg what they like best. if your submission rocks and receives enough diggs, it is promoted to the front page for the millions of our visitors to see.

social media is as much a tool for networking with like-minded people and developing off-site and even offline relationships as it is about socially driving news. therefore, by its very nature, it is hard to ensure that content promoted on a socially driven site is actually harnessing the collective intelligence of the site’s audience. while what digg and most similar social news sites say, sounds good, what we see happening in reality is that as we get more socially involved with other users on these sites, we don’t actually vote for what we like best, but we vote based on what our friends like and what they want us to like.

therein lies the problem. some of the fundamental requirements for a group to be collectively intelligent are diversity, independence, and decentralization. we can solve the diversity issue by opening up to a more mainstream audience and making a platform easy to use and appealing to the masses, but the problems of independence and decentralization, are much harder to solve in social media because of the ‘social’ element of these platforms. we need diversity and independence because without them, we get a largely uniform audience and the content submitted and shared on the site isn’t a result of scrutiny or debate (this is one of the reasons why we end up content that is mostly pro-apple and anti-microsoft, and similarly divided into camps with unbalanced representation).

this is not to say that these sites shouldn’t be social at all, because groups certainly benefit from people talking to each other and learning from each other (otherwise there would be a significant barrier to entry because you wouldn’t be able to rely on the experiences of others). the key is in how much you allow the community to interact and how much information the users can share amongst themselves. if there is too much communication, it can lead to the group becoming collectively less intelligent and making poor choices. according to james surowiecki, author of the wisdom of crowds, the best way for a group to be smart (collectively intelligent), is for each person to think and act as independently as possible. however, the more we interact and the better we get to know each other through the social networking mechanisms of social news sites, we can’t help but ignore the right ‘independent’ choices in favor of the more comfortable ‘influenced’ ones.

further reading: joshua porter has an interesting piece that explores how digg is using site design to combat some of these issues brought about by giving the community more room to be social.

this post is a part of my journey through james surowiecki’s the wisdom of crowds.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

6 thoughts on “is socializing ruining social news?

  1. Nigel Eccles

    Nice post!

    However I’m surprised that anyone thinks that social news sites would get better through scale. Social news sites are echo chambers were the dominant view (ant-Microsoft, pro-Ron Paul etc) crowds out the minority view. My standing at a social site depends on my ability to promote content that reflects the mono-worldview of the user base. Good content that doesn’t reflect that gets slammed and the user that promotes it loses standing.

    My view, Digg and Reddit will NEVER promote diversity of opinion.

    Reply
  2. Jeff Quipp

    Exactly right Muhammad … many people tend to vote based more on friendship than content value. Interesting then, that Digg further facilitated communication among members with the advent of the shout system, presumably to enable those with less powerful profiles to enlist the aid of their friends too.

    Reply
  3. Matt Ridout

    It is true that a lot of people do vote based on friendship, in the hope that the favor will eventually be returned. This shouldn’t be the case unless the friendships you create genuinely interest you, which is what I try and do :)

    Reply
  4. Will Scott

    social media have the same challenges of the internet as a whole.

    the “usage” numbers which indicate wide acceptance are mostly commercial usage — people looking to buy stuff.

    the challenge in social media (and I’d include wikipedia as well) is they may never have a truly broad appeal – a diverse population.

    the incentive’s not there for joe auto mechanic to spend his time tagging, digging and editing.

    Reply
  5. Jack

    I am guilty of digging your submissions more often because I am following them, like a handful of other diggers I have come to expect good submissions from. I think one of the coolest features of digg is the ability to track who I like easily and not have to wade through the junk.

    So, I guess I am contributing to the problem, but take away some of the social aspects of digg and people like me would likely stop using it in all honesty.

    I see your point clearly. It’s a conundrum for sure!

    Reply
  6. John Wesley

    I think there is certainly a trade off. Once editorial duties are turned over to the masses you lose the judgment of discerning professionals but add a new dimension of user interaction.

    Social media is great and hear to stay, but I don’t think it will be replacing the NYT any time soon.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>