What is Digg?82 Comments
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40Thanks for posting that, tysonhy. I like seeing the play by play.
There is a build or buy logic that goes into many software platforms. But I honestly think that Jason's buy strategy is somewhat problematic when applied to a social news site like Digg (as measured by the reaction).
It may work for Netscape (though I doubt it). The site faces a series of other challenges (which they may rise to meet). But pissing off a (large) portion of your user-base creates some BIG hurdles for any enterprise.
That said - I appreciated Jason's boldness - it takes some guts to propose something that may be unpopular. You can disagree with me, but it takes some stones to do what he did. And I furthermore agree with some of his business logic: that we are talking about for profit enterprises whose life is ~partially~ supported by the efforts of the users (and I am NOT talking about a select few either).
However...
Digg isn't a business to most of us (even though it is - at least partially). For most of us it is a online community.
While portions of a web-platform can be a commodity, treating human talent as a buy-able commodity becomes very tricky (i.e.: human 'resources'). I honestly do not believe that Jason's model would work for Digg (even IF it works for Netscape).
I base that opinion chiefly on how much we value transparent, 'democratic' participation within Digg. I believe that is at the heart of what makes Digg successful.
And therein lies Netscape's largest challenge (reconciling a buy model with a user driven model).
In order for Jason's business model to work in Digg - the entire Digg culture would have to change. One - I don't see that happening. Two - I don't see a need for it. The call to pay Digg top submitters has to fill a felt need. What part of Digg needs to be fixed to justify that model? As Digg is a juggernaut success, I don't see Jason's Netscape solution filling a Digg need. One size doesn't fit all in any business environment.
Like you, I am a huge fan of Digg (as are those Digg friends of ours who are contemplating working for Netscape).
Unlike your decision to pass, I did send Jason and CK an email inquiring about their offer. While it was a difficult personal decision, I'm glad I made that decision- as it was a promising networking opportunity that I wanted to at least look at. In my case, it was not meant to be (due to mutual schedule issues or levels of interest... or both). That said - I TOTALLY respect your decision (and your rationale), tysony.
I know there is an ocean of bad blood on this issue (some deserved and some not). But I honestly wish Netscape well (and my Digg friends that are currently waiting for Jason's decision). But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Netscape has an uphill climb (and probably a short time in which to complete it).
It's been one hell of a week! Time will tell where wisdom lies.... - drjjoyner, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36["T]his whole idea of Jason Calacanis paying top news site contributors to be a writer for his own site is just plain sad and wrong." It's hardly clear why it's "sad," let alone "wrong," to pay someone to do something they're already doing.
Why, exactly? You never elaborate on your thesis, going off onto a totally different topic. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I don't think there is ANYTHING inherently wrong in doing what Jason Calacanis is offering to do. I don't believe that this strategy will get them anything worthwhile that their existing community can't, and I think that its completely worthless for them to try to pursue these top users from Digg, but there is nothing WRONG with them doing it.
The problem with Netscape is basically this: They have waaay too many things going on on their site that turns off "hardcore" Internet users who drive up the traffic of sites like this. A lot of flashy ads in the middle of the content is one of the problems. Another problem is that, instead of opening up a link directly to the content, they display it in a frame surrounded by yet more Netscape ads. The other problem is that they copied Digg in almost every way.
Fark inspired a thousand clones. None of them succeeded. Now, Digg is inspiring clones. None of them will succeed either, and here's why: If you have Digg, why the hell would you use Netscape? They offer almost NOTHING to make people choose THEM instead of Digg.
Getting a handful of high-ranked contributors to switch sites is not immoral and there's nothing inherently bad about it. But what it is is STUPID. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29It kills me that people are letting Calacanis set the terms of the debate. The point of contention isn't whether users should be paid, it's whether it would be effective. Here's how you demolish his argument: Paying users to contribute to a social bookmarking and discussion site is as effective as paying people to be your friends. Calacanis will end up with a pale imitation of the rich social experience that draws people to Digg. The fact that he has to pay at all is quite telling. This is one of the many social situations where the rule "You shouldn't have to pay for it" seems to apply.
Also, before discussing payment for users, we shouldn't forget that Digg provides unique and incredible services for free. Where else can you write the headlines that millions of people will see? Where else can you promote and discuss the stories you care about? Where else can you get a fast, interesting, 24/7 newsfeed picked without editorial bias? All of this is offered for free and more importantly, with complete transparency, and freedom from censorship or arbitrary editorial control. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28"I am a fellow digger on the #1 social news site digg.com and it also (sic) came to my attention of (sic) this whole idea of Jason Calacanis paying top news site contributors to be a writer for his own site (run-on?) is just plain sad and wrong. In fact, I was one of them ("one of them" not necessary) asked to be a writer for his site. Check out the emails I received from him and his team."
