jerry richardson 17 May 06

While it seems to happen an awful lot, I think it is considered bad form to digg your own site. Especially, I would think, if you just created your account.

Ryan Carson 17 May 06

When you submit a story, it asks you if you’d like to Digg it. It’s not bad form at all.

Rebort 17 May 06

Astroturfing?

Jeff Croft 17 May 06

I dunno. I have some certain moral/ethical objection to people digging their own shit. Digging your own shit just seems dirty to me.

jerry richardson 17 May 06

Posting a story about your own site is generally not well-received. The diggers don’t seem to have much empathy for press releases. Even well-cloaked ones. At the very least, get someone else to post it for you.

Dave 17 May 06

Wow. Marketing is just that easy?

And just out of curiosity… did you Digg this story after posting it? Will this lead to some kind of infinite Digg-ing loop?

Dan Nocket 17 May 06

Another thing to note: an increase in traffic due to being Dugg or Slashdotted or whatever does not necessarily mean a automatic increase in sales or ad revenues.

Mark 17 May 06

I’ve done this on del.icio.us to drive traffic as well. Your submission will appear as the most recent post on the homepage.

Ed 17 May 06

“…and it struck a cord with Digg readers around the world.”

I hope it struck a chord, actually ;-)

While Digg sure can be effective for a jump in traffic, that’s all it is. A jump in traffic. Repeat visitors are the ones that matter most. In one day, your stats dropped back to what they already were with little difference. While it’s nice to get the exposure, I wouldn’t label that effective marketing.

ramanan 17 May 06

I’d have to agree with earlier comments: Digging your own stuff is lame. A lot of people on Digg itself don’t take kindly to it either, though it doesn’t come off as badly as a self-link on Metafilter. Beyond that, the idea that posting your crap on Digg will magically garner you more hits is silly. At the very least you need to make it to the front page first.

Greg 17 May 06

While Digg sure can be effective for a jump in traffic, that�s all it is. A jump in traffic. Repeat visitors are the ones that matter most. In one day, your stats dropped back to what they already were with little difference. While it�s nice to get the exposure, I wouldn�t label that effective marketing.

It works sometimes, though. You still get a lot of “hit it and quit it” views, but the example still stows around 700 sticky hits, and those count for something.

I forget how exactly I found SvN, A List Apart, or a thousand other blogs, but it was probably through Digg, delicious, Technorati, or similar. I hit them once through there, and I’ve been coming back ever day since then. SvN is salient, in particular, because it has something to sell - not that I plan to buy anything, but at least it’s in the back of mind to look at their products, if I ever need something like that.

Ryan Carson 17 May 06

While Digg sure can be effective for a jump in traffic, that�s all it is. A jump in traffic. Repeat visitors are the ones that matter most. In one day, your stats dropped back to what they already were with little difference. While it�s nice to get the exposure, I wouldn�t label that effective marketing.

Yes, but you can’t get repeat visitors unless you get first visitors ;)

Ryan Carson 17 May 06

The diggers don�t seem to have much empathy for press releases.

Who said anything about press releases? I specifically said you needed to write a valuable article, not some cleverly disguised product ad.

ramanan 17 May 06

I think the issue most people have with self-links is that if they are truly brilliant, then someone else will find them and post them of their own accord.

Michal Migurski 17 May 06

Attention monopolizers! =)

There’s a second-order effect at sites like Digg, where people express interest in stories mainly because others have done so - it’s a violently social site, and all that that entails. If you look at the distribution of votes on such sites, there’s a marked clustering going on: the front-page stories get gob-tons of attention, everything else gets squat. Not much of a middle ground. When you’re in, you’re *in*. The feedback effect means that there’s very little predictable connection between your actions as a submitter and the results of those actions. If what you’re hawking requires a network effect to succeed, then this is a necessary millstone around your neck.

As others here have said, it’s just a traffic bump. It’s also poor form on older social news sites such as MeFi or Slashdot to self-link. Digg doesn’t seem to yet have that expectation, but it’s almost guaranteed to surface at some point as diggers coalesce into a social group.

Thomas H. Ptacek 17 May 06

Let me give you my split-second take on this, which is that I’ve been really resistent to doing the “digg this” thing for my blog. Doesn’t it seem presumptuous?

