A post at ShoeMoney directed me to an analysis by Chitika that compared the ad-clicking power of Digg users versus those users coming from Google.  People seem to make a big deal about getting stories dugg up to the Digg front page.  I've never been a big Digg fan.  So I was excited to see someone looking at the value, from an advertising perspective, of Digg traffic.

According to their results, Digg users click ads 1/3 as often as Google users:

Over the 31 days, the google traffic resulted in a CTR of 0.97% on the RPU ads — compared to 0.30% for the Digg traffic.

Even though a CTR of 0.30% is more than you might suspect you'd get from the Digg crowd, it still shows that the type of users who frequent Digg are not the type that click on ads.  Think about it.  Generally speaking, ad-clickers aren't the tech-savvy "power users" that often visit Digg.  So it only makes sense that they would click on fewer ads.

When you combine this lower CTR with the problems that sometimes arise from having a story dugg, it makes me wonder if the boost in traffic is worth risk.  Sure… a front page story on Digg can literally send thousands and thousands of folks to your site.  But they're not clicking on many ads… they're often abusive and immature… and your site can come to grinding halt from all the attention.

You may get a few extra subscribers out of a Digg.  You could make some sales.  And you'll get some ad clicks.  But does the benefit of getting Dugg really out weight the potential detriment that can also arise?

I'd love to hear what you have to say.  If you're a Digg user, I'd love to get your reaction (in a civil, non-Digg like fashion, of course).  If you're a website owner, what do you value more:  traffic from Google/Yahoo/etc… or a good Digging?