The communicative implications of software design choices in social news websites Andrew Hilts
CCT405 | Prof: Zaheer Baber Submitted: February 9, 2009 ______
This paper reviews literature about Internet ‘public spheres’ and information browsing behaviour and analyzes ‘social news’ websites based on earlier scholars’ findings. Reddit, Digg, and Slashdot are all compared in terms of information architecture and user behaviour. Their ability to encourage deliberation is assessed. Various practices for the improved facilitation of discourse are recommended in the conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
The experience of an argument between people can range from polite and orderly to rude and chaotic. The mediation of argumentation through technological means – such as the discussion forums on ‘social news’ websites – plays an important role in the functioning of a ‘public sphere’, where discussion is open and diverse opinions can encounter each other. How this mediation occurs and its consequences on discourse are areas of study that can help shape an understanding of the social dynamics of online communities. This paper will compare three popular social news websites (digg.com, slashdot.org, and reddit.com) to determine the similarities and differences between the sites’ representation of current news as well as the communicative implications of the designing for discourse.
In an earlier paper (Hilts 2008), contesting conceptions of an online ‘public sphere’ were surveyed; the utopian ‘ideal speech situation’ – where every agent is accorded a turn to speak and all politely come to a rational conclusion – was considered along with anarchic, disagreeing spaces that have been said to encourage democratic action. Digg.com, with its user-generated reflection of a homogeneous worldview through
1 its powerful ‘top users’ and ‘majority rule’ that often led to the discounting of viewpoints outside the mainstream, was determined to still function as a ‘counterpublic’, a seemingly unified group that espoused its marginalized viewpoints within a larger public arena, particularly with respect to intellectual property issues. Nevertheless, this sense of unity must not detract from various concerns such as voice-equality, the ease with which newcomers may use the system, and the variety of information present on the social news website.
That being addressed, this research paper seeks to answer the question: “Does the organization and classification of content on Digg, Reddit and Slashdot affect the site’s capacity to effectively function as a public sphere?” What are the consequences of the ways in which the websites are similar and different in this regard? The paper will conclude by recommending Practices that may heighten the ability for people to communally participate in social media web sites. An understanding of how people use, interact with, and are influenced to behave by technology – specifically websites – is required in order to determine what aspects of technologically mediated communication encourage participation in communal discussions and what are detrimental.
ONLINE DISCOURSE
The contemporary propensity of humans to actively and critically engage each other through electronic media can be analyzed using a psychological approach. Peter
Muhlberger argues that “self-sustenance” – with regards to political interest – “may be the key ingredient that would make a revitalized public sphere possible” (170) but adds the qualification that “a self-motivated interest in politics necessarily depends on being able to take a broad societal perspective, a complex ethical standpoint” (ibid). He goes on to
2 claim that many people must develop beyond naïve realism – the view that one’s beliefs are “self-evidently true” and that “those who disagree are either bad or mad” – in order to thoughtfully contribute to a discussion (ibid). From this, it can be inferred that a community of deliberative discussants would facilitate self-motivation and an appreciative consideration of differing opinions.
In an electronic community, such facilitation would likely come about through the practices of not only human users, but also the functionality of the electronic space itself.
Verbeek explains that “artefacts are not passive and inert entities. They actively co-shape what actors do” (125). He further states that Artefacts mediate ways of existence
(subjectivities) and experienced realities (objectivities) not because people told them to do so, but because the relation between humans and the world that comes about through them (140). Technological mediation can thus be seen as not merely an instrumental means to an end, but a polysemic relation brought about by users who interact with and shape the meaning of this “sociotechnical practice” (Shields in Disco 49). Agency is shared between human and nonhuman (Verbeek 125). It follows that the experience, messages, and meaning brought about through one’s use of technological media are determined in part by both the user’s unique behaviour and the design and functionality of the technology. However, "sociotechnical design elements may tend to support some kinds of social relationships between participants, but they do not effectively control the array of possible and even likely behaviour." (Kling and Courtright 223) It is therefore not implausible to suggest that software design may play a role in the shaping of agency and facilitation of self-motivation, though the discussion and use of the software are largely the expressions of human actors.
