Signing up multiple times to vote for yourself and push your page to the front page would be blackhat.
Submitting your own post is gray-white, tending to white; pure white would be someone so enamoured of your stuff they submit it for you :)
But, yes, digg visitors are known to be non-clickers :(
No opinion on the radio-slot visitors - cool stuff though :)
Back to the topic-
I can imagine that there are all kinds of ways to game the system at Digg, but I'm not interested in any of that.
Not even sure I'd want to be on the front page if the massive bandwith suck doesn't convert to anything.
I have to admit I am somewhat astonished that someone would click on an article that appeals to them, then not find anything worthwhile in the ads.
As for submitting other people's articles- now you have me thinking that perhaps people would not WANT their product hammered with that type of traffic.
I posted my own blog articles as I thought perhaps some would actually answer directly, but it seems not to be the case.
They simply go back to Digg and basically beat the crap outta just about anyone that submits anything...LOL
There is some kind of sick sport in all of that, isn't there? ; )
[edited by: martinibuster at 2:49 am (utc) on April 4, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]
Its a strange place, isn't it? I don't hang there much :)
The psychology seems to be 'the web should be free - I don't like those evil ads!' *shrug*
and its possible a lot of them run ad blockers and never even see the ads!
My experience has been that they are non clickers and non contributers. So if you get popular on digg, you just get heaps of hits and bandwidth issues.
Problem is, in my experience, that those sorts of social bookmarking sites send traffic which doesnt click or convert well. The reason is that they are likely the most tech-savvy visitors, and also the most likely to dislike advertising. Same goes for Slashdot, etc.
I agree and have had the same experience.
A friend made it to the main page, received almost 13000 visitors in 3 hours, but only 15 clicks.
I tried also Reddit and same thing. Very good traffick but no clicks. Even the proportional eCPM dropped.
So, my conclusion is, don't need that kind of traffick. It's only an expence and dashed hopes.
It remains a different question to find out what digg nd reddit users are looking for and what could entice them to click?
Geek surfers use digg and Geeks never click on ads.
How can we turn Digg users to clickers?
Will this change over time as more regular people use Digg?
blonde moment - whats digg?
I've been "Dugg" twice or whatever you want to call it. Both times the CTR was horrible, and the bandwidth was through the roof.
Here's the thing - putting aside the fact that as everybody said, Digg types are tech-savvy, most likely have advertising blocked or just ignore it, etc., most Digg users are not out to buy a product.
Most Digg users are there to read an article that others found interesting, and then go back to Digg and read other articles.
It's not your normal users that find your site because they are shopping for something.
In fact, you can easily get a bad reputation or have the post reported for spam if they show up and it's clearly an article trying to sell something or trying to get them to click on the ads. That's a very big no-no with them, from what I've seen.
If you have some exclusive review of some new product or whatever, it wouldn't be considered spam (but then again if it's a brand-new product, the advertising is not going to be there for that specific product).
It's not to say that Digg can't help - out of the hundreds or thousands that show up, a small percentage might bookmark your site and poke around, and if it's not reported as spam and removed, it's a good backlink.
The first time it happened to me, I didn't have a good way of measuring it (mainly, I was unprepared, somebody else submitted it), but my traffic was up significantly (we are talking triple-digit percentage) and things grew tight with bandwidth (due to some high-resolution images). My CTR was just up slightly - maybe half a percent, but not enough to point to being Dugg as the reason why.
The second time I had better stat tracking and I was slightly prepared - the person who submitted the article emailed me about an hour before they did. I managed to switch to a low-bandwidth/emergency theme I have (the ads were still present/normal, however I reduced the graphics on the pages as well as reduced the size of the sidebars, and I made sure the cache setup was working properly). I would say that for every thousand visitors I had the second time around, I probably got around 1-3 clicks - definitely not worth it from that perspective.
As I said though, it might help a little in the long run with backlinks, bookmarks, referrals (people emailing other people the site address), but it's not something I would deliberately do.
Digg is a social news network. Try to add to it .com and it will work.
However, I did one experience in the past few days with my and my friend's website with digg and reddit and here is my conclusiong:
I WOULD NEVER WANT MY NEWS TO APPEAR IN ANY OF THESE SITES' HOME PAGE. It is a vaste of bandwidth and no click.
I have a blogspot blog so baddwith wansn't porb for me.. got digged few times, CTR was hald of usuall, but great reposnse for me in following days, since 100's websites picked up my link and publicized my website a lot...
it ha spast few weeks, and I still get 1000 visitors per hour that click from backliks...
so I recommand you to get digged
I agree with vurdlak. The Diggers may not be clickers but many of them are web-savvy bloggers and webmasters who are always looking for new sources of content for their websites/blogs. If your site has something unique or worthwhile, you could find yourself with hundreds, if not thousands, of backlinks across the net. You would have to be a fool to turn away the free publicity, that is of course if your site is worth linking to in the first place.
I have been posting as many original articles as I can lately to digg, shoutwire, and reddit and some catch, some do not catch but in the end after getting probably about 15,000 visitors between the three lately I have to say that adsense has not been more than 5 or so dollars total.
The only upside I can think of is that these people if interested may come back or may pass on the articles to non-tech people and perhaps I will get more adsense over time from the tail end of all that traffic.
I've been "Dugg" twice or whatever you want to call it. Both times the CTR was horrible, and the bandwidth was through the roof.
Just as a matter of interest how much visitors/pageviews per hour did you have shortly after appearing on digg frontpage?
