Following a wonderful Independence Day, I’d like to take a little time to look into the fallout from my post on Tuesday. If nothing else, you can say that Ron Paul supporters are fiercely loyal.  I received a great deal of commentary from Ron Paul supporters, detractors, and plain old Diggers alike.  In between the expected hostility, keen insights could be gleamed from all sides.

First off, I definitely did not expect such a widespread response,  largely because this is not exactly a new topic. I am thankful for the reaction though, as it makes for a fitting discussion as I approach the tail end of my independent study on Digg.com (for more on that view my other posts). Let’s go over the reaction.

As of 2PM on Thursday, July 5, 2007:
•    1755 Diggs
•    #2 article in All Topics for July 4th
•    710 Comments on the Digg Submission
•    79 Comments on the IAOCBlog.com Post

It should also be noted that the person that submitted the article had misspellings in both the title and description, which I’m sure has a negative impact on search-ability. I’m sure somewhere a Mr. “Ron Paulf” is looking to have a few words with me.

Another interesting side effect of the Digg Effect fallout was that the article generated a great deal of blog spam. I had a good deal of outside linking to the article for traffic purposes with little commentary added in those circumstances. Ron Paul blogs probably generated the most relevant content responses, with anti-RPers coming in a close second.  The article also generated Digg spam – the reposting of my article in another blog to generate Digg traffic. The repost is located here and has already reached 1213 diggs, despite the fact that is a duplicate.

Frankly, blog spam is probably the worst side-effect of a highly dugg piece. I feel like I’m adding to the problem when I see out-and-out article repostings. I would rather see my words completely attacked, ignored, or refuted than duplicated as spam. As long as a reaction is relevant and adds to the conversation, I have no problem if the opinion is contrary to my own. The bottom line is that spam degrades the user experience, whether on Digg, in the blogosphere or anywhere else.

 In the interest of addressing some reader reactions, I’ve compiled a list of a few things that I perhaps should have clarified:

1)    The Ron Paul support on Digg and other online networks is not directly tied to the Ron Paul campaign, although several people involved do run Ron Paul support organizations. This is strictly grassroots and not affiliated with the main campaign. Referencing the Digg gaming as part of “his” campaign was hasty mistake.  Online grassroots operations mean that organization is decentralized with no top-down management. This means that collusion is anonymous and guided solely by agenda affiliation. This is why digg behavioral tracking had to be done to show the pattern. It’s not collusion on the individual-to-individual level; it’s collusion on the level of a decentralized collective – tactical towards a common goal, yet faceless. Behavioral Theory of the Firm by Richard M. Cyert and James G. March has some interesting concepts on organizational theory relevant to this (If I recall correctly, a brief discussion of decentralized collusion appears within Chapter 8).

2)    It seems I was a bit unclear as to how the manipulation works. Stories need a certain amount of diggs in a relatively short period of time to make their way out of the Upcoming Stories section. Within a hour, a story may move from page 1 of its section’s Upcoming Stories bin into the page 2-3 realm, where stories go to die. By automatically having the necessary amount of initial diggs to get a story out of the Upcoming Stories bin, an article gains the chance to be viewed by the casual Digg user  (one looking mostly at highly visible articles) and thus become popular.

When Ron Paul supporters digg every Paul related article out of Upcoming Stories, the chance to get picked up by the Digg community increases. When you spread this across a high volume of Ron Paul articles, the chance to get one Ron Paul article to the top becomes extremely high. This is how a handful of Diggers can influence the main population. This is also how the Top 20 Diggers influenced the majority of frontpage articles in the past (and why the algorithm was changed shortly after).

3)    The 30 people listed in the blog post are not the only Digg users manipulating the site for Ron Paul visibility.  They are a handful used to demonstrate that their presence is not mere speculation. These names are a cross-section – neither the worst offenders nor the even the most visible. All of them dig primarily Paul articles, and many of them do not even read what they are digging. Also, I fully recognize that Ron Paul does have legitimate supporters on Digg (many of which do engage in ethical practices) as well as a certain degree of popularity. A bushel of bad apples, however, can taint the soil.

4)    I am neither for or against Ron Paul as political candidate. This piece was done simple to point out how his supporters have rather cleverly eked out a niche in the online landscape via through a combined effort and without full disclosure of intent (which is misleading to the end viewer and arguably unethical). The larger point I was looking to demonstrate is that Digg itself is vulnerable to collective Also the “Bury Ron Paul” groups are guilty of the same tactics as the group they oppose. Neither side is in the right on this one.

5)    The difference between Ron Paul article push versus the iPhone, Ubuntu, and other pushes is difference of purposes.  The Ron Paul push is one to foster political support while the others are done to foster commercial interest (if indirectly so by “fanboys”).  One might argue that all are attempts to sway public opinion to a particular end, but at the end of the day this deals with political rather than private sector influence.  That is not to say that pushing any idea by digging every related article is an ethical group practice. I merely state this to show the differentiating factor.

6)    The “bot” reference was made in relation to Internet straw polls, NOT Digg.com.  Some feel that this is unsubstantiated, and perhaps I should have put a qualifier in from of the word “bot.” Nevertheless, it warrants mention, No references were made towards people opening multiple accounts to digg Ron  Paul either, although that is certainly an unethical practice in a grassroots or any kind of movement. Interesting side note.

That being said, there were some fairly astute observations in the commentary.   Here’s some of my favorites: