<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Adam Sherk &#187; Digg</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adamsherk.com/tag/digg/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adamsherk.com</link>
	<description>News media. Audience development. SEO and social media marketing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:30:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.adamsherk.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Survey: Twitter Less than 1% of Traffic to Newspapers and Magazines; Facebook 1%</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/twitter-traffic-to-news-sites/</link>
		<comments>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/twitter-traffic-to-news-sites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:35:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Sherk</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsherk.com/?p=1178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For my presentation on Twitter Marketing Tactics at SMX West this week I wanted to get a sense of just how much traffic Twitter is driving to major news sites. So I conducted an informal poll of 10 US newspaper and magazine sites that Define works with or I am friendly with. The surveyed group [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsherk.com%2Fsocial-media%2Ftwitter-traffic-to-news-sites%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsherk.com%2Fsocial-media%2Ftwitter-traffic-to-news-sites%2F&amp;source=adamsherk&amp;style=normal&amp;service=bit.ly" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>For my presentation on Twitter Marketing Tactics at <a href="http://searchmarketingexpo.com/west">SMX West</a> this week I wanted to get a sense of just how much traffic Twitter is driving to major news sites. So I conducted an informal poll of 10 US newspaper and magazine sites that <a href="http://www.definess.com">Define</a> works with or I am friendly with.</p>
<p>The surveyed group included a mix of sites covering general and breaking news as well as specific topics such as lifestyle, sports or entertainment. Most organizations prefer to keep their figures private so I’m not able to share the actual sites but they are all well-known brands. I looked at referral data for 2008, 2009 and 2010 to-date and for comparison also included Facebook and Digg.</p>
<p>So what percentage of total site traffic came from Twitter and the other social sites? Here are the group averages:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamsherk/4399983123/" title="Twitter, Facebook and Digg to newspaper and magazine sites by adamsherk, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4399983123_8180ed238f.jpg" width="500" height="337" alt="Twitter, Facebook and Digg to newspaper and magazine sites" /></a><br />
<span id="more-1178"></span><br />
To-date in 2010 Twitter represents an average of 0.7% of total site traffic.</p>
<p>10 newspaper and magazines sites is not a sufficient sample so take this survey for what it is, but the data does provide a rough idea of what major publishers are experiencing. Among the surveyed sites the highest Twitter percentage was 2.9% but the majority fell below 1%. The highs for Facebook and Digg were 2% and 7.2% respectively. The Digg percentages varied the most with straight news sites faring best.</p>
<p>Some notes:</p>
<ul>
<li>While all of the surveyed sites have some form of social media strategy none of them are doing as much as they could be. So these figures represent the experiences of typical news sites, not ones that have fully dialed in SMM.</li>
<p></br></p>
<li>Despite the low percentages, to-date this year Twitter and Facebook are top 25 referrers for all of the sites and top 10 referrers for most. It is interesting that a top 10 referrer can represent such a small percentage of total site traffic. But since total monthly traffic for most of the group is in the millions, tens of millions or more those small percentages do represent substantial numbers. And if social media is bringing in traffic that the sites might not have otherwise received that’s a nice bump.</li>
<p></br></p>
<li>Well-established brands still get a large portion of their traffic via direct navigation. Among the sites surveyed the figures ranged from 30-60%. Partnerships with other large content sites and cross-network promotions were another major driver.</li>
<p></br></p>
<li>Natural search engine referrals ranged from about 10% to over 40% and Google.com was the #1 or #2 referring domain for nearly every site. So despite all the attention that social media deservedly gets, search is still its daddy.</li>
<p></br></p>
<li>It is interesting that Digg is trending down this year. Not every site in the group was a natural fit for Digg and we are still in Q1 2010 so it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions. But even among the sites that do very well in Digg the numbers have dropped.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>REQUEST:</strong></p>