On the same vein, I can't believe anyone would ask you to write for them with these sorts of grammatical errors. Not trying to be nitpicky, but it certainly does throw your credentials out the window. - elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Ouch you posted his phone number. harsh. Guess he's kinda stupid for using his blackberry.
- diehard2k5, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20You might want to take his cell number and AIM info off of there....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13As an addition to my previous comment:
Here's some advice for Netscape: Instead of trying to come up with ways to make your site just like Digg, but "better", come up with ways to make your site DIFFERENT and "better". Having "anchors" is not enough. Offer some true differentiation. See http://www.reddit.com as an example. - squeevey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I completely agree, this guy tysonhy goes and says something bad about a guy, but doesn't give a reason why. This just read as "I use digg for these reasons"
- diargasm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15dude, if he was going to pay $1000 a month, you should have done it. Seriosly, Kevin Rose will eventually end up selling this site, and then what will you end up with? Sometimes you gotta look for your own interests.
- zwerdlds, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17This post is written incredibly poorly. I don't know how intelligent this Calacanis person is if he's trying to hire people that write things like this anyways.
- Jadinlee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Ty - Thanks for posting this information. I understand how you feel and where you're coming from on this issue. But I would encourage you to remove the personal contact information in your article. Regardless of your feelings towards Calacanis, you'd come across better without the contact info. No need to allow harassment towards the guy. It would be a mature gesture... something I'd expect from fellow diggers.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14No doubt, I wouldn't pay the author of this story to write my grocery list.
- diargasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8And what is he actually getting out of submitting stories for digg? A virtual pat on the back? He obviously has a lot of time to waste, so what if he gets payed for doing what he does now? You actually think Kevin Rose or the other guy that owns this site won't sell the company off once the price is right? Then what will that leave Tyson with? NOthing... Just like the owners of digg will, he should look out for his own interests as well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I asked if "shaniqua" was there. He's like "who is this". funny!
Funny how? - whiterajah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I agree with SwordofKahless. Enough already! We don't care. Maybe some people who post to Digg will accept a part-time job with Netscape - big deal! I don't see where all the moral outrage is coming from - if Jason Calacanis wants to hire a couple of people for cheap to get his commercial web-site up and running, good luck to him. Digg will still be where people come to ready about the latest, cutting edge geeky stuff. A couple of people redirecting their energies elsewhere is not going to have a huge impact.
Can we get back to talking about stuff that actually matters please? - philovivero, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"dude, if he was going to pay $1000 a month, you should have done it. Seriosly, Kevin Rose will eventually end up selling this site, and then what will you end up with? Sometimes you gotta look for your own interests."
Have you ever actually gone to work for a giant faceless corporate bureaucracy? It's not worth $1,000/month to me to "do what I'm doing already anyway." It's never that. They will want something a little extra and different out of you. My integrity is worth more than $12k/year.
Don't forget, Netscape/AOL/TimeWarner are pretty close buds with the MPAA. Look here, for example:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/?f=20000114_ny_mpaa_complaint.html
Note the list of plaintiffs.
I'd quit my job and take a 100% pay loss to avoid being associated with people like that. I've had lots of job offers from companies paying way more than Digg. There's a reason I haven't taken them.
Think about it. - SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There are so many articles about this soap opera between Digg and Netscape along with the endless self promotion of Digg. Sorry and sad to say that this strategy is taking this site down hill fast along with weighting articles to the these few rabid top poster fans.
Whatever happened to the strategy of never mentioning your competitor particularly one (Netscape) that is practically non-existant. You have to wonder why and I could only guess that the reason is to create so much fud that Yahoo or AOL buys out Digg. - thegreenman66, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Once people get paid to digg, they start digging to get paid. Fun becomes work, and the work becomes a chore, and the whole thing goes into the crapper. It is doomed to fail.
digging is like a hobby, it's obvious Calcanis doesn't know about or even have any hobbies other than making money. - AaronB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6How old are you, 10? Surprised you didn't ask him if his refrigerator was running.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not that I'm encouraging this but the thought comes to mind - why offer to pay the top Diggers when they could just steal the info they're after? I mean what Digg does is post links to stories and interesting items from other web pages. What is to stop someone from reposting a link they got on Digg? I'm quite sure that if Netscape managed to scoop a cool story it'd show up on Digg in short order - so what is to stop Netscape from simply writing a crawler, or simpler still hiring one person who does not have to have "cool hunter" skills, to just monitor the Digg front page and repost the results on Netscape (or any other site)? That'd net them the same overall result as hiring the top Diggers wouldn't it? Actually it'd be a better result since they'd get all the good stories that are not posted by the elite minority too. It's not as though Digg can really be said to "own" the links that are posted here, since we're just linking to other sites. The blurbs that describe the links would probably be a copy write issue - but if it's a small quoted segment (and the descriptions are often taken directly from the articles as it is) then that should fall under fair use.