3 Theories that assign a somewhat selfish tendency to human agency in the process of communication would appear somewhat detrimental to the cause of reasoned and considerate deliberation. Indeed, it has been argued that “people attempt to use others as a means to some end. […] There may be large gaps in experience between one user and the other which leads to one being able to take advantage” (Shires 12). The anonymity of the
Internet is argued by Shires to facilitate such opportunistic behaviour. This can be detrimental to open and accommodating dialogue, which in Habermasian tradition, is a rational process:
The anonymous sociality of the Internet dramatically increases the unsteadiness of the construction of subjectivity in the online world, encouraging an emerging new identity or subject position, one that abandons the idea of the enlightenment individual with its claims to rationality and autonomy in line with postmodernist theory. (Bresnihan and Doyle, 389)
These arguments may help to explain why Digg members often downvote (and render hidden from view) those users not aware of certain shared cultural experiences unique to users of social news sites (Hilts 2008). Experiential divides and anonymity facilitate to impatient dismissal of ‘n00bs’, those newcomers unfamiliar with the conventions of the community which make up the social identity of the group. This identity is defined “in terms of group members’ cognitive representation of the group identity.” (Rogers and Lea
115) Indeed, in this model of group cohesion, when an inexperienced user reveals his or her lack of conventional knowledge, this may be interpreted as an exchange of interpersonal information, which “can act to the detriment of group cohesion” (115).
From this example, it can be seen that “as the number of unfit discussants on the Internet rises […] the actively engaged will find Internet discussions less valuable” (Muhlberger
166). Differing levels of experience within a standard internet discussion may jarringly
4 break up the logical flow of an argument and thus may be – for impatient denizens of the
“attention economy” – detrimental to deliberation. What kind of software design strategies can be utilized to ensure that deliberative discourse is encouraged while at the same time, allow newcomers to familiarize themselves with rational-critical debate and the conventions of social news communities?
In order to answer this and aforementioned questions, this study will analyze the taxonomic structure of Slashdot, Reddit and Digg, paying attention to such questions as:
Who determines the categories? Can articles simultaneously appear in two or more categories? Are categories fixed? What order do categories appear in? Questions pertaining to the structure of conversations around an article will also be considered:
What is the default structure for the arrangement of the conversation? Are their alternatives? How are disagreements, agreements, replies, and other discursive exchanges between humans dealt with technologically? What are the implications of these considerations?
Uddin and Janecek determined that “the traditional enumerative one-dimensional hierarchical classification system, when applied to web design […] (is) not capable of expressing the multi-dimensional properties and relationships of digital objects” (220).
They proposed a “faceted classification structure” that would classify digital documents
“into multiple categories organized from the bottom-up into a multidimensional taxonomy” (220). This approach to categorization can be a useful tool for analyzing the limitations and successes of web site content categorization in this study. Similarly, Ben
Syverson argues web technology that aims to authoritatively classify information results in a struggle over meaning within a hierarchical system that imposes a dominant,
5 rationalizing viewpoint that ignores the lessons of postmodernism’s heterogeneity (435).
When something is categorised, that piece of information may lose other meanings, effectively limiting conversation, discourse, and the possibility for debate that arises due to conflicting opinions and meaning. Indeed, Paul Virilio notes “when you speak in an echo chamber, your words come back immediately. That's all interactivity is!” (46)
Without careful structuring of data and interaction design, there is a risk that hypertext documents may consolidate and homogenize knowledge, closing discursive spaces.
BROWSING SOCIAL NEWS
When considering the various ways that a website allows for user interaction – specifically how information is accessed and presented – the site’s structure is not the only factor of importance; how users of a website interact with the site through their mindsets, goals, habits, psychological tendencies must be considered. One topic that broadly applies to all human web behaviour is how a user travels through the web, within a hypertext document, as well as from site A to site B and onwards. Usually, this requires the use of either a web search (query) or the act of browsing for information. (Wiesmen, van der Herik and Hasman 567; Feng, Jeusfeld and Hoppenbrouwers 97; Wu et al 2874;
Bodoff 69) In his article “Relevance for Browsing, Relevance for Searching”, David
Bodoff summarizes the various ways that humans browse for information. He cites Bates
(1989) when he defines browsing as “not having a focused need” (70); this is contrasted from searching, where a goal is required. Bodoff distinguishes two separate forms of browsing: active browsing (the engaged surveying of information in order to find something relevant) and passive browsing (keeping one’s eyes open for information)
(ibid). The structure of a web site can facilitate the activities of both these types of
6 browsers, though it is important to consider that different users have different needs for the same information (ibid); one may require an advanced, scientific explanation, while another may prefer less challenging language. Another still may prefer a video explanation. Nevertheless, there are certain informational characteristics that benefit every user, such as clarity (71). Bodoff concludes by stating “for information products, the enjoyable perusal is itself the consumption. […] relevance for browsers, unlike for focused searchers, may consider document characteristics that make the process more enjoyable ‘in itself.’” (74). Indeed, the pleasure of using a website that leads to a variety of interesting and relevant information is a main aspect of the operations of social news websites.
