pbs.org — There will be recognition for the people who do a lot of work on the site, not just for being ranked a Top Digger. In the future, you?ll see other forms of recognition that are purely, you know, things that exist within the community. Certainly no monetary compensation or things like that.
Jul 25, 2006 View in Crawl 4
fly1m1Jul 26, 2006
This is the beginning of the downfall of digg.com....
dogdoodooJul 26, 2006
Well blood, at least the decision is final on your shirt!
thetorpedodogJul 26, 2006
I have to say, I love how Jay Adelson is pimping his old-school The Screen Savers swag. Very well done.
adam_skinnerJul 26, 2006
Excellent article. This guy touched base with lots of the players, or at least posed relevant quotes.Personally, I think paying people isn't against digg's principles. Seems to me that the guy is just strait out lying about that, making it up as he goes along and tries to deal with the situation. Should he pay his top 50? No. Will he? I doubt it.But commissioning people to populate quality links isn't bad practice. What's tough is finding people with the insight to note a good article and the cleverness to give it a good headline. Sometimes, even then, it's not enough. Rep counts somewhat.Netscape wins in the end, on this one. People may donate their time and abilities to something they enjoy, but they routinely sell their time and abilities so they can make their way in this world. The best of both worlds is obviously to get paid doing something you'd do for free! And that's what Netscape is offering.Can any sane man pass that up? Loyalty? To digg? Please.
jayadelsonJul 26, 2006
If we depend on monetary compensation, then the promise of this entire user collaborative web falls apart. The idea here is to find a way for the masses to contribute directly to the media they are served, with motivations being based on community interest or the euphoria of knowing your piece makes a difference. I want contributors from all walks of life and vocations, who bring that experience to the table in their contribution.There is a place for professional submitters: It's called a newspaper.I respectfully disagree about Netscape "winning." You can pay for all the high quality submissions you want, but in the end, without a supporting community to vote/participate in the medium, you have nothing but a one-way blog. Netscape can do well by turning the focus towards its community now with tools, design and fair practice.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2006
The only reason BloodJunkie is a top submitter here is because, as a hard-lined liberal "activist", he has gotten a large following of his fellow liberals who want to promote his submissions due to a political agenda. Netscape will gain absolutely nothing from hiring someone like him because he's more interested in a specific political agenda than finding good, varried articles.I have nothing against liberals or liberal agendas or anything like that, but when the vast majority of his submissions are directly related to him trying to make conservatives look bad, what's the point of hiring him to increase the amount of quality submissions on a different site?Likewise, as the only reason he's popular is because his friends consistently vote up his submissions (regardless of quality of the content), in the end he's just a guy who, instead of going to work every day, sits on the computer inciting political flamewars. He really has nothing more to offer to this site than anyone else, it's just he has a greater volume of submissions. That's all it is. That's why Netscape wants to reward people like him?
macewanJul 26, 2006
This paying of your top posters is just as cheesy as the copying of digg. Just my opinion.
ooliquidnightooAug 6, 2006
valid point.
pattyAug 10, 2006
As a female digger...I suggest dates with Kevin as compensation :)Seriously though, I support and will continue to support Digg because of what it and the people behind it stand for.