Before today, I had seen the option to share news items on news sites. I had seen links to Digg previously. But I didn't know exactly what Digg was or how it worked.
As it turns out, Digg is a social media site. The site allows users to select news items and vote for news items that they particularly enjoy or find important. The news items don't have to be actual news items; users can submit blog entries or items from entertainment and tabloid news/gossip sources. There are no editors involved, much like wikis (although wikis can be protected and used only by a select group). There are a number of these social media sites, including Newsvine and Reddit.
It is very easy to share a news item on Digg. I went to the NY Times website and clicked on the first article I saw. Once on the article's page, I chose the Share option and decided where I wanted to share the item.
Because I've not used these sites previously, I haven't read an item from the site. And currently, I am on the fence about whether these sites increase productivity or detract productivity. I'm leaning more towards the detracting side of the fence because there is so much that has been shared, making it easy for individuals to become distracted. I suppose if an individual had the time for browsing through a site like Digg, the serendipitous discovery offered by the site might be worthwhile. I can see the benefits of the technology behind Digg.
As it stands for me, I like the benefits offered by RSS readers more because I can choose what I want and not see anything I don't want. With Digg, I feel like I am overloaded with information. If I register or log in, I have the option of burying items that I think are inappropriate or irrelevant, but there is a lot that I would have to bury. Additionally, others have to also think what I've submitted is important for the item to stay popular. It's a huge popularity contest.
No comments:
Post a Comment