The majority of users of social media sites visit them not to submit content, but to find that which interests them. Indeed, visitors to the sites are greeted with each site’s
‘front page’; on Digg and Reddit this is a collection of the most recent, most popular stories that were submitted and voted upon by users. On Slashdot, editors select the best user-submitted stories and post them on the front page. On all these websites, the user is thus compelled to ‘scan’ the page, browse; looking for something that shares (or perhaps challenges) his/her interests (Bodoff 70). If the user has a more active browsing outlook – he/she vaguely knows what kind of information will be relevant at this time and desires to find it – there is the option of choosing from a variety of categories that will aid in focusing the browser’s quest for information.
On Digg, there are eight main categories (Figure 1), each containing several more specific subtopics. These categories are relatively static; their naming and hierarchical relationships are controlled by Digg’s administrators. On the other hand, Reddit’s
7 homepage initially presents nineteen categories, with a customizable drop-down list for favourite categories at the left end of the navigation and additional categorical choices at the right (Figure 2). These categories (unlike Digg’s) are user-defined and created; they are called ‘subreddits’. Users may subscribe, unsubscribe, or create their own subreddits;
Digg users can also unsubscribe, though it requires relatively deep navigation of user settings. This ability provides users with much more control over what information gets presented to them. On all three websites, content contributors choose a single category in which their story is classified upon its submission to the website. However, Slashdot
(Figure 3) works differently – users submit content, yet it is up to predetermined individuals known as moderators, to permanently assign categories to stories. Thus, moderators exercise the power of classification, and thus of presenting a story to a specific audience, and limiting visitors who are not interested from seeing it.
While Digg and Slashdot’s categories are ordered and maintained by specific individuals chosen by the institution, Reddit’s user-defined and controlled ‘subreddits’ do not have to abide by bureaucratic conventionality. As opposed to the generalized categories of Digg and Slashdot, on Reddit the possibilities for a multiplicity of meanings are evidenced through the various subreddits that can exist for similar topics. This loose categorization and lack of order may be detrimental to certain aspects of the user experience, as “navigational link labels clearly affect user performance – ambiguous link labels degrade comprehension and constrain browsing.” (Mobrand and Spyridakis 41)
Applying Mobrand and Spyridakis, Reddit’s competing categories of ‘funny’ and ‘humor’ may be less navigable than Digg’s single Offbeat category with its ‘comedy’ subsection.
However, Digg still exemplifies this risk for ambiguity (though Reddit does as well), in
8 that users create titles and descriptions for stories, often very quickly (in an attempt to be the ‘First’ to submit that particular item); there is no adopted standard or convention of writing titles. Some users attempt objectivity, while others express opinions loudly within the title (and description, in Digg’s case). As stories on these websites depend on votes to reach a mass audience, there may be a risk for sensationalist titles; this tendency has been lamented on Digg’s discussion boards (Digg Review: Mob Wisdom). Conversely,
Slashdot’s moderating system would presumably present a more standardized approach to titling. However, the arising question is whether clarity and convention should be prioritized at the expense of expressions of subjectivity and community; how can the two be balanced to ensure that all voices can be heard?
INFORMATION DENSITY
As stated above, the front page of each site presents the currently most popular (or in Slashdot’s case – the current editorial selections) stories. Based on observations of each web site’s front page, it appears that the number of stories featured on the page is inversely proportional to the number of words used to explain each story (Appendix A).
For example, Slashdot’s front page initially features 10 stories. As opposed to Digg and
Reddit – where the title of the story is a link to the story’s source – on Slashdot the story is the description; though there usually is a link to the source somewhere in the text. This user-written story is on average 105 words, in addition to a short title. Digg’s front page contains 15 stories, whose descriptions average 28 words, while Reddit has 25 stories on the front page, with no descriptions at all. These statistics correlate with the facility with which a user’s content may arrive on the front page. As Slashdot’s moderators work to choose interesting and topical stories, they wish to highlight these stories by devoting
9 larger areas of text and graphics – and thus screen real-estate and user attention to each story. At the other end of the spectrum, Reddit’s front page is a list of titles, an index of links; based on ethnographic evidence collected from user comments, it seems easier for a
‘typical’ ‘Redditor’ to reach the front page than the ‘typical’ ‘Digger’ (Digg User) or
Slashdotter (who must conform to editorial standards). Slashdot’s short stories may thus keep users from navigating to other sites, as an editor has provided the stories’ pertinent details on Slashdot.
