What is Digg?126 Comments
- akinbanjo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Why has no one mentioned that this is stupid, and will not work?
Let's be honest here. The top digg users aren't up there because of the "quality" of their stories submitted. They're there because of how many stories they submit. Submit enough stories and some of them are gonna make it to the front. When they do, you'll gain a followship in that people will add you as a friend, to see what you're posting.
This results in more of your posts reaching the front page.
C'mon now, how many times have I seen VERY front page worth stories with NO diggs? There's a pattern with those no-digg stories. They're not dugg by top posters.
Calcanis will do just as well paying any Joe $1,000 to submit 150 stories. Whether they're a top digg user or not is just details. This is not a discussion board. People aren't going to follow these digg users...90% of the time, I don't even check to see who posted the stories.
No disrespect to those top posters, but I don't think anyone cares who submitted the story, most of the time, as long as it's on the front page, so that they don't have to look into the hundreds of upcoming stories.
I think Calcanis should post an ad on Craiglist. (GET $$$ NOW! WORK FROM HOME!) - This is NO different. SO ORIGINAL. Talk about going back in time. - Revadarth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31I'll take $1,000 a month, even though I haven't even submitted a story before.
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Okay.
I've spent almost a year pouring my time and efforts into Digg. Thousands of stories dugg, a thousand submissions, and nearly a thousand comments. I wear my Digg t-shirt proudly and watch Diggnation religiously. I bet almost all the "top" diggers do the same thing and so do many of the hundreds of thousands Digg users. All gratuitously. Hell, it's 5 AM right now and I'm still on Digg, and so are the other users discussing this story.
But then Mr. Calacanis shows up this week and informs the world that users can receive payment for their "work." I've stayed by Digg's side ever since the 2.0 birth, but I'm in real pain right now.
I would rather break my arm than to dismiss Digg, but my college tuition doesn't pay for itself... Jesus. - msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Here's the original: http://digg.com/tech_news/Weblogs_wants_to_pay_the_top_Diggers_$1000_month
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"If I were you I would communicate with the other top diggers and start thinking about how digg can reward you all for the value you add to the digg.com site. if kevin rose doesn't go for it, I encourage you to negotiate as a group for a contract with netscape and take all the money you can get."
Thanks for the suggestion, but staging a coup is ridiculous. Either way, I think Kevin could care less about this situation. Digg has enough fans to last forever. - deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Digg Neutrality.
Digg, it's not a truck. It's a series of posts. Or is it tubes, It's late I forget. - msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I don't think you have quite grasped the definition of 'top'.
http://digg.com/users/sfacets/submitted - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I agree with everything dirtyfratboy said. Netscape can't buy their way to a successful socially driven content site.
- thomash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I find it really annoying when people put these sarcasm tags around their messages. What's the point of sarcasm if you have to point it out?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Why doesn't Netscape just steal stories as they hit the frontpage. Hell, thats what Digg users do with regards to Reddit
- Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15As muddied up as his blog entry was, I'll digg this dupe.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It is going to take a lot more than $1000/month to get me to jump ship on digg. I honestly don’t know that you could put a price on it. The people that use digg are where the real value is for me.
- Unicron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13it was killed by bad spalling
- neko, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19I can digg this. Let's just say it moved me. TO A BIGGER HOUSE! ;)
- FatherG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15>I'd much prefer to see a Digg where lots of people submit a few stories, rather than one where a few people submit many stories.<
Basicly you want to stop Digg from becoming Fark; one big good ole boys (or girls) club. Now watch this reply get down-dug into oblivion by fark zealots.
Bit of a troll but screw it. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@therealduckie, Just a heads up: I started submitting stories in April. Seniority is not everything.
- troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Its a free market, people can go where they want... these people were made by the digg community and there are plenty more waiting in the pipeline...err digg queue on crack
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'd much prefer to see a Digg where lots of people submit a few stories, rather than one where a few people submit many stories.
So "goodbye top Diggers" - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Now I read my comment back, it sounds pretty disrespectful to the top submitters... Sorry, it wasn't supposed to be. I'm just making the point that the only 'skill' being used is submitting URL's, and anyone would be able to replace the top users if they left. It's not like when journalists are poached from a rival newspaper...
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yeah except no one comes to Digg because dirtyfratboy or bloodjunkie is here. No one outside of Digg even knows who they are.
- joshfraz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7top digg users,
please don't leave. thanks. - lordatlas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Even worse when they can't spell "sarcasm" correctly.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Take it all off - world's greatest shave"
There would only be one reason I'd digg a story with that title and he didn't submit it. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Hey for people who do it for free right now, $6.67 would be gold..
- danjal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9from one blog to the next.. does the actual news artical still exist these days?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"What's the point of sarcasm if you have to point it out?"
[not sarcasm] The point is to allow people who know sarcasm when the see it the chance to appreciate it, while deflecting flames from the stumps who have less of a sense of humor than the computer they're typing on.[/not sarcasm]
HTH. HAND. - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If Digg was just a tech-news aggregator, then the popularity would have disappeared long ago. I keep on coming back to Digg, because after a year I know that many Digg users share my interests and know when to Digg a certain story and when to bury it.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The higher you rank the more weight your diggs get. That's why there are a lot of front page stories that have very few diggs, but that's just my guess.
- emeriste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm somewhat new as an active participant on Digg but it has quickly become a hobby for me. It is a fun challenge to go out searching for something worthy of a submit and then see how many diggs it gets. Always the hope is that it might make it to the front page. I'm not sure it is a fair game though. I have seen top rated users submit successful stories that were identical to low ranking users whose stories died in obscurity.