Basically it seems rather stupid - hiring the top Diggers won't make Netscape's content "exclusive" in any way, and they could get exactly the same info for free - so what's the point? To drum up publicity? I've only heard about this whole "controversy" here on Digg, and it hasn't gotten me curious enough to visit the Netscape Digg-knockoff even once so far. If they're trying to generate an audience that way it ain't working. - ersnyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4His address and phone number(s) are published on his site anyway.
http://www.calacanis.com/2006/01/31/contacting-me/ - Jadinlee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Come on! I know the guy isn't liked but... diggers are better than this.
- rxnonu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've got a lot of questions about this "deal."
1 - Has it been stated or implied that a paid contributor for Netscape should not submit this material to Digg?
2 - What is the "moral" problem with paying people to contribute to Netscape's page? Let's set aside the fact that they may (or may not, see question 1) be stealing contribution talents from the digg community. I don't see how this disturbs the democratic nature of a digg-like site, as others have suggested above. Presumably, other Netscape contributions would be treated exactly like the paid contributions. Having paid contributors would just provide peace-of-mind for the operators of Netscape. It would just mean a greater number of higher quality submissions for Netscape. It would make their poor days less poor, but not necessarily make their great days even greater. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Why would someone want him to write for their site? He's not a very good writer.
- ajmacdougall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I would have been verrrrrrry pissed off if i had sent email to him only to have it posted with my cell number. Bad form!!!!!
- phlux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Tyson,
You're an idiot. The only reason why you posted this story was to prove some sort of loyalty to a site that does not ahve any intention of reciprocating in any form.
I totally like Digg, but I wont pay fealty to them - which is what you are doing in an arcane phrase.
Let me give you a real world version of the lameness of what you are doing: I work for a company that was recently purchased by the largest Defense Contractor in the world. The employees were basically farked on the deal, the sotck was bought out for a low amount and the people who joined the Co in the last year got nothing. At the announcment meetings the employees would calp and be happy - the Ceo sent out an email that stated that the new parents stock was at an all time high - btu the employees got no stock in the parent co, and they got no employee stock purchase program.
WTF were the employees thinking when they clapped and were agreeing with the purchase when they got nothing - the execs got millions.
Here you are doing the same - championing the Digg site when you have no equity or compensation - just makes you look the fool (slave).
THanks - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg.com is a service website. Its designed to allow people to share and discuss webpages of common interest and does so using minimum ads and without charging a user fee. If Tyson has devotion to a great website that does not bombard him with ads or charge him for using it Im sure thats understandable to the majority of digg users.
- Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@philovivero
Well I don't know about you but from that post he doesn't seem to have talked terms. If it's more or less the same deal but with a minimum number of posts expected or something then I don't see the problem. If it's more than that I could see there being a problem but I haven't read anything to suggest that yet, just a lot of whining and talk about community which might make sense if it wasn't for the fact that Digg is a company too. - schleufer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Actually, this isn't uncommon at all- scouring other sites for potential writers and content. I've been asked on many occasions to become a fulltime writer or content provider. When you are a top contributor, I think it just comes with the territory.
Obviously I'm not a big contributor at Digg.
The big problem with getting paid to provide content, is the fact that there are rules and restrictions. Say goodbye to your freedom, say goodbye to promoting a competitors product, say goodbye to speaking your mind (unless it happens to coincide with sites opinion).
Now as far as the whole email/phone convo thing goes, I have no idea why they pressured a friggin phone conversation. I know for certain that anything can be hashed out over email/IM. In fact we created an entire game without a single phone conversation. Not that a phone would have helped much- a couple of the guys were from Europe and didn't speak English very clearly, but they could write it. - Flynn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5There are key differences between diggers and writers. Proofreading and pay are just a few of them.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Why? His contact info is public anyways.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I don't understand this whole concept. Is the intention that they will pay users to submit stories or pay users to submit stories they wrote themselves?
- knifeattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Coverage:
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/marketinginsider/wpn-50-20060727OneDiggerRejectsNetscapeSoFar.html - smackfumaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have no loyalties to this website. I get what I want out of it and until it changes I will continue to do so. The owner/operators are getting paid via Federated Media among other avenues I am not nor you are aware. All you overzealous 'diggers' who act like you own this website yet see $0 for your effort are appreciated for by getting an 'E' for effort, but c'mon, you all have more time than most to do this and aren't getting anything out of it other than seeing your post on the front page. Yea I like to read some of it, but I couldn't pay my bills or feed my family by surfing the web all day.