This may encourage a higher rate of interaction among users; a smaller number of stories corresponding to a large amount of users can generate quite a bit of discussion.
However, from statistics obtained by Google, it appears as though traffic on each Slashdot page has more per-capita attention, than Digg and much less than Reddit. Specifically, each ‘Slashdotter’ visits only 5.33 pages within Slashdot, each ‘Digger’ 22.89 pages, and each ‘Redditor’ 60.76 pages (Appendix B). The web site with the least number of stories on its front page thus has many more visitors per page than the site with the most concentrated number of stories (Slashdot and Reddit, respectively). Another factor may be the speed at which new stories appear and old ones disappear from the front page.
Slashdot’s page is relatively static, with Reddit being more dynamic, and Digg’s exemplifying rapid change (Appendix C).
Therefore, as the rate of change of Slashdot and Reddit’s front page is significantly less than Digg’s, it can be inferred that the former two website’s users have more of a chance to see stories before they drift off into archival obscurity. This can lead to a more discursive community; more users, per-capita, see the same stories and thus have an opportunity to discuss. However, the average number of comments on a front-
10 page story on Slashdot, Reddit and Digg is, respectively 159.1, 229.1 and 40.6 (Appendix
D). Thus, while Slashdot has a more concentrated community, Reddit’s discussions have the most comments. This may be explained by the number of posts per user, as detailed further below. Digg stories have the least comments; it may be concluded that the website’s stories rise and fall too quickly for a relatively large discussion to occur, which is all the more remarkable considering that it has the largest number of page visitors.
DISCUSSIONS
In his doctoral dissertation about democratic information technologies, Nathaniel
Poor explains the workings of Slashdot’s discussion forums, and determines that “these user posts are where the community is formed with the shared and often chaotic discourse from hundreds of Voices.” (64) ‘Community’ may indeed be formed in Digg, Slashdot and
Reddit’s discussion forums, but what are the discursive tools provided to community members? The three websites have many commonalities regarding the interactive features
(un)available to users. While Digg and Reddit give all users the ability to ‘vote up’ or
‘vote down’ a given comment, Slashdot’s comments are moderated, just like its stories; however, experienced users can gain moderator status in this case, which is retained via the ‘metamoderation’ process, whereby moderations are also moderated, in an attempt to ensure intelligent and fair moderation (Poor 61). Nevertheless, all sites rank users’ comments. Authoring highly-rated comments is appealing the social news user’s ego; it is highly valued. For example, on Reddit and Slashdot, each user has a specific rating called
‘karma’, that is indicative of the positive points that have been awarded to that user’s comments. However, Karma may be taken too seriously; “Some users are called ‘karma whores,’ as they practice special tactics to raise their karma. One such tactic is to post funny
11 comments to a story very early on.” (Poor 62) This phenomenon is paralleled on Digg’s discussion boards; while its users do not have anything like karma, their comments that receive high points are still highly regarded. Humour is less divisive than highly-charged political opinions (Lee 395) and thus, users wishing for highly-rated comments may be less likely to express unpopular opinions in heated debates than humorous observations.
In addition to numerical points, Slashdot’s moderation provides contextualizing information for users scanning the discussion page (which often exceeds 250 comments in length). While there may be an initial risk of information overload due to the volume of text, this contextual information may help users to decide whether they would like to read the comment or not; comments may be marked as ‘insightful,’ ‘interesting,’ or ‘funny’
(Figure 4). This design choice seems to provide “orientation cues that help readers identify their current position and obtain an overview of the hypertext structure.”
(Mobrand and Spyridakis 44) There is nothing like this for ‘diggers’ or ‘redditors’, who must rely only on points awarded as an indicator of the community’s valuation of the comment. However, Reddit comments each have a hyperlink that leads users to a
‘permalink’ pertaining to that exact comment. Thus, users can refer to comments using this system and hopefully promote a more evolving conversation, as opposed to the reiteration of the same points by those who do not read all of the comments (which often arises the ire of heavy users).