Obviously I’m crazy for saying this (and definitely not a good salesperson). What would help me on this is, what are the 10,00ft guidelines for what is “diggable”?

I assume for instance that a digg link on a short-form blog post is a bit tacky. So now I’m left to wonder how big a post should be before I add a digg link. Also, I’m telegraphing to my readers which posts I think are good, and I’m usually wrong about that (by hit count at least).

Do I sound neurotic? I bet I do. But I know other people with the same hangup. =)

Gayle 17 May 06

Maybe I’m just missing something, but I really don’t understand the whole Digg thing. Is there a Digg for Dummies somewhere? Because I Just. Don’t. Get it.

Thomas H. Ptacek 17 May 06

& btw (my comment post got delayed, so I didn’t see all the furor around digg self-promotion):

I generally subscribe to the notion that writing valuable articles is good marketing in-and-of-itself; empirically this has worked out for us as well.

What is frustrating is taking the time to write something you hope is valuable, but not seeing it propagate outside your immediate circle of readers.

You see this really clearly on the articles that DO “break out”; you get an immediate bump in readers (suggesting that there are is in fact a greater audience), and a long-term growth of recurring readers.

So the “self-digging” (or self-redditing or self-deliciousing or whatever) stuff is really tantalizing. But I’ll say that my take on actually doing it is similar to what other commenters have already said. Isn’t it cheesy?

Lloyd Dalton 17 May 06

The continuum of lame marketing runs something like this:

* forum or email spam (lamest)

* Posting comments on other sites with thinly-disguised references to your promotion target (this comment is an example)

* Posting to digg or del.icio.us or reddit (not very lame - all these sites are fueled by user-submitted links, and they all have filters or judging mechanisms to prevent spam)

* “Honest” marketing - just publishing content and hoping people find it.

I’m a little surprised at the difference between 37signals’ often-stated approach (do your own thing well = good marketing) and the subject of this post (explicit self-promotion = better marketing).

Personally, I think if you do too much self-promotion, it gets to be a bad habit. A very hard habit to break.

Ryan Carson 17 May 06

Maybe I didn’t explain the idea very well.

This post isn’t about spamming Digg. It’s about finding ways to promote valuable content. You may think your article is great, but if no one reads it, it means jack shit.

If you’ve got an article that’s valuable for readers, who cares if you, or someone else submits it to Digg.

Suggesting an article to Digg is exactly that, a suggestion. Let the crowds decide if it’s worth reading. If you’re the only guy that diggs an article, it’ll never reach the front page.

Jamie Tibbetts 17 May 06

There is nothing wrong with digging your own articles. Morality?Ethics? Etiquette? Please. It’s digg.com, folks, not fine dining. The site is a collection of stories. If you think your story is valuable, it doesn’t matter if you or someone else posts it.

Let’s stop pretending digg users have some sort of high moral code of ethics that precludes them from reading stories posted to digg by the authors themselves. Does anyone honestly believe that digg users do research on each post to make sure that the author of the article isn’t the one who posted it before they deign to read it? It’s preposterous to believe so.

If you’ve written a valuable article and you don’t post it to digg based on “ethics,” you are a fool IMO.

Jamie Tibbetts 17 May 06

If you�ve got an article that�s valuable for readers, who cares if you, or someone else submits it to Digg.

Suggesting an article to Digg is exactly that, a suggestion. Let the crowds decide if it�s worth reading. If you�re the only guy that diggs an article, it�ll never reach the front page.

Amen, Ryan. Preach on, brutha.

Jeff Croft 17 May 06

Let me clarify my personal position.

I don’t necessarily feel that digging your own article is immoral or unethical. If you want to do, I’ve got no real problem with that. It’ just not for me personally. I feel silly doing it. I’d rather let me content stand on its own. If someone wants to Digg it, they will. I might even help them along by providing a “Digg this” quick link. But, i feel like I’m shamelessly self-promoting myself if I do the digging on my own. It makes me feel dirty.

If it doesn’t make you feel dirty, then keep on keepin’ on. It doesn’t bother me that you do it — I just don’t want to.

That’s all.

joe 17 May 06

Why is it cool to find interesting content, but uncool to create it and let people know?

