twopointouch

Understanding the 1% Rule: Motivations » Project Syndicate

Understanding digg again, natural order at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media

I don’t think it’s the contributing of links that has some people riled up but rather the perception that there is a club of people who Digg each other’s submissions religiously, resulting in almost an old-boys-club you-do-for-me-I’ll-do-for-you system that gets its stories and messages much more attention than anyone elses.

Whether that is true or not – I don’t know. Is it?

I believe an unstructured social hierarchy (nee online social network) will always behave like this given the time and numbers. It’s a case of a hierarchy of contributors forming, just as they boss the school playground and other arbitrarily thrown together groups.

The Digg site only exists and succeeds because of the contributions of its most active members. It’s crazy that this same group should now receive negative comments from those they have directly benefited with their high levels of activity. Isn’t this just a case of envy and a naive expectation that Digg should be something it could never be – i.e. a perpetual level playing field? It’s predictably evolving from a balanced community to a very strict and rigid hierarchy just as AuctionWebb (now eBay) did.

Envy and naivety about hierarchies are probably as natural and predictable in social groups, indeed any groups of humans, as the hierarchies themselves.

I disagree that the emerging hierarchies are rigid, though – they are open to challenge and change just like hierarchies in most other groups, from companies to playground gangs.

We shouldn’t worry about hierarchies in social media emerging – we’re hard-wired for that shit, its when there is a lack of fluidity and friction in the pecking orders that groups, organisations, structures begin to to become less useful and then die. Stagnation usually means they’ve run out of ideas and the ability to create new ones.