Design choices that affect the layout of the page – how its elements are positioned and their prominence in relation to other elements – are often reflective of their communicative purposes in the three social media sites in question. For example, comments are contextualized and embedded with standardized meaning through the employment of certain coloration practices on Reddit, Digg and Slashdot. On all but the
12 latter, comments that obtain (by default) 10 negative votes then pass below the ‘viewing threshold’ and are rendered ‘buried’ – that is, the comment’s individual box area within the overall grid of comments is greyed-out; it blends into the background, the actual text of the comment is hidden and replaced with “below viewing threshold” (Figure 5). This software feat thus informs users of the website that these kinds of comments are not welcome, and will be ridiculed and hidden from view. On Slashdot, the system is different: as all comments are moderated, those receiving significant negative votes disappear from the discussion ‘thread’. Additionally, on Slashdot, comments that receive
4 or more points are displayed in full, and stand out on the page, due to that comment’s box area having a background-text contrast ratio that is greater than those comments receiving 3 points or less. The lesser-valued comments display only their first line, and must be clicked on by users in order to be fully viewed. It should be noted that Digg and
Reddit users must engage in a similar activity in order to view ‘buried’ comments. This
‘collaborative filtering’ system can be seen as a mass of subjectivities expressed in
‘objective’ numbers.
This aforementioned ‘objective’ information, in addition to factors such as the time that the comment was posted, and its position in the hierarchy of responses are all utilized in our three websites’ discussion boards to provide users with different options for the ordering of comments. By default, Digg and Slashdot both order their comments chronologically. This tendency often leads to “the first post syndrome, in which some people try to have the very first post to a brand new story.” (Poor 65) These comments often are mundane or egotistical self-congratulations for being the first poster. This kind of post is one way to ensure a widespread audience for one’s opinion in the face of other
13 hindering factors, such as the power relations in a website, or the favouring of certain views that may exclude others, as explained in Hilts (2008). Reddit also has this display option, and it and Digg can both display comments in an order based on the total number of up-votes. However, by default Reddit orders a story’s comments by a metric entitled
‘hot’ – it is essentially a comment-level version of the front-page algorithm; the currently most popular comments (getting the most up-votes at the time) are ranked at the top. Digg provides users with the option to sort comments this way, although Reddit also features the ‘controversial’ metric – comments receiving relatively large portions of up- and down-votes are ranked higher here. This metric is interesting from a deliberative discourse perspective, as it indicates areas in which consensus is contested, and could possibly provide a more fertile means of engaging in rational debate and forming new knowledge, as opposed to reinforcing set beliefs (Pappacharissi 266).
When comparing the different social media websites’ communities and software design – with specific focus on the software’s discursive possibilities – the length of comments and the length and number of its replies may be an interesting indicator of a conversation’s depth. To compare the different websites, each site’s most popular submissions pertaining to the closing of the copyright-infringement trial of Swedish file- sharing index web site The Pirate Bay were chosen. By isolating the comments from meta-information and navigational aids, the actual content of the discussion was filtered.
It was found that in this particular news story, Slashdot’s comments averaged 78 words each (though many comments were partially hidden, as they only had 3 or less points),
Reddit’s averaged 39 words, and Digg’s 34 words (Appendix E). These results posed the question, “why are Slashdot’s comments about twice as long as the other web sites?”
14 While there are surely an array of contributing factors to this, one may infer a connection between the aforementioned length of time that Slashdot stories stay on the front page, in comparison with Reddit and Digg. Without the pressure of a discussion’s vibrancy ending before one can think in detail about the subject at hand, it may be that ‘Slashdotters’ have more time to compose their contributions. This notion is evidenced by the fact that
‘Slashdotters’ also spend their time on the fewest different pages within their respective domain (as compared to Reddit and Digg), even though Slashdot appears to be more of a closed-community (see above).
CONTRIBUTOR TO COMMENT RATIO
Another indicator of a healthy discursive community is reciprocity (Dahlberg 326); people reply to each other’s statements. Thus, the average number of replies per initial
‘thread’ (topic starter) can be used as an indicator of the level of reciprocal discourse in a social news website. On its initial display, Slashdot’s comments had 13 threads, with 237 replies; 18.2 replies per thread. Reddit had 24 threads, with 176 initially loaded replies;
7.3 replies per thread. Digg had 50 initial threads, and after loading the replies, they totalled 124; 2.5 replies per thread (Appendix F). The fact that Digg’s discussion had only
2.5 replies per thread while having 50 initial threads may be a result of how its discussion forum is structured. Unlike the other two websites, all thread responses on Digg are initially hidden from view; they must be clicked to see them at all. From the statistics gathered, it may be inferred that the default hiding of replies hinders the traditional thread-reply hierarchical discussion. Indeed, some visitors will not post if they do not feel they will be responded to (Preece 221), or if the discussion’s design is too complicated
15 (213). Nevertheless, some Digg users expect users to read all of the replies; if a user posts an opinion already mentioned, he/she may be downvoted.