<p>I’d like to expand the size of the survey group, so if any newspaper or magazine professionals out there are willing to share their percentages it will be much appreciated. You can contact me via <a href="http://www.adamsherk.com/contact/">this form</a> or direct message me on <a href="http://twitter.com/adamsherk">Twitter</a>. Your anonymity will be maintained. Alternatively if anyone is willing to share their figures publicly please leave a comment below. Thanks!</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/social-media-visitor-loyalty/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Social Media Visitors More Loyal But Still a Very Small Percentage of Site Traffic'>Social Media Visitors More Loyal But Still a Very Small Percentage of Site Traffic</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/publishing/hitwise-news-media-search-traffic/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Hitwise Reports News and Media&#8217;s Share of Search-Referred Traffic Declining'>Hitwise Reports News and Media&#8217;s Share of Search-Referred Traffic Declining</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/most-popular-mlb-teams-twitter-and-facebook/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Most Popular MLB Teams on Twitter and Facebook'>The Most Popular MLB Teams on Twitter and Facebook</a></li>
</ol></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/twitter-traffic-to-news-sites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Social Media Super Bowl: Which Team Has More Reach?</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/nfl-social-media-super-bowl/</link>
		<comments>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/nfl-social-media-super-bowl/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:31:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Sherk</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsherk.com/?p=970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints will meet in Miami for Super Bowl XLIV. NFL analysts and sports writers now have two weeks to dissect the matchup, talk about players and schemes and come up with good storylines. But I’m here to look at what really matters – which team has more reach [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="post_image_link" href="http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/nfl-social-media-super-bowl/" title="Permanent link to Social Media Super Bowl: Which Team Has More Reach?"><img class="post_image alignnone" src="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/electric-football.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Post image for Social Media Super Bowl: Which Team Has More Reach?" /></a>
</p><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsherk.com%2Fsocial-media%2Fnfl-social-media-super-bowl%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsherk.com%2Fsocial-media%2Fnfl-social-media-super-bowl%2F&amp;source=adamsherk&amp;style=normal&amp;service=bit.ly" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>So the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints will meet in Miami for Super Bowl XLIV. NFL analysts and sports writers now have two weeks to dissect the matchup, talk about players and schemes and come up with good storylines. But I’m here to look at what really matters – which team has more reach via social media?</p>
<p>Now we all know that social media isn’t a numbers game &#8211; it’s not just about reach, it’s about making the most of your connections. Furthermore it’s not possible to fully quantify reach across all social media, especially since that brings up the discussion of what should or shouldn’t be considered “social media.” So I’m going to gloss over all of that and just look at four things, one for each quarter in the Super Bowl. <span id="more-970"></span></p>
<p><strong>1st Quarter: Blog mentions</strong><br />Two days after the conference championships, which team is being blogged about more?</p>
<p><a href="http://blogsearch.google.com/">Google Blog Search</a> has 519,933 total results for “Indianapolis Colts” and 20,776 in the past week.  For “New Orleans Saints” it’s 726,855 total and 31,215 in the past week.</p>
<p>On <a href="http://www.icerocket.com/">Icerocket</a> the Colts have 24,526 total / 2,466 past week, and the Saints have 29,603 total / 3,666 past week.</p>
<p>And <a href="http://technorati.com/">Technorati</a> is showing 4,973 posts related to the Colts and 6,178 for the Saints.</p>
<p><strong>Advantage: SAINTS</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet-small.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-980" title="saints-helmet-small" src="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet-small.jpg" alt="New Orleans Saints helmet" width="98" height="83" /></a></p>
<p>_________________</p>
<p><strong>2nd Quarter: Digg</strong><a href="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet-small.jpg"><br /> </a>Ok, which team has seen the most activity on Digg? According to <a href="http://digg.com/search?s=Search+Digg">Digg’s search tool</a> 1,549 Colts articles have been submitted, with only eight being promoted to the front page and three receiving more than 500 diggs. That compares with 1,645 articles submitted, 11 promoted and two with 500+ diggs for the Saints.</p>
<p><strong>Advantage: SAINTS</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet-small.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-980" title="saints-helmet-small" src="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet-small.jpg" alt="New Orleans Saints helmet" width="98" height="83" /></a></strong></p>
<p>…At the half, the Saints head into the locker room ahead. Can Peyton Manning and the Colts pull out another come from behind victory?</p>
<p>_________________</p>
<p><strong>3rd Quarter: Facebook</strong><br /> Facebook offers one of the best ways for teams to engage with their fan base, so which team is making the most of it? As of today the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/colts">Colts’ official Facebook page</a> has 249,481 fans and their wall posts are getting a good amount of “likes” and comments. But from what I can see, and I searched with both Facebook and Google, the Saints do not have an official page. There are several unofficial pages, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Orleans-Saints/154083913432">the largest one</a> with 368,365 fans, but since the Saints appear to be missing the opportunity to engage Facebook users in an official capacity, this is a major fumble.</p>