Jean Moniatte 17 May 06

Might work if you are targeting the Digg’s audience: nerds bored at work. But not cool to digg your own stuff. A bit like if I was linking to my own site (click on my name please).

Dan Walsh 17 May 06

No two ways about it, getting precious about who is digging what counts for zero. The market decides….. The most pertinent advice in Ryans piece is to ensure your article contains value….. ‘If not, revisit the article’

Nice work Ryan.

Josh Owens 17 May 06

I agree with what Ryan said, it is about quality content. We tried to digg the lifetime hosting sale we did with steelpixel, but it got buried as spam - and rightly so. We didn’t submit it, but when I found it, I had a bunch of friends digg it. We asked our listeners to digg it… Then it got buried.

Digg has controls in place to help limit real spam and get rid of it. No system is perfect, but the group collective does seem to fix alot of issues.

Now to address the other point of losing all those one-time readers right away - that is just not true. We went from 300 listeners on our podcast, to 1000 listeners after we interviewed Kevin Rose and got posted on digg. Your content will keep the traffic coming back, if it is good.

Chris Wible 17 May 06

Thank you for explaining this to me! I’d love more articles on this sort of thing - I see all that tag and digg stuff around but I’ve never really grokked the affect it could have.

Cool

rob 17 May 06

devin - you beat me to the punch!!

here’s a good question - what are the stats for an average digg user? i read somewhere that it was 13 to 18 year old men. now, if your a video game maker and that’s your target audience - fine. if not, well, getting “dugg” is a titanic waste of time. even if that age range was a sarcastic jab at the boys over at Digg I would still like to know what those numbers are…

Who cares 17 May 06

The people that praise these kinds of posts have no idea what they’re doing online in the first place. Getting dugg means a bunch of web geeks are reading your stuff, that’s all. Getting tagged on delicious means a bunch of web geeks are bookmarking your shit. SO. Unless you are selling something web geeks want, ie a chat app or a to do list (la-T-fuckin-DA) it doesn’t mean anything. Try doing business in the real world, and not marketing to a bunch of bunnies all ready to sign up for your latest simple minded application and then tell me how getting dugg is a valuable marketing tool. In the mean time keep preaching about your self promotion, uh, I mean ‘philosophy.’ Seriously, people. Take a step back and ask yourself why you come to this site everyday and then ask yourself why you’re now having someone else’s thoughts… JF doesn’t care about you. DHH thinks you’re a moron. Go down the list of posts on your page and if you have anything other to say then my name then please get off the internet, and please for the love of the future of the net, close your editor and give up your programming dream.

Dan Walsh 17 May 06

Girls…dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There is not a small/mid/large town journo worth their salt who does not consider Digg a potential source (as of ‘06).

The 2.0 25k can poison your work if you arent careful but a few dozen journos who may trip over you can help connect with the wider audience you seek (readers or users).

The Digg phenomenon works on many layers…..all fascinating.

jf 17 May 06

I’m with Jamie T & Ryan. Stop the elitist bull. Self diggers- your buddy diggers—your mommy diggers—-who cares who’s digging. If you had the cure for cancer you’d better digg that shit. If you invented a way to turn water to gasoline—please self promote. suggest a little.
It’s only a matter of degree as to when you can self promote I suppose. Or if you’ve already made a name for yourself—you get a free pass—-if Mr. Gates touts his new life changing ap across the country is that shameless self promotion? Yeah & that’s fine with me—if you’ve got a problem with that better find a dictatorship to live under. The net is supposed to be about freedom—there is some stuff you have to live with—it’s not a big deal so dont sweat it.

If you think your post can be valuable to somebody, post it.. digg it—where it on a t-shirt—sky write it—run a commercial—whatever is legal to get people to visit you—-it’s a free country—-people will come…if they like you they’ll come back. if they dont, they wont. End of rant.

Arik 18 May 06

I love how with every discussion around a post of SvN, there has always got to be a hater who despises those who admire 37s and what they output. Seriously, I don’t really see anyone else enjoying the succession they’ve had. The minute you can put out a pdf book and make several grand in a couple weeks, then you have your hater rights restored, otherwise, shutup. lol. Anyway…

I think its important to realize that like many have been saying all along. You are you companies best marketing specialist. You know your intended audience better than anyone, so self-promotion on digg is nothing but a platform to market yourself. Perfect for those with no solid readership. Even if you don’t get obsurd amounts of traffic from digg, at least you gain exposure.

