Who Decides What You Get to See on the Internet?

Who decided what you get to see? Are YOU Digg Worthy? Is Mahalo really subjective?

Social Bookmarking and Human Powered Search Results are a phenomenon sweeping the Internet. Sites like Digg, that decide what content is most popular by the number of "diggs" (or votes) are allowing users to presumably visit Digg.com, find their favorite categories and locate "the best" content relevant to their interests. Mahalo is a "human edited search engine" meaning that the results you see are filtered by humans.

The Problem: I find that community driven web sites become a product of the most active community members (who are often a minority in terms of overall visitors to a site). Digg is a perfect example. Many great stories submitted to Digg don't see the light of day because of the huge community of self appointed moderators that bury stories they don't think are "digg worthy". As this minority of users achieves more and more moderation power, the promoted content may become less and less objective related to the views of the entire user base of the site.

Why this happens is that most Internet users are just that: users. They don't log in to web sites, don't create accounts and don't otherwise contribute to web sites. They are the people who implicitly trust that the activities of web site moderators and publishers accurately represent their interests.

DMOZ is another great example. Their editors are totally swamped, and TONS of great, relevant sites don't even get admitted to the directory.

As a company that creates niche specific, content driven social networking sites, we are always very concerned with this phenomenon. A good treatise on the subject is the tipping point, and it gives some good insights regarding the social dynamics of these phenomena (sp?)

So far, I think Google and MSN are still the most accurate, subject-correct search engines around. For now, I don't trust LARGE human edited or human moderated indexes. Because humans have their own agendas, are subjective, and cannot be trusted to represent the views of an entire market segment or demographic.

Lastly, in the case of a "human edited search engine" like Mahalo, I doubt that most subject matter experts will take time from their busy days to ensure that the most accurate results are being displayed for subjects like "nanocurcumin as a chemoprotective agent". This begs the question: "who is moderating our results" Is it someone intimate and familiar with their field? Or is it the only volunteer we could find to do the job?

The Solution? We believe that smaller, niche oriented web sites with a strong active community that includes subject matter experts can alleviate a lot of these concerns. And I think that creating many, many authoritative niche-specific, community driven sites will overcome some of these issues. We need to break away from the paradigm of large, monolithic; all-subjects-encompassing web sites, and focus on building profitable niches with subject matter experts and vibrant, active communities. Keeping communities smaller and including subject matter experts will keep content unique and accurate.