In addition to the amount of replies per thread, another statistic of interest is the number of unique contributors to number of comments. Slashdot’s discussion had 153 unique discussants, amounting to 1.6 comments per user; Reddit’ had 110 unique discussants with 1.8 comments per user; Digg had 132 unique discussants with 1.3 comments per user (Appendix G). Thus, while Slashdot’s discussion was more reciprocal
(each post has more replies), Reddit’s users contributed more to the discussion per capita.
Digg, on the other hand, featured a wide variety of initial threads, the majority of which may be seen more as declarative statements than invitations to discourse. However, the actual level of ‘discursivity’ of comments would require additional research to determine empirically.
On each site, there are undoubtedly many more site visitors ‘lurking’ – not posting, simply reading – some of whom do not feel a need to post (Preece 210). Others are still getting a sense of the community (211), feel they have nothing to say (212), or do not like the group dynamics (214). Preece recommends moderator and software aids to encourage these lurkers to post through the facilitation of expressing different viewpoints (216).
DEMOGRAPHICS
It is difficult to determine whether the unfolding of conversation on these web sites is influenced by culture or by software design. To consider this problem brings up issues regarding structure, agency, free will and determinism that are matters of philosophical and sociological debate (see Baber 1991). The structure of a web site cannot directly change people’s opinions; though the content therein may. How this content is
16 organized and presented – through valuation techniques and hierarchical arrangement – adds a certain authority to some opinions. Nevertheless, the valuation of the opinions themselves is done by human agents, whose sociocultural milieus play a role in influencing their subjectivities. We may correlate – though not prove any sort of causality
– the number of replies per user and per discussion thread with demographic information.
For instance, Google’s advertising surveys (see websites referenced) lead one to the conclusion that Reddit and Slashdot appear to share a similar audience; over 40% have a bachelor’s degree and are between 35-44 years old. 80% of ‘Redditors’ are male, while almost 90% of ‘Slashdotters’ are. ‘Diggers’ are more diverse; while the largest group of users have a bachelor’s degree (35%), are between 35-44 (30%) and are male (72%), its has more users with lower income, a less-than-college education, that are females, and are younger. It may be inferred that ‘Redditors’ and ‘Slashdotters’ are more inclined to discuss with each other as they are made up of a more homogeneous user-base (Sunstein
3). More research is required in this regard, to determine whether user homogeneity is directly correlated to the amount and quality of deliberative discourse.
KNOWLEDGE INTERACTION STUDIES
A defining architectural similarity of the three websites in this study is that stories and comments are displayed in a linear, text-based fashion. When dealing with a large amount of text, this is the most widely adopted convention. Numerous scholars have studied this method of informational arrangement and devised alternative means of representing knowledge. Ong et al (2005) experimented with a two-dimensional
‘knowledge map’, which represented categorical hierarchy as different layers of color.
Similar colours corresponded to similar levels of hierarchy (595). It was found that users
17 could better understand their position within a hierarchical category in relation to the whole database when using a map (ibid). One-dimensional linear text proved to cause information overload in the participants (ibid). They concluded that a combination of 2D and 1D information displays would maximize user efficiency in navigating a mass of structured information (ibid).
The user’s experience of categories is also explored by Wu et al, who attempt to bridge the gap between user freedom and information overload through their conception of ‘contextual multi-dimensional browsing’. This approach accepts the idea that users may not conceive of their browsing needs in clear-cut categories and that hierarchies may be too rigid (2875). Multi-dimensional browsing gives users the control to show and hide additional categories as they please, applying and unapplying information filters to suit their needs. These filters are organized in intuitive ways, and help the user to choose that which interests him/her the most.