Good luck to Netscape and capitalists everywhere! - dcharti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yea, getting paid to do what you enjoy doing sucks. Man, don't ever do that. Horrible, horrible move. What would the world come to if we could enjoy doing something and make money doing it?
Oh yea, and take down the contact info. Painfully uncool. - eatdontsendspam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you guys really feel so bad for him, why don't you just call him,( it's not like you can't get his number), and tell him why he's getting pranked.
- Sefirosu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Paying writers may apply to conventional news/tech websites where it is a real job you do for a living, but for "social networking" types of websites I don't think that's how it works.
What drove people to sites like digg, flickr, del.icio.us, slashdot and even myspace in the first place ? I would say that it is mostly because EVERYONE can post something and say whatever they want and almost without limits, I think it is still called free speech but it might have changed in the last few weeks, you may need to check with your local laws, but that's another story.
Instead of paying users, why not try to make something better and have some real competition ? That would be much more worthwhile to everyone than 1000$/day for a "writer"...
Although I don't think that will happen anytime soon. - natasp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ye for sure and the quality of news goes downhill as well, once money is involved and people are getting paid to Digg, we may as well roll over and just change the name of Digg to the New York Times, o wait thats already taken...
- phlux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Re-read my post.
I didnt say in any part of that post that the submitters should be compensated. What i said was that he as an idiot for posting the story he did in what looked to be an effort to draw support for his championing digg and his contribution when he gets no equity in return.
I am not outright saying he should be paid - but his ridiculing netscapes offer to pay him in turn for glory.
Jason's point about Kevin's making moeny off the contributions of sigg users is true. e.g. kevin will make tons and the users who actually contribute the content get nothing.
Dont read what i am saying here in the wrong vein - I am not saying that the users should get anything - I am saying they shouldnt be so adamant or loyal to that which shows them zero loyalty in return.
Imagine if the submitter of this story stopped posting/submitting all together. Do you think Kevin would email/call him to see what was going on? to find out why he stopped? Doubtful - because kevin isnt concerned with *who* submits - jsut that people do.
so if there is no true concern for those who contribute, why should those who contribute so vehemently support the site in this way?
be objective about this - dont think that you need to support digg only by not challenging the way it *currently* works.
ask yourself this - do you think any news organization; cnn, fox, abc, etc would be able to succeed without paying their reporters? - alexhhhh, on 11/28/2008, -1/+2this guy seems to be trying to convince himself more than anyone else.
you cant "keep it real" and "hold it down" at the same time. - Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it's more about publicity and getting their site off the ground but you're right, there's no real content on Digg, only references to content and there would be nothing to stop what you're suggesting ("hey look here's a post" isn't really something you hold a copyright for).
In fact, if Netscape did take off you have to wonder how long they'd continue to pay people for submissions that unpaid readers would be likely to submit anyway. - ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is ludicrous to be offended when someone offers money for your talents. If you don't want it, just say no. There is no need for calling attention to yourself saying "Oh, how noble I am, I do this for free! How dare you offer me money for it?"
Best of luck to Netscape. Competition is healthy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, who is right or wrong in this whole thing is getting lost in a sea of bitchiness
Neither side is comming off well - Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Linux isn't non-commerical and neither is Digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Digg is a website that allows people to share and discuss webpages of common interest. The webpages are out there. Digg does not create those webpages. So why the ***** should digg users be compensated for using this website? This guy should be championing Digg for the service it provides as should any other user of Digg. Its free and ads are to a minimum.
Phlux you have a distorted view of what Digg is along with anyone else who feels that they should be compensated for using this website. - aaaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Top Diggers are being fooled by calacanis and his offer, guy does not seem to be sincere, but he sure is getting lot of free marketing at digg.com
- macronesia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This is so low of the OP, would you like your privacy disturbed. I'm pretty sure action is going to be taken.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1[quote]Not that I'm encouraging this but the thought comes to mind - why offer to pay the top Diggers when they could just steal the info they're after?[/quote]
It might have been Netscape's idea, not Calcanis'. This is how these corporate drones think. They just don't get it. You can't buy integrity.
But hey, I'd be glad to accept contributions. ;) That is a little different than being paid to write (er... or submit) stories that serve a corporate agenda.
If Digg was sold to some corporation and was censored, I'd leave. But Netscape still wouldn't be the place I'd go. - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Exactly! Once you pay users for something that should be done on their own the social chemisty gets messed up.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is