Takahashi, Digg Skew, And Kotaku

March 25, 2007 7:11 PM | Simon Carless

I'm not really saying that uber-blog Kotaku is the only outlet that's ever done this, but I'm going to have to talk you all through this one, and I'm hoping for some further understanding of the sloppiness of Digg, 'citizen journalism', and over-sensationalizing on the Net.

We're starting with Dean Takahashi's new piece on the Xbox 360 Elite, which he debuted yesterday on his San Jose Mercury News blog. Though this isn't the crux of the problem, there's even an interesting twist on this part - I believe that Dean originally posted this with 'Exclusive' in the title (see the blog URL), but changed it after some commenter complaints, such as from 'David': "Sorry, but how is this “exclusive?'’ Game Informer and Engadget both reported this days ago with the same type of anonymous sourcing."

Takahashi's comments in response to David are fair: "You are correct that Game Informer and Engadget have reported this, and I should have mentioned them. Engadget in particular has a lot of detail. We’ve added our own independent sourcing and analysis, including the detail on the chip cost reduction schedule that no one has talked about." I guess - Dean is a smart guy, but this piece does feel a bit weak, considering I have a copy of Game Informer in my hands also announcing the Elite. But still - it includes a couple more details, and the Xbox 360 Elite is a bit more official now. So fair enough.

Anyhow, the next thing that happens is that Brian Crecente posts about Dean's comments on Kotaku - basically with a link and an extra paragraph of commentary: "I suspect that this new model will hit in April, with official word coming as early as next week. I also wouldn't be surprised that if consumer interest shifted to the newer model, that Microsoft drops the price on their current models by this holiday season." Don't have a big issue with this - people may click through to Dean, Kotaku is in part (like GSW!) a linklog after all, etc.

But here's the bit that gets my goat. A certain 'Bippy101' submitted Kotaku's version of the story to Digg, with a simply incorrect version of the story: 'Xbox 360 Elite with IPTV announcement coming next week... The new Xbox 360 Elite will be announced next week with a bigger harddrive, smaller chip, HDMI and IPTV.' This factually worded statement is not true - Brian has posited that the announcement might be next week - and indeed it might, but he's not even citing sources at this point. And the IPTV bit is kinda not Elite-specific.

What's doubly unfortunate is that the specific 'Digg It' button for this dodgily worded story has been embedded in the Kotaku story to help promote the hits further. C'mon, Kotaku-ites - what about reporting a story that someone else has reported (with one extra paragraph of commentary!) gives you the right to try to get a front page Digg for it? I consider that pretty iffy.

Now, I don't know who 'Bippy101' is - guess he could be someone completely random. But judging by the user's Digg history, I'm presuming that it's a single or composite Gawker Media staffer - and interestingly, most of its submitted stories make it to the front page, presumably exactly because they are embedded in Kotaku stories after they are submitted. (Not saying it's a secret, just extrapolating.)

Actually, most of the time, these Bippy101 frontpaged stories are original Kotaku reporting - such as the 'Reign Over Me' movie interview. But there are some other ones in there which I honestly would feel guilty about submitting to Digg - like the Gears Of War movie announcement, which is just a paragraph and a link to Variety. You can absolutely submit things from your own outlet to Digg - we also do it from time to time - but IMHO, it should be your own original reporting, otherwise the dilution of information just discourages first-hand reporting.

If these rules aren't held to, what happens? Let's take a look at the 'recently frontpaged' list on Digg game news to find out. I'm not saying that all of these are submitted by the site themselves - we've had a couple of frontpage Diggs that were re-reported stories, put forward by third parties, but up there right now are things like a QJ.net piece that's just summarizing Gizmodo, a fake official confirmation for Katamari Damacy Wii, or YouNewb summarizing a GameSpot piece. I could go on - and you may recall that I have before. But I firmly believe that major sites should be leading the way, and this is a bit of a mis-step, This is _THE_ new frontline for journalism and journalistic ethics, and I'm surprised more people aren't talking about it and thinking about it.

Tags:

Categories:

14 Comments

Kotaku is terrible. I like to think of them as The National Enquirer of video game sites.

Also, I would recommend you re-read through your post, and fix the various errors that are in there. There's even one in the first sentence.

Anon | March 25, 2007 7:38 PM

Thanks for the heads-up on typos, I did another pass and caught a couple that I'd missed.

I tend to find that GSW commenters are much harsher on Kotaku than I am. I know and like a number of their editors, who are smart folks - which is one of the reasons that I care about this more, probably.

simonc | March 25, 2007 7:47 PM

Stuff like this happens all the time on Digg. Sometimes they will submit posts linking to articles without realizing that it is wrong. But in this case, when one user submits content to one Web site and only that site, that should definitely be frowned upon.