<p><strong>Advantage: COLTS</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/colts-helmet-small.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-983" title="colts-helmet-small" src="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/colts-helmet-small.jpg" alt="Indianapolis Colts helmet" width="98" height="83" /></a></strong></p>
<p>_________________</p>
<p><strong>4th Quarter: Twitter</strong><br /> It gets worse on Twitter – from what I can see neither team has an official profile. So here we’ve got the equivalent of one team throwing an interception and then the other giving it right back.</p>
<p>There are several unofficial Twitter profiles for each team run by fans and media sites, but I could not find any official accounts. <a href="http://twitter.com/noscom">@NOScom</a> comes close for the Saints, but this appears to be run by the people managing the team’s website, not the team itself. (Please correct me if I’m wrong).</p>
<p>Too bad the teams aren’t choosing to directly engage their fans via Twitter.</p>
<p>How about the players? Twitter-athletes.com currently lists profiles for six Colts players and 15 Saints players. Plus I suppose the Saints can count <a href="http://twitter.com/kIMKARDASHIAN">Kim Kardashian</a> as a &#8220;spokesperson&#8221; of sorts. <img src='http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>So the Saints have a small edge here, but without an official presence from either team I&#8217;m calling this quarter a tie.</p>
<p><strong>Advantage: NONE</strong></p>
<p>_________________</p>
<p><strong>WINNER:<br /></strong></p>
<p>Despite what looked like a Colts comeback, after a poor 4th quarter by both teams the winner of the Social Media Super Bowl is:</p>
<p><strong>THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong><br /> <a href="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-984" title="New Orleans Saints helmet" src="http://www.adamsherk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/saints-helmet.jpg" alt="New Orleans Saints helmet" width="210" height="179" /></a></p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to see how these figures increase as the hype builds over the next couple of weeks. Hopefully we’ll see some creative use of social media by both the teams and some of the players. And good luck to both teams in Super Bowl XLIV.</p>
<p>P.S. Vikings fans, I feel your pain. You had it.</p>
<p><em>Photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevensnodgrass/2969578620/">Steven Snodgrass</a> (it&#8217;s a Creative Commons photo on Flickr, but I couldn&#8217;t get WordPress to link to it directly above).</em></p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/most-popular-nfl-teams-twitter-facebook/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Most Popular NFL Teams on Twitter and Facebook'>The Most Popular NFL Teams on Twitter and Facebook</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/most-popular-nba-teams-twitter-facebook/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Most Popular NBA Teams on Twitter and Facebook'>The Most Popular NBA Teams on Twitter and Facebook</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/publishing/top-10-posts-of-2009/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: My Top 10 Posts of 2009 on News Media, SEO and Social Media'>My Top 10 Posts of 2009 on News Media, SEO and Social Media</a></li>
</ol></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/nfl-social-media-super-bowl/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Most Buried News Sites on Digg</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/most-buried-news-sites-on-digg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/most-buried-news-sites-on-digg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Sherk</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsherk.com/?p=335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s no secret that mainstream news sites are experiencing increased exposure on social news sites like Digg. Back in March Soshable noted that 46% of the Digg front page is controlled by 50 websites. Major news sites have seen strong increases in social media referral traffic over the past couple years, and Digg continues to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;">
			<a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsherk.com%2Fsocial-media%2Fmost-buried-news-sites-on-digg%2F"><br />
				<img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamsherk.com%2Fsocial-media%2Fmost-buried-news-sites-on-digg%2F&amp;source=adamsherk&amp;style=normal&amp;service=bit.ly" height="61" width="50" /><br />
			</a>
		</div>
<p>It’s no secret that mainstream news sites are experiencing increased exposure on social news sites like Digg. Back in March Soshable noted that <a href="http://soshable.com/digg-whitelisted-sites/">46% of the Digg front page is controlled by 50 websites</a>.</p>
<p>Major news sites have seen strong increases in social media referral traffic over the past couple years, and Digg continues to be among the top referrers. But I was curious what kind of push back some of these sites might be experiencing from Digg users.</p>
<p>Using di66.net’s list of the <a href="http://di66.net/top-sites-30d-by-posts.html">top sources in Digg in the past 30 days</a>, I pulled out 22 general news sites from the top 100 or so sources. Then using Digg’s <a href="http://digg.com/search">advanced search</a> I checked how many submissions from each domain had been buried. <span id="more-335"></span></p>
