This is a non-scientific study. I'm using a 10 hour block of time.
When this part of the study is over, I'll report back on the Digg Effect when you have a story submitted to Digg. Whether or not it turns into a "front page" story or not will greatly affect the next, and final, posting in this series.
Either way, thank you for helping me out with this study.
|Day||Number of visits||Pages||Hits||Bandwidth|
|01 Sep 2006||67||329||644||16.92 MB|
|02 Sep 2006||48||171||280||5.25 MB|
|03 Sep 2006||55||372||470||8.96 MB|
|04 Sep 2006||56||270||437||12.55 MB|
|05 Sep 2006||50||311||414||6.58 MB|
|06 Sep 2006||40||203||421||11.65 MB|
|07 Sep 2006||268||1377||2587||13.64 MB|
|08 Sep 2006||0||0||0||0|
Well, there is a vast increase in hits, but not in bandwidth.
The hits peaked near lunch time PST.
From this short bit of information I can see that comment spamming on Digg is something that can be easily abused and I'm glad signature lines are not allowed. At the same time, why would you blindly click a link in someone's comment that just points you to their blog?
I can see this being abused by a person who purchases multiple domains and points them all to a page of advertisments. By using multiple accounts they can easily steer a few thousand hits a day to these sites with only a minimum of work.