Grim | March 25, 2007 8:32 PM

Kotaku is mostly junk news that I already heard earlier that day or earlier that week.

Digg, on the other hand, is utter tripe. I didn't think that it was given serious though by anyone (which I guess is saying more about what I think of the people using it than anything... not like I know too many either.) Digg just strikes me as a me-to for lazy people.

Matthew Williamson | March 25, 2007 8:45 PM

Digg is important because it really _is_ read by a mass of people. From personal experience, when Gamasutra gets Digg linked, we get more referrals (by amount) than any other individual site. That's why I think it's important to consider.

Oh, and Grim - I don't actually have a problem with a submitter making sure that major stories from their own site are submitted to Digg with good descriptions, as long as they don't submit stories that are just link"es from a third site. I guess that's a whole other personal ethics discussion, mind you.

simonc | March 25, 2007 9:15 PM

Sensationalism. You don't get clicks with a "There may be an announcement about Elite in the future". I think I have already posted a similar comment here ^_^

Oh, well. I am too old for this Web 2.0 stuff. Fortunately, I don't need others to decide what is newsworthy and what is not ^_^

ReyBrujo | March 25, 2007 9:30 PM

Signed on the Digg and Kotaku comments. 99% of what Kotaku pumps out is either wrong, stupid, or shit, and the other 1% is easily available elsewhere. As for Digg, it's a terrifying Frankenstein's monster of syndicated information, idiots, and Borg-level hive mind.

Then again, maybe I too am just too old for this Web 2.0 nonsense. Why, I remember the days when a "blog" was just called a "website" and all of this was fields!

Tetsuo | March 25, 2007 9:37 PM

simonc, I like your blog posts. Unlike others, it's always good thoughtful reading. You are putting blogs to good use. I've seen Kotaku using cheap tricks to get hits before. I rarely read Kotaku beyond headlines via RSS.

md | March 25, 2007 10:02 PM

I like Kotaku a lot: it's a good, easy, centralised resourse for a cack-fingered intermaweb idiot like me but I share your unease at the re-Digging of other peoples' work. Banging stuff out on the web takes time, effort and a bit of love too - the only reward for that, for bloggers, is reader stats and reader comment. If that comment never reaches the original author then he/she is missing out. Take that up a level to the re-posting of content from sites dependent on advertising revenue, and as such then on direct eyeballs and we're in a whole different league of problems. It's an interesting subject and I'm glad you've thought to tackle it.

Richard Koworld | March 26, 2007 4:41 AM

Kotaku is krap. I'm sorry, you're surprised that they'd do this? They've always been sensationalist with their coverage.

jerry | March 26, 2007 5:38 AM

Simon, I don't think that second-hand reporting will discourage original content. That's basically the core of the blog debate, and I feel that firsthand reporting will always have a home.

However, responsible bloggers should clearly state their sources, not just through links, but through attribution (ex: Takahashi reports in the San Jose Mercury News that...). That way, even if a linked story is dugg, smart readers will know how to follow through to the source.

Jared | March 26, 2007 7:47 AM

Understood. Digg is "gamed" often, in even more reckless ways like bribing submitters.

Here's a significant point simon misses though, when Brian's Kotaku posting is dugg and hits the front page, not only will he see more traffic but so will the blogger that he links to in his posting.

I mean that is the essence of blogging, linking to other's comments as a way of sourcing them, and continuing the conversation on conversation infinitely. (For instance, take a look at how many times I link to other "notable" blogs on my latest posting, www.sunbulli.com, if I were to digg my posting with a reference to Mark Cuban would that be unethical? I do after all provide quite a bit of synthesis.

One counter-argument here is that Brian wasn't really providing any type of synthesis or extra insight. He was merely posting a link and summing it up. My argument in that case is that the blogger he's linking to will see a considerable increase in traffic as a result of Kotaku's posting. Kotaku is lending (awarding?) it's considerable traffic to the blogger as soon as he links to them. After all, Brian only share a little news to get the entire scoop you have to link through.

In summary, I see no misuse of blogging at all here. In fact this linking through is what makes internet posts the conversation that it is. Kotaku and Gawker media at large can be chided a bit for submitting that post to Digg no doubt, but then they can always make the claim that it is their name power (Kotaku) which would get the story onto the front page in the first place. And any extra hits the blogger would see would be merely icing.

MS | March 27, 2007 9:00 AM

Thanks for the considered thoughts on this, MS.

For what its worth, I'm definitely aware of the knock-on effect of being linked from a major blog - but when the full story is summarized in the blog, there's really no reason to click through.

This happens surprisingly often - how often do you guys click through on a link on Joystiq when you visit it?

The site itself is designed to be sticky by providing enough information so you _don't_ click through, unless it's an in-depth article or list piece.

That's where I think things get tricky.

simonc | March 27, 2007 12:09 PM