Another intuitive approach to information organization is expressed by Kerne et al
(2008), who experimented with collage-making software CombinFormation, which allows users to add website addresses, images, and other information to a document that can serve as a reference point, leading to “creative ideation” (462). They mention that
“human information needs are not necessarily constant and convergent over the course of a search session.” (463) People are open to discovering new information if one comes upon something interesting. CombinFormation is designed to take into account that “the focus in information discovery tasks is not just on listing ideas, but further, on seeing new relationships among them. Emergence (of new ideas) means qualities come newly into existence as a result of novel combinations of elements.” (468) The combination of novel
18 elements, in the case of deliberative discussions online, could be the combination of differing viewpoints, or thoughtful comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
These studies indicate possible avenues of improvement for the discursive possibilities of the three websites in this study. For instance, Ong et al’s knowledge maps presents a glimpse for a future where the linear arrangement of text may be supplanted by new, perhaps more intuitive arrangements. The replies to comments in the web sites are hierarchical by nature, but perhaps these hierarchies could be more accessible and understandable through the introduction of another spatial dimension that may link a reply to others besides its parent. This linking of comments can be expressed through a multi- dimensional browsing or collage framework; a comment could – once clicked – display a dimension of context that could link the user to comments that make similar points, or those that draw interesting or contrasting parallels.
This contextualization could be accomplished through user or moderator ‘tagging’
– that is, users may add contextual links – and could provide greater access to a multiplicity of competing opinions, and hopefully, encourage more deliberative conversations. More voices could also be brought into the conversation if the information is more accessible: as recommended by Bodoff (70), perhaps stories could have the option of being tagged with different sources of the same information, expressed in a variety of ways (technical, introductory, visual, aural). If accommodations are made to encourage that multiple voices are heard, one can hope that a robust public sphere will eventually develop, through the facilitation of the self-motivation to participate in a discussion.
19 WORKS CITED
Baber, Zaheer. “Beyond the Structure/Agency Dualism: An Evaluation of Giddens’
Theory of Structuration.” Sociological Inquiry 61.2 (1991) : 219-230.
Bresnihan, N. and L. Doyle. “Sharing Places, enhancing spaces: an investigation into the
effects of mobile networking technologies on physical communities.” Human
Perspectives in the Internet Society: Culture, Psychology and Gender. Eds. K.
Morgan, C.A. Brebbia, J. Sanchez and A. Voiskounsky. Southampton, Boston: WIT
Press, 2004. 387-396.
Bodoff, David. “Relevance for Browsing, Relevance for Searching”. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 57.1 (2006) : 69-86.
Burnett, Gary and Paul T. Jaeger. “Small worlds, lifeworlds, and information: the
ramifications of the information behaviour of social groups in public policy and the
public sphere.” Information Research. 13.2 (2008): Online at:
Disco, Cornelis. “Back to the Drawing Board: Inventing a Sociology of Technology.”
Inside the Politics of Technology. Ed. Hans Harbers. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2005. 29-60.
Feng, Ling, Manfred A. Jeusfeld and Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers. “Beyond information
searching and browsing: acquiring knowledge from digital libraries.” Information
Processing and Management 41 (2005): 97-120.
Hilts, Andrew. “Digg.com: An online public sphere?” Term Paper for CCT400.
Mississauga: University of Toronto Mississauga, 2008.
20 Kerne, Andruid, Steven M. Smith, Euynee Koh, Hyun Choi and Ross Graeber. "An
Experimental Method for Measuring the Emergence of New Ideas in Information
Discovery." International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 24.5 (2008) :
460-477.
Lee, Hangwoo. “Dealing With Flaming in an Online Forum.” The Sociological Quarterly
26 (2005) : 385-403.
Miwa, Makiko & Norkio Kando. “A Naïve Ontology for Concepts of Time and space for
Searching and Learning.” Information Research. 12.2 (2007): Online at:
Mobrand, Kathryn A and Jan H Spyridakis. "Explicitness of local naviagtional links:
comprehension, perceptions of use, and browsing behavior". Journal of Information
Science 33 (2007): 41-61
Muhlberger, Peter. “Human Agency and the Revitalization of the Public Sphere.”
Political Communication. 22.2 (2005): 163-178.
Ong, Thian-Huat, Hsinchun Chen, Wai-ki Sung, Bin Zhu. "Newsmap: a knowledge map
for online news". Decision Support Systems 39 (2005). 583-597.
Papacharissi, Zizi. “Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential
of online political discussion groups”. New Media Society 6.2 (2004): 259-283.
Poor, Nathaniel D. Democratic Technologies: Openness, Decentralization, and the
Success of Information Systems. Diss. University of Michigan, 2004.
Rogers, P. and M. Lea. “Cohesion in online groups.” Human Perspectives in the Internet
Society: Culture, Psychology and Gender. Eds. K. Morgan, C.A. Brebbia, J.
Sanchez and A. Voiskounsky. Southampton, Boston: WIT Press, 2004. 115-124.