-Arik

Jon 18 May 06

Arik,

I think you mean success, not succession.

Succession would be like if they retired, and designated some other company to replace them (which would be really wierd).

Cameron Olthuis 18 May 06

Generally the traffic that comes from digg is worthless. Of course there’s exceptions but 90% if the people that come from digg will never return.

The best part about been dugg is number of times that other bloggers will post about your article on there own site, with a link to yours. A digg can result in thousands of inbound links to your site. This is great for SEO.

Being on the homepage of digg also results in thousands of visitors from other sites. You’ll most likely end up on delicious popular, stumbled upon, reddit, blinklist, and all the others.

Sudar 18 May 06

Agreed. But the problem is that you should be in a position to distinguish between valuable content and just a plain rant.

But even if the content is good, I have seen a lot of Digg commentators accusing people who digg their own articles.

Booga 18 May 06

It all sounded well to me until I’ve read this:

“Please follow a few simple guidelines to make digg a better place. Quality Technology Content: Is your story technology related?”

My weblog is about music and the focus is on artists and their work. Unfortunately digg-ede-dugg won’t help spread the word.

Luke Blackman 18 May 06

This is the stupidest article I’ve ever read.

‘Digg is Your Marketing Secret Weapon’

Please tell me there’s a reason it’s a marketing secret weapon other than the fact you get a lot of hits from it.. Large traffic doesn’t mean it’s successful marketing.

And what’s the secret? The reason people get so many hits when their links are on Digg, is because everyone knows about it. It’s not a secret at all - and this is a great illustration of some of 37signals arrogant, know-it-all attitude.

Who are we kidding, the only reason your product is so successful isn’t because it’s functional or original — it’s the culture you built around it. Just look at all the fan-boy comments on every mundane post if you want any proof of this. Sure that was masterful (accidental?), but stop preaching like your gods of small business.

Articles like this make me cringe..

Pid 18 May 06

It’s not quite the stupidest article I’ve ever read, but it’s alarmingly simplistic and will no doubt propagate via chinese whispers for years to come.

I’d consider retitling it “Digg is Your Marketing Secret Weapon If And Only If Digg Users Are Your Exact Target Market”.

Attempting to use Digg to drive traffic to your site is an ineffective shortcut to real marketing, and is dangerously close to the nonsense fountain that is the SEO community.

Where’s the “Getting Real” here?

Repeat after me people: “SEO is not marketing.”.

Mike Mullen 18 May 06

Wow, there are some extremely poorly thought out responses here. First of all, large traffic increases are exactly what marketing is about. Seen any TV ads lately? They can’t even measure that stuff properly, but they still relentlessly throw it out there hoping for increases in awareness (mostly). Marketing is not ‘only’ about one time increase in traffic, but it’s a huge part of it.

Secondly, it really feels like an elitist point of view to use the blanket statement ‘Nobody should digg their own articles’. Maybe promotional ‘articles’ on slashdot can be a problem (with their sometimes dubious/forgetful editorial staff) but digg is more of a democracy. The members are going to say what gets seen, not the submitter.

Markus Magnuson 18 May 06

Seriously, I can not understand why it would be wrong to digg yourself. Is it also wrong to write an article and send it to a magazine/newpaper in hope of getting it published? No, didn’t think so.

Bill P 18 May 06

Hey Ryan…

In an effort to restore some (any) balance to this thread, I’d just like to encourage you to keep contributing to SVN.

I’d like to remind everyone about your other 4 posts to SVN (which were received favorably), and all of the Carson Workshops audio & freebies. I want to see more of those.

This particular post wasn’t applicable to me (I have no desire to use Digg - ESPECIALLY not now), but I was really encouraged and informed by the last few. Cash flow basics, and the discussion posts around it, was a terrific piece.

I think the detractors have made their point more than once. Fair enough. Label me what you want, I could care less. But people - let’s consider moving on…

jf 18 May 06

Marketing is about getting eyeballs.
Offering Quality or Value converts eyeballs to sales.
Therefore Marketing is not sales.