<p><strong>CNN wins the prize for the most buried news site, with Yahoo News not too far behind:</strong></p>

<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-1-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-1">
<thead>
	<tr class="row-1 odd">
		<th class="column-1"></th><th class="column-2">Site</th><th class="column-3">Buried</th>
	</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
	<tr class="row-2 even">
		<td class="column-1">1</td><td class="column-2">cnn.com</td><td class="column-3">3064</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-3 odd">
		<td class="column-1">2</td><td class="column-2">news.yahoo.com</td><td class="column-3">2723</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-4 even">
		<td class="column-1">3</td><td class="column-2">news.bbc.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">1580</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-5 odd">
		<td class="column-1">4</td><td class="column-2">nytimes.com</td><td class="column-3">1500</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-6 even">
		<td class="column-1">5</td><td class="column-2">huffingtonpost.com</td><td class="column-3">1311</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-7 odd">
		<td class="column-1">6</td><td class="column-2">msnbc.msn.com</td><td class="column-3">1220</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-8 even">
		<td class="column-1">7</td><td class="column-2">reuters.com</td><td class="column-3">1105</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-9 odd">
		<td class="column-1">8</td><td class="column-2">foxnews.com</td><td class="column-3">889</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-10 even">
		<td class="column-1">9</td><td class="column-2">washingtonpost.com</td><td class="column-3">749</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-11 odd">
		<td class="column-1">10</td><td class="column-2">abcnews.go.com</td><td class="column-3">611</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-12 even">
		<td class="column-1">11</td><td class="column-2">latimes.com</td><td class="column-3">423</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-13 odd">
		<td class="column-1">12</td><td class="column-2">usatoday.com</td><td class="column-3">417</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-14 even">
		<td class="column-1">13</td><td class="column-2">guardian.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">403</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-15 odd">
		<td class="column-1">14</td><td class="column-2">dailymail.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">387</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-16 even">
		<td class="column-1">15</td><td class="column-2">telegraph.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">373</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-17 odd">
		<td class="column-1">16</td><td class="column-2">online.wsj.com</td><td class="column-3">289</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-18 even">
		<td class="column-1">17</td><td class="column-2">timesonline.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">260</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-19 odd">
		<td class="column-1">18</td><td class="column-2">time.com</td><td class="column-3">258</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-20 even">
		<td class="column-1">19</td><td class="column-2">chicagotribune.com</td><td class="column-3">234</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-21 odd">
		<td class="column-1">20</td><td class="column-2">independent.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">114</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-22 even">
		<td class="column-1">21</td><td class="column-2">upi.com</td><td class="column-3">105</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-23 odd">
		<td class="column-1">22</td><td class="column-2">newsweek.com</td><td class="column-3">70</td>
	</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<p>Of course some news sites have a lot more content submitted to Digg than others, so it stands to reason that sites with more submissions will have more buries. So I also looked up the total submissions for each, and ranked the news sites by percentage of submissions that were buried. </p>
<p><strong>CNN and Yahoo News are still the most buried news sites by percentage of content, but ABC News and MSNBC are pretty close</strong>:</p>

<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-2-no-1" class="wp-table-reloaded wp-table-reloaded-id-2">
<thead>
	<tr class="row-1 odd">
		<th class="column-1"></th><th class="column-2">Site</th><th class="column-3">Buries</th><th class="column-4">Total Submitted</th><th class="column-5">Percentage</th>
	</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
	<tr class="row-2 even">
		<td class="column-1">1</td><td class="column-2">cnn.com</td><td class="column-3">3064</td><td class="column-4">58360</td><td class="column-5">5.25%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-3 odd">
		<td class="column-1">2</td><td class="column-2">news.yahoo.com</td><td class="column-3">2723</td><td class="column-4">54621</td><td class="column-5">4.99%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-4 even">
		<td class="column-1">3</td><td class="column-2">abcnews.go.com</td><td class="column-3">611</td><td class="column-4">12427</td><td class="column-5">4.92%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-5 odd">
		<td class="column-1">4</td><td class="column-2">msnbc.msn.com</td><td class="column-3">1220</td><td class="column-4">25136</td><td class="column-5">4.85%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-6 even">