One reminder for those that don't know-
obtain thick skin or do not open the comments on your submissions.
I post links to my own articles and got hammered for doing so and called a spammer by one guy.
So that brings up a question that has been going through my mind all along-
What makes us think anyone would WANT us to drive a boatload of traffic to OTHERS' site(s), thereby costing them money in bandwith costs in the long run?
Where do we draw the line?
Interesting discussion on SEO - personally a few years back when I was starting my site I added my site to the signature block on my slashdot posts. Some over the years have been modded up (funny, insightful etc) and help with backlinks from the more popular stories. I also suggest using the signature block in your outgoing email for a site link too. Basically promote your site. The radio/TV spikes in traffic are good as long as you don't have to pay for them and you make sure you have spare bandwidth (best to always use about half what you actually need each month to account for increases). A mention in an actual programme rather than an advertisement always generates more revenue but it's short lived unless the story is put online or copied by other journalists.
These Digg guys are like girls in AOL chat rooms... Ever seen them? They're actually guys...
Moreover, these Digg guys rather dig their own stuff thru a click club than yours...
Oooops! Did I just write that? Yikes! Keep the faith, man...
|Just as a matter of interest how much visitors/pageviews per hour did you have shortly after appearing on digg frontpage? |
I hit close to 1000 visitors an hour, and probably twice that in pageviews, and the other time it was about 3/4 of that.
Normally I get that in a day, but my normal traffic is much more product oriented - I mentioned that if you talk about a new product, your advertisers probably wouldn't have caught up with you, and that happened both times with me, and so I didn't have truly targeted advertising because the product was so new - that didn't help matters at all as far as CTR. Normally I get the types who are seriously interested in Widget A or Widget B, and they have gotten there because I rank fairly well and am listed on a decent number of sites.
Digg traffic seems more than likely to go back to Digg rather than exiting the site via an ad.
I'm sure some of you have read Kottke's posts/entries either from links here on WebmasterWorld or on other webmaster-oriented sites.
In this case, Kottke's got a very relevant traffic analysis, because he had the same article linked from both sites on the same weekend.
The only problem for those interested, Kottke doesn't run advertising/adsense, etc., on the site he got linked to, and so he wasn't able to observe the impact some of you are interested in.
[edited by: martinibuster at 10:56 pm (utc) on April 6, 2006]
[edit reason] Removed URL reference. [/edit]
Keeping the faith isn't really an option, as the faithful absolutely abhor anyone submitting their own blogs (even if it IS your own original content), eventually report you and your URL is no longer welcome.
I speak from experience.
So, in my little experiment- it has become evident it is simply some kind of (unmonitored and unfiltered) social club that diggs each other's sites while tearing people up for fun.
As for the whole premise- I'm still at a loss to explain it.
If we are strongly disouraged from sharing our own articles- how many webmasters have been mortified to find their sites bombed thanks to somebody else inviting a football stadium full of people to their backyard- visitors bringing nothing to the party?
An unwilling host stuck with the bill for the party favors and clean-up (read: bandwith).
(Others are spot on here- they never click or provide any feedback whatsoever on the submitted sites).
[edited by: martinibuster at 10:58 pm (utc) on April 6, 2006]
[edit reason] Removed blog reference. [/edit]
Why did you edit your last message?
I just read your article and I see you have adsense ads and clickadspro together?
Isn't that against the terms?
I think I will report you to Google immediately.
PS: Just joking. :) In a good mood today. :)
|So, in my little experiment- it has become evident it is simply some kind of (unmonitored and unfiltered) social club that diggs each other's sites while tearing people up for fun. |
You can't submit your own articles? That's a bit unfair. Though, maybe this is a good thing, it seems like most digg visitors go to sites looking for something wrong or incorrect; it's as though their on a witch hunt. It would really be helpful for my blog since I get paid on a pay per visitor basis.
Is there anything else like digg or slashdot where you can submit your own entries?
I like digg, I check it daily and really like some of the information that I find. It gives me new and different content that I don't have to work for, digg people do all the hard work.
That being the case I want good quality interesting material from digg, not people who are promoting their own websites and blogs with mediocre work.
Frequently on Digg you do see people talking up their own sites to try and get clicks. The negative comments they recieve are entirely justified when they are infact just spamming the board with their own content for their own personal motives.
I would be at the forefront of the mob with sticks when people try to twist what is a great idea to exploit it for themselves.
So if you seriously consider submitting your own site, then the quality had better be there, otherwise all you end up with is a bandwidth issue and some bad press. If you get abused for it then there is bound to be an excellent reason. To blame digg for your own poor content or actions is not fair.
This is the self monitouring aspect of community sites like digg that really do work. Sure its dog eat dog, but if you have good content then you will benefit from it.
Never heard of it...LOL
I've got Adsense and Chitika- that's it.
I have to disagree with the premise that if you have good content you will be alright- or that if you get hammered its for a good reason.
There are no good reasons- only kids.
I honestly thought I wrote from the heart and was sincere with that one submission- the trollers don't much care what your intentions are if you submit your own.
As this relates to Adsense (the reason we're in this forum)-
after giving it more thought, its probably not even a wise idea to mess around over at sites like Digg for serious webmasters...the downside can be rather sobering, I should think. The place isn't exactly full of intellectuals looking to promote meaningful discussion...LOL
Actually thats very true heartlander, the people and the structure of the site are not made for quality debate. Slashdot it is not (slashdot for kids maybe?)