Digg gets eyeballs
Therefore Digg is marketing
Digg is not sales.

End of logic class.

Derek Organ 18 May 06

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea. One digg by the owner isn’t going to make or break getting on the home page. If the article is useful then why not digg it. Anyhow even if you don’t get on the front page you traffic will increase with a digged article. Naturally there is room for missuse but the community decides what passes for good material. It is marketing tool as stated above.

Mike 18 May 06

I’m surprised no one picked up on the fact that the Vitamin site picked up 1,000 RSS subscribers in just two days. While the stats clearly show that being dugg was just a “temporary spike” in traffic, with number returning to normal levels the next day, it is clear that when their next article is published those new subscribers will be picking up the content in their feed readers and will most likely remain long time subscribers.

So the audience to their blog increased through increased subscriptions. The blog is used to promote Carson Systems products (as well as deliver great content). The number of impressions for the products increases, sales increase as a result. Seems like great marketing to me.

As far as Digging your own articles, Ryan is spot on in saying this is a non-issue. If you are the only one who diggs an article, it isn’t going anywhere.

LukeP 18 May 06

Regardless of the opinions expressed by many commentors here, I for one have learned alot from Ryan’s posts.

Who are we kidding, the only reason your product is so successful isn�t because it�s functional or original � it�s the culture you built around it.

I don’t even know where to start with this one.

coglethorpe 18 May 06

It’s interesting to see how people talk about ethics and Digg. When you think about it, all the creators of Digg did was find a way to get rich off of other people’s content. I have no problem with someone submitting their own content to such a site.

John Larson 18 May 06

I recently read a definition of Marketing:

“Marketing is the process of getting warm leads.”

A warm lead is someone who is somewhat likely to buy your widget. Sales Guys call them Prospects. Getting a whole lot of traffic is NOT the same as getting warm leads or Prospects.

On the other hand, LOTS of warm prospects if far better than getting a few warm prospects.

The task of marketing is to identify WHO would be likely to buy your widget, and then figuring out WHY they would be interested, then identifying WHERE they hang out, and then crafting a message that arrives WHEN they would be likely to look.

So, whether to DIGG or not is entirely dependent on whether the DIGG audience has anything in common with your widget. DIGG yourself or not? Only matters if it isn’t allowed. Advertising of all kinds, free or paid, is self-promotion.

Anybody who just builds it and hopes they will come will most likely never see the full potential of their dreams.

JLL

open source reader 18 May 06

day x : 9810 visitors
day x + 1: 24552 visitors on monday, who 250% increase, that’s a lot
day x + 2 : 10501 where are all your new visitors ? Gone.

Digg is buzz, digger are shadows, they are very almost impossible to retain. That’s by construction, how would they be retained by 100 websites a day ?

open source reader 18 May 06

sorry for all the glitches in my comment above…

Richard 18 May 06

I dont see how this marketing piece would be applicable to most ecommerce sites trying to make a buck? If I sell widgets what kind of article could I possibly write that getting dug would improve my sales?

If however I had a blog and just had stories already and added my blogs to the dig system then that may make some sense, but to most people running a business this is a hard thing to get ahold of and do correctly without just being an ad for their product. Either way this is good discussion.

And I guess that if you did sell widgets and mastered the art of creating stories that were valuable to readers about your widgets or use of widgets and widget safety then that could be really beneficial to your sales of widgets.

Side note: anyone here sell widgets I want to see what they look like :)

Paul Stamatiou 18 May 06

Yeah, digg is great but a site like 37signals doesn’t need a bunch of teens mucking around, does it?

Joe 18 May 06

Ryan,
Great Article. The idea is to get your idea out there- This makes a lot of sense. What this thread is witnessing is the exact reason why I stopped using Digg. People have nothing but contempt- everyone seems like they are 14 year old “know it alls.” Keep up the great work Ryan. As an aspiring Entrepreneur, I really take what you write to heart. It’s all very helpful.

sadfasdf 18 May 06

adfadfadsfafadfadsfadfadfadfasdfasdf

Steven 19 May 06

I posted to digg yesterday to try to get beta testers for an amazing new music app that lets you sync up multiple music libraries over the net, disk, or iPod..