I think it would be interesting to see how stories would get dugg if the number of diggs and the user who submitted them were unknown until after you dugg the story. If Digg is really about the content and the top users are really earning their ranking by posting exceptional stories, then nothing should change. But I think a lot would change.
I think that the low ranking users on Digg are being undervalued. I propose that we form a union of low rated Digg users and agree to digg each others stories so that our voices can also be heard. If you have a low rating then add me as a friend. You digg my stories and I will digg yours. Enough whispers united in a single voice can become a roar. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11a-*****-men
I always thought Digg was about community...not a select few. I swear the only reason those people are dugg is seniority...and because of that, alot of good stories get buried. - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10[sarcasam]I better start spamming stories to digg like mad! Time to get to the top!
Let's see: Take a socially oriented website and make it into a typical big media spinoff. Brilliant!!!!1111!
[/sarcasam] - sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Michael Arrington's TechCruch has a good take on this: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/19/huge-red-flag-at-netscape/
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4therealduckie -
I would like it if that were the case, but the reality seems to be that "top diggers" really do have a disproportionate number of stories promoted. I don't blame the Digg community in any way. It's hard to find decent stories to digg among the queue. The vast majority of submitted stories are dull, off-topic (even with the expanded categories), poorly written or just plain blogspam. For most people, the only way to find a good upcoming story is to check a source that is known for good submissions.
Kevin has acknowledged the need to make it easier to find good upcoming stories, so I'm sure they're working on it as we speak. Until then, I'll keep trying to look for good things, but I'm sure the front page will still have lots of CliffOSAKAjapan and dirtyfratboy for some time... - NejiKun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I want to hear a comment from dirtyfratboy and other top users on this topic.
- picaro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The submitters are more than just aggregator-bots. They are some of the first people to find obscure but interesting stuff. Without people like them, Digg would look a lot like news.google.com
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This won't have any impact at all, on either site. He's foolish if he thinks Digg users are here because of who the top posters are, and he's foolish if he thinks anyone's going to follow the top users to Netscape if they accept this. These top users aren't journalists, they just submit links to other stuff on the web. Anyone can do that, and anyone will do that. It's not like the quality of Digg will decline if they leave - it just means other people will submit those links instead.
As someone above me said, I'd like to see many users submitting a few stories each, than having the top 10 users almost dictating what the frontpage will see. I've seen so many great stories that simply don't get seen, and plenty of pointless stories that have no place on the frontpage. I'm not saying that's all the top users' fault, but I think more of an even spread would help somewhat. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I fully agree dirtyfratboy, I don't want digg to become just another aggregator. The point I'm making is what do the top submitters (yourself included) do that any other digg user wouldn't be able to do? You find interesting or obscure stories, perhaps breaking news... which is all great. But other people can do that too. Now please don't get me wrong, you ARE valuable to digg, and it's evident in the number of stories submitted and on the homepage by the top 10 users. My point is simply that Netscape are wrong if they think they're going to boost their traffic simply by getting you to post on their site instead.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4At least he misspelled the same way both times. I always laugh when someone misspells a word multiple ways in the same sentence.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6That's crazy, I pretty sure Kevin doesn't want a bunch of lemming diggers. Digg because you dig it not because other people do.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ummm, good luck wiith that. Digg has an internal karma system... if an account starts repeatedly spamming and digging en-masse, it's toast.
(I can't find a reference right this second... I heard it first on a TWiT podcast, thoguh I'm sure it's mentioned elsewhere) - whizzbang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5He is going to end up with a load of digg farmers from the developing world scouring the web and submitting for a few bucks a pop. Good money for them but I'm not sure he will get the quality he is looking for.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Since you're a troll, I dugg you up to piss you off, then blocked you.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Someone get Albert Pacino and CliffOSAKAJapan onto this thread...
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Slightly off-topic, but I had an idea involving a 'diggnet' that I imagined as being quite profitable. It would be a group of digg accounts, from 500-1000, which would be run by scripts and digg up/down whichever posts or articles the owner desired. Say DeviousCompanyX realized they were getting bashed at Digg and gaining a lot of negative publicity; they could contract out the diggnet (for a hefty fee) to have the multitude of accounts digg up all posts in support of his company. I guess every good idea has countless people trying to make money off of it.
- whiterajah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's interesting, but something tells me you can't buy cool like this. The whole point of Web 2.0 is that people find it a rewarding / worthwhile use of their time to become contributors when the only return for them is participation in "the community". Introducing a financial incentive for users would seem to skew that equation.
It's going to be worth watching how this plays out. Something tells me Netscape.com is not the place to try this - isn't that a site that has high page views only because people don't know how to change their home page? (like MSN.com) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Most of the schools run under the same default gateway, as in most workplaces that I know of.
Your IP address is not the same as your default gateway. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This seems fair enough to me. A lot of the top submitters seem unaware or perfectly happy with the concept that they are working for Digg for free. That is to say, they put a lot of work in, add a lot of value to Digg as a consequence, and receive no compensation from Digg.
Given that the $1000 offered is likely to be significantly less than the value they add to these sites, these "top Diggers" should probably be asking themselves some serious questions now. - Cyburai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You, sir, now owe me a new keyboard and monitor.. That made my morning.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That turns out to be about $6.67 per story at 150 stories a month submitted and even less as the stories submitted go over 150 which they will. For the time it takes to submit a story that is decent pay and this obviously shows he has no idea what he is doing. Instead of creating a great site like he should Calcanis is focusing on other strategies.
- mikejohnston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2His plan is already working. EVERYONE on DIGG is discussing NETSCAPE. "Cha-Ching". Quite frankly I think $1k/month is not worth it. If you are a top contributor you don't need Digg or Netscape. Start your own blog and syndicate.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is