21 Selwyn, Neil. “Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of
computers." Poetics. 34 (2006): 273–292
Shires, J. “The Ontology of Internet User Interactions.” Human Perspectives in the
Internet Society: Culture, Psychology and Gender. Ed. K. Morgan, J. Sanchez, C.A.
Brebbia and A. Voiskounsky. Southhampton, Boston: WIT Press, 2004. 11-20.
Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Syverson, Ben. “Meaning without Borders: likn and Distributed Knowledge.” Leonardo
40.5 (2007) : 433-438.
Uddin, Mohammad Nasir and Paul Janecek. “Faceted classification in web information
architecture: A framework for using semantic web tools.” The Electronic Library.
25.2 (2007): 219-233.
Verbeek, Peter-Paul. “Artifacts and Attachment: A Post-Script Philosophy of Mediation.”
Inside the Politics of Technology. Ed. Hans Harbers. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2005. 125-146.
Virilio, Paul, Sylvère Lotringer and Michael Taormina. "After Architecture: A
Conversation." Grey Room 3 (2001): 32-53.
Wiesman F, H.J. van den Herik and A. Hasman. “Information Retrival by
Metabrowsing.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 2004. 565-578.
Wu, Ling-Ling, Ya-Lan Chuang and Yuh-Jzer Joung. "Contextual multi-dimensional
browsing". Computers in Human Behaviour 24 (2008) : 2873-2888.
22 WEBSITES REFERENCED
Digg.
Digg. “Digg Review: Mob Wisdom.” Digg. 3 September 2007.
Digg. “The Final Day of The Pirate Bay Trial | TorrentFreak.” Digg. 3 March 2009.
k>. 5 April 2009. Google. “Site profile: digg.com.” Google Ad Planner. &identifier=digg.com&geo=US>. 5 April 2009. Google. “Site profile: reddit.com.” Google Ad Planner. &identifier=reddit.com&geo=US>. 5 April 2009. Google. “Site profile: slashdot.org.” Google Ad Planner. shdot.org&geo=US&trait_type=1>. 5 April 2009. Reddit Reddit. “Digg User: Dude, “normal people” haven’t gotten anything on the front page or this site since 2006.” Reddit. 14 March 2009. ople_havent_gotten/>. 23 Reddit. “Pirate Bay Trial Day 10: Prosecution's Closing Arguments.” Reddit. secutions_closing/>. 5 April 2009. Slashdot Slashdot. “A Short Summary Following the Pirate Bay Trial.” Slashdot. 4 March 2009. 2009. 24 APPENDICES A: Story descriptions Digg Reddit Slashdot Number of front page stories 15 25 10 Number of words in descriptions 421 N/A 1053 Words / story description 28 N/A 105 B: Page Viewings (obtained from Google; see websites referenced) Digg Reddit Slashdot Number of Total Page Views 190000000 79000000 28000000 Number of Total Visitors 8300000 1300000 1500000 Page Views / Visitor 22.89 60.76 18.67 C: Front Page Stories It was subjectively determined that Digg’s front page changes at a more rapid rate by watching a video created out of snapshots taken of each site’s front page every 10 minutes. The snapshooting was programmed by the author, using Applescript and the open-source software Paparazzi! Please consult the link below to watch the video: Digg, Reddit and Slashdot Frontpages. D: Story Comments (sample taken at beginning of websites’ section in snapshot video mentioned above.) # of comments per story Digg Reddit Slashdot #1 on Frontpage 9 208 21 #2 on Frontpage 9 329 37 #3 on Frontpage 29 153 27 #4 on Frontpage 65 267 102 #5 on Frontpage 21 148 78 #6 on Frontpage 55 40 220 #7 on Frontpage 74 631 113 #8 on Frontpage 27 357 63 #9 on Frontpage 67 16 863 #10 on Frontpage 50 142 67 Total 406 2291 1591 Average 40.6 229.1 159.1 E: Comment Length Digg Reddit Slashdot Number of words in discussion 1703 7895 19529 Number of comments 50 200 250 Number of words / comment 34.06 39.48 78.12 F: Comment Replies Digg Reddit Slashdot 25 Number of Threads 50 24 13 Number of Replies 124 176 237 Replies / Thread 2.5 7.3 18.2 G: User Comments Digg Reddit Slashdot Number of unique discussants 132 110 153 Number of comments 173 200 250 Comments / unique discussant 1.31 1.8 1.63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Digg story categories Figure 2: Reddit story categories Figure 3: Slashdot story categories Figure 4: Slashdot comment labels 26 Figure 5: Digg and Reddit comment viewing threshold Digg: Reddit: 27