Pretty disapointing results—a little bump in traffic and a total of 8 diggs. Getting actually dugg is not small feat.

Seems once it was gone from the first or second “digg for stories” page, it was all over…

Would be interesting to find out when people do the most digging, and when people do the most posting. The best time to post would be when a lot are digging, but few new stories are being added.

John Arthur 19 May 06

So, increasing your traffic, whether by services such as DIG or via improved search results isn’t marketing? Whatever. Not worth arguing, as it will go nowhere (based of this thread’s comments).

But, the argument makes it sound as though all that is *bad* for business (or at least not at all potentially beneficial). Does it cost that much? I don’t use Dig, but it sounds like it’s free. I’m a little behind on paying my Google dues, but I still get to use it (*sarcasm*).

Is Dig the perfect tagger for your market? Maybe not. Perhaps Mr. Carson was a bit general in picking out that one service, when there are clearly several markets. What a fool! Shame on you for being so narrow minded, expecting us to infer the gist of the article, rather than spell it out to the letter (*more sarcasm*).

Read it again. See the good in the article. If there’s a service other than Dig that’s better tailored to your market, you’re not limited to Dig. If you only get a couple extra regular hits, that’s a couple regular hits you didn’t have the day before (which, obviously, has no benefit towards success *do I need to point the sarcasm out any more?*). And it doesn’t sound like it takes too much extra time to create a little free, potentially very wide-reaching self-promotion. So stop foaming at the mouth, or go snarl somewhere else.

If you don’t want to do it because of ethics/morals/scrupples/whim, that’s fine. I’m not trying to dictate what’s good for you. But Mr. Carson is free to do what’s good for him, as well.

Sorry for the length. Good day.

JA

Ben Rowe 20 May 06

Two comments from me:

1 - I don’t really see self-digging to be much different to auto-pinging blog posts to Technorati. It’s just another tool to get people to read your posts and visit your blog.

2 - Another tactic to get traffic to your blog is to post anti, negative and controversial comments on popular sites like SvN.

Those who have slagged off Ryan by commenting on SvN are simply adopting a different tactic to get visits to their blogs.

We all like it when people visit our blogs. That’s one of the addictive things about blogging. It makes you feel that you are being listened to, and that you are adding value. Which I believe was what Ryan’s post was really about.

Keep up the good work Ryan - Vitamin is a terrific little site. And I don’t need to say how much I like 37 signals.

BillyG 21 May 06

I have to say, I gave digg a shot when it first came out and actually submitted a few stories (not my own) this week and they’ve never gotten any hits so I think it’s a big waste of time, especially when somebody can come right behind you and duplicate it with no repercussions. So I just spent the time to go thru all the steps to submit it for what? Nothing.

My submissions so far got these diggs (and they are actually all relevant articles to web design etc.): 1,1,2,3,3,5,5,6,8,9,10,1666.

Obviously, the last one is an anomoly(sp?) and shows the potential (although others of course get way more than that) but it isn’t any traffic I got, that story was from somewhere else. digg is a complete waste of time and this week just reiterated it for me.

P.S. I do read the feed though lol. (so I guess those sites benefited, but I posted good stories too, for instance, I was the first to post about Live Clipboard, tell me no one on digg cared about that?) Sorry, I know it sounds like WAH, WAH but I’m really just trying to say that it has never gotten me anywhere, except for the reading of the top 100 feed so ya’ll keep it up, I’ll just be the benefiter on this one, not the participator. Thx.

Mark Stephenson 21 May 06

Look at me! Look at me!

Digging your own article seems rather desperate. From past experience if you’ve got something worthy to say you’ll get noticed. It just may take longer.

Darren McLaughlin 22 May 06

The Digg traffic isn’t that hot, from what I can see. Sure, some of them convert, but it’s a snarky community.

DavidC 25 May 06

I’ve found Digg users to be a little like party crashers back when I was in college - they’re usually arrogant and self-righteous, make a lot of noise, completely trash the place, then don’t stick around to help clean up the mess.

Don’t waste too much time trying to please Digg, it’s a temporary bump that won’t convert to cash.