Should Google Include Social Bookmarking Sites?

[skitzzo]

Search Engine Journal recently wrote an article quoting pieces of a debate that's sprung up about digg (and more generically, the social bookmarking sites) being included in google's index.

Here are the arguments:

Allen Stern:

My belief is that this is not enough to warrant a listing in Google. Since at its most basic sense Digg only offers a link to the actual story, then that story should occupy that position within Google, not the Digg link. I believe content publishers actually lose the chance to see that visitor because the person has to click twice and even understand that they must do that. And I am talking about mainstream non-diggers now, not the group who already understands what Digg is for.

William Burn:

Digg.com is acting as a gateway to the great content which would (usually) have been lost in Google’s monolithic index, never to be found or stumbled upon by searchers. Additionally, as a counter to his “the person has to click twice and even understand that they must do that” statement, the Digg.com interface is very easy to use, it’s almost an exact clone of a Google result (a big blue link/title with description underneath) so the user will already be familiar with it, as a result the user would not be confused by it and will find their way to the content they were looking for; that’s if the content still appeals to them after reading the accompanying description.

Personally, I am a bit conflicted on this issue. Digg obviously has the ability to provide extra search engine exposure for content. If said content is on a site that doesn't rank well in the SE's then the Digg listing can help guide traffic to the content.

However, as Allen said, Digg is just listing a sentence or two of the content. That's not nearly enough and really that listing shouldn't come before the actual content that Digg is pointing to. So, IMO google and the other SE's should figure out a way to rank the original content before Digg's listing, perhaps with the Digg listing (and the subsequent discussion on the topic) as a sub-listing. This could be done for any and all of the major social bookmarking sites that link to that specific story.

What do you think?

[skitzzo]

Just as a follow up, here's an example of what I DON'T like happening and why I think a Digg listing should be listed below the original content.

Very often diggers repost all of the original content in the comment section of the digg listing "in case the site goes down."

For example, look at this digg listing : http://digg.com/tech_news/Top_10_Google_Myths

The original content is basically plagiarized by a commenter and if someone comes to that page before they go to the original content source, they likely won't continue on to the actual article.

[A.N.Onym]

Well, Google shows another story for "google myths" in the SERPs, so there is no problem with this one, at least.

If someone likes the article being published on Digg, then he will follow to the site (if he finds the way, that is). I don't see this as a huge problem.

[longcall911]

From a searcher point of view, I'm with skitzzo. Show me the original content and the digg page as a secondary.

Otherwise, we return to the days like those when directories had 30% of the top 10 spots which in my view (as a searcher) is frustrating. No offense to directory owners :-)

/*tom*/

[A.N.Onym]

Well, yes, from a searchers point of view I am with you. But.

If a Digg homepage outranks your page, who may be getting links from other diggers and from your own site, then you are in trouble and maybe the searcher is better off staying at Digg, than at your low profile website. If (s)he wants to see your website, (s)he will.

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by A.N.Onym

Well, yes, from a searchers point of view I am with you. But.

If a Digg homepage outranks your page, who may be getting links from other diggers and from your own site, then you are in trouble and maybe the searcher is better off staying at Digg, than at your low profile website. If (s)he wants to see your website, (s)he will.

Digg outranks a lot of decent sites. You aren't saying that if digg outranks your site that the user would be better off going to digg than to your site are you?

[A.N.Onym]

Well, as I said, if the visitor liked the article (even if completely reprinted at Digg), he'll find me (by clicking on the link).

In a way, I shouldn't mind Digg outranking my site. Luckily, only a couple of posts have been dugg (by several people) and there's no hope my dugg story may get popular on Digg.

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by A.N.Onym

Well, as I said, if the visitor liked the article (even if completely reprinted at Digg), he'll find me (by clicking on the link).

I'm with ya now. Basically if your article is crap and they go to digg they save time by not going to your site.

That's a valid point I guess, I'd just rather some Digger not steal ALL of my content. I'm sure though that if that happened I probably would have some recourse with the Digg administration (whether that's deleting the comment or whatever).

[A.N.Onym]

Well, technically speaking, publishing your content in Digg comments is pushing boundaries of copyrights. You are interested in your digg entry being popular and more people clicking through to your site, right? A snippet or two (or a quote) may well worth including in a comment (or better yet in a description) to get more click throughs.

But yes, completely copying the post sounds like some violation, which should become more common and tolerable in the future, I suspect (with all these open source, power to the customer, movements).

[Sorvoja]

The value of the digg comments are often adds additional value to the linked source.