		<td class="column-1">5</td><td class="column-2">huffingtonpost.com</td><td class="column-3">1311</td><td class="column-4">31169</td><td class="column-5">4.21%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-7 odd">
		<td class="column-1">6</td><td class="column-2">foxnews.com</td><td class="column-3">889</td><td class="column-4">24138</td><td class="column-5">3.68%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-8 even">
		<td class="column-1">7</td><td class="column-2">usatoday.com</td><td class="column-3">417</td><td class="column-4">14298</td><td class="column-5">2.92%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-9 odd">
		<td class="column-1">8</td><td class="column-2">dailymail.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">387</td><td class="column-4">13313</td><td class="column-5">2.91%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-10 even">
		<td class="column-1">9</td><td class="column-2">upi.com</td><td class="column-3">105</td><td class="column-4">3715</td><td class="column-5">2.83%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-11 odd">
		<td class="column-1">10</td><td class="column-2">washingtonpost.com</td><td class="column-3">749</td><td class="column-4">29609</td><td class="column-5">2.53%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-12 even">
		<td class="column-1">11</td><td class="column-2">news.bbc.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">1580</td><td class="column-4">64745</td><td class="column-5">2.44%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-13 odd">
		<td class="column-1">12</td><td class="column-2">time.com</td><td class="column-3">258</td><td class="column-4">11494</td><td class="column-5">2.24%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-14 even">
		<td class="column-1">13</td><td class="column-2">timesonline.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">260</td><td class="column-4">11859</td><td class="column-5">2.19%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-15 odd">
		<td class="column-1">14</td><td class="column-2">latimes.com</td><td class="column-3">423</td><td class="column-4">19388</td><td class="column-5">2.18%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-16 even">
		<td class="column-1">15</td><td class="column-2">reuters.com</td><td class="column-3">1105</td><td class="column-4">51784</td><td class="column-5">2.13%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-17 odd">
		<td class="column-1">16</td><td class="column-2">chicagotribune.com</td><td class="column-3">234</td><td class="column-4">11067</td><td class="column-5">2.11%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-18 even">
		<td class="column-1">17</td><td class="column-2">guardian.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">403</td><td class="column-4">21421</td><td class="column-5">1.88%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-19 odd">
		<td class="column-1">18</td><td class="column-2">independent.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">114</td><td class="column-4">6113</td><td class="column-5">1.86%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-20 even">
		<td class="column-1">19</td><td class="column-2">telegraph.co.uk</td><td class="column-3">373</td><td class="column-4">20267</td><td class="column-5">1.84%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-21 odd">
		<td class="column-1">20</td><td class="column-2">nytimes.com</td><td class="column-3">1500</td><td class="column-4">86120</td><td class="column-5">1.74%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-22 even">
		<td class="column-1">21</td><td class="column-2">newsweek.com</td><td class="column-3">70</td><td class="column-4">4042</td><td class="column-5">1.73%</td>
	</tr>
	<tr class="row-23 odd">
		<td class="column-1">22</td><td class="column-2">online.wsj.com</td><td class="column-3">289</td><td class="column-4">20590</td><td class="column-5">1.40%</td>
	</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<p>Going back to the di66.net list of top Digg sources, out of the 22 news sites I pulled out, CNN was the 10th most popular source and Yahoo News was 9th. So their bury rankings are probably higher than they should be. By contrast Telegraph.co.uk was the 2nd most popular source but it ranks 19th in bury percentage in this group. BBC News was the most popular source out of the 22; its bury percentage is right in the middle at #11.</p>
<p>It should also be noted that what’s most important is social news success is quality of content and user appeal, not to mention who the submitter is. But it does appear that some major news sites are more likely to be buried than others.</p>


<p>Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/publishing/top-10-posts-of-2009/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: My Top 10 Posts of 2009 on News Media, SEO and Social Media'>My Top 10 Posts of 2009 on News Media, SEO and Social Media</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/how-to-identify-your-own-top-trends-of-2009/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: How to Identify Your Own Top Trends'>How to Identify Your Own Top Trends</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.adamsherk.com/seo/search-trend-tracking-tools/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Free Tools for Monitoring Hot Search Trends'>Free Tools for Monitoring Hot Search Trends</a></li>
</ol></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.adamsherk.com/social-media/most-buried-news-sites-on-digg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
