Much discussion has been made lately about the pros and the cons of having a site “dugg”.

For all my new kids on the block, Digg is a news site that is powered by their users, who submit news stories and vote for which ones are the most important. The stories with the most “diggs” get front page visibility which obviously brings them a boatload of web traffic.

Now, everybody and their mother has their two cents on whether or not getting all this traffic form Digg is good or not for their site.

On one hand, many argue that Digg is the best thing since sliced bread and that everybody should be concentrating on writing a good enough story so that it can garner enough attention to get “dugg.”

In the other corner of the ring, you have kids who say that Digg traffic is not good traffic; they argue that, while Digg can bring a bunch of visitors to a site in a very small period of time, this traffic does nothing for a site at the end of the day. The traffic comes and goes with no real impact on the site.

Now, I see both sides of the story; each argument is a good one.

I just happen to be tired of the argument.

The fact of the matter is this: the demographics of Digg are a very highly coveted market. The 18-34 crowd, and a crowd that has change in their pockets. Males with money are an advertisers dream.

That being said, the reason this demographic is coveted is that they don’t pay attention to things like advertising. They also don’t stick around for boring websites or things that don’t interest them.

They’re shouldn’t be an arguement about whether or not Digg traffic is “good” or not.

If your site appeals to the demographic, then it’s good. Hopefully your site doesn’t suck and gives them a reason to come back or subscribe.

If your site doesn’t appeal to them, then they probably won’t return. It’s not that the traffic is “bad”, it’s just not the traffic your particular site needs.

Or maybe your website just sucks.