I'm a little left behind in the times here and just recently noticed how many bloggers are using "tweets" over "diggs". Is Twitter the most effective of the two?
In terms of traffic, I think Twitter has the current edge. Digg is getting dugg less and less.
Both can be helpful. But Digg has generally been going downhill; some say for five years already. I stay open to new and upcoming venues. Facebook is giant, and with the release of "The Social Network" a couple weeks ago, it's only going to grow more. MySpace, practically dead and buried, unless you're in a band. And on and on it goes. I'm waiting for the next giant to get a foothold by year's end. Anyone want to guess what it's going to be?
I am using both from past 1 year, i dont think we can say one is better than other, it also depend on how much you are getting response from each site users.
Yeah Digg is really great portal to share news but can not compare to twitter.
I thin it depends upon the subject of your blog and the network of friends in twitter. If ur friends are interested in subject you can get high traffic. Thats way you can get more traffic that digg.
I really donn't konw how to promote my website at twitter or digg?
Very nice. I never notice that before, I will insist on useing the digg and twitter. Frankly, nobody visits my website, gigxon.com, from twitter or digg,although I have do that for one month
With Twitter, you can build a million dollar company too. It's all about branding yourself, and staying engaged with your customers in building quality relationships...
If you have a lot of followers, then yes.
I think Twitter is more effective, because you don't have to enter a captcha for every tweet you make, and it also boosts your SEO. With DIGG, you have to delect the category which you want to submit your links to, which is time consuming. And, with Twitter, you can setup 3rd party useful applications, such as HootSuite, or TwitterFeed, to auto post to Twitter, and increase traffic instantly, versus DIGG, that you have to solve a captcha for everytime...
Seeing that Twitter seems more active, it seems like it's more effective. I'd use both, however.
Very interesting you ask! I just did an experiment with this. I bought that tweet adder software and waited till I had about 2000 followers. Then I installed TwitterTools for wordpress.
Since that time, I average about 5-8% of my followers visit the article. So for example, if I had 1000 followers, I would get 50 to 80 visitors per tweet (wordpress auto tweets for each new blog post).
I have a friend who has 40K followers who swears he gets 20% visitors/per tweet. I'm skeptical of that though. I think 5% is average.
twitter has the traffic yea, but theres one huge advantage digg has i think. High PR backlink
I'm not having much success on Twitter and wonder if I should change how I use it. Right now my posts are automatically updated and sent out (post header and link to my site). But with this auto update they don't have hash# tags and I wonder if that means no one can find them (or they're less searchable on Twitter). Would it be more effective to turn off the feed and manually send out the posts with hash tags?
in my opinion, i think twitter is more effective in traffic but no luck with seo
That is if your article get dugg. Otherwise its pretty useless...as you will get 0 traffic too all the time.
I think Digg and Twitter are different platforms, but Twitter when used right can get you a list of interested users, which is what it is great for
Twiiter is better than Digg for effective marketing purposes
So far Twitter has proven to be one of the best for IM but you need to generate a relationship with your followers. Give them something good and they will appreciate it.
next page →