What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
100 Comments
- jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+85FWIW, I was brainstorming ideas about ways to recognize top diggers. While he chose to focus on the t-shirt comment (out of context), it does not in ANY way mean that we feel top diggers are only worth a t-shirt. Out of context, that sounds really awful. Rankings are useful, private messaging, participation in betas, etc., many ideas are on the table. Most important is the point: Monetary compensation is out of the question.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"i spent months digging for awesome stories, and all i got was this lousy t-shirt."
- lordanus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25What about all the money that the owners of digg make with all the beautiful ads on every page? Does that make a difference to your democracy equation in any way?
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Nothing has been decided yet, Tiabin. I appreciate the kind words though.
- celeronxl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Tiabin: Heh. You realize you just told Jay Adelson that he's wrong about what Adelson himself will do?
- mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The top contributors knew all along what they would get for their laborious hours spent here: No Monetary Compensation, Internet Popularity. Remember, as much as we all love Digg, this is a business. There will always be competitors, and they will sometimes poach talent when needed.
I will not criticize those that choose to jump ship. Because when it comes down to it, Digg doesn't pay their bills. Being a top submitter doesn't put food on the table.
This is part of the American Dream: seizing rewarding opportunities when they present themselves. Kevin will certainly take advantage when its time to sell-off Digg, why not the hard-working folk that has helped make this site popular? - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17The question that we have to ask ourselves is what really motivates us? Is it power? Is it money? Is it love? Hate? A combination of all of these?
The digg "community" is an interesting concept. Seven months ago I attempted to get a digg fan site off of the ground (diggfan.com). I did it simply because I loved digg (I wasn't getting paid for it) and it didn't seem like diggers didn't really have a place to go and hang out. After several months of running the fansite, I gave up on it, simply because diggers were rude and ungrateful. I also gave up on digg at that time. I slowly came back after the new commenting system was implemented only to find that the digg community, such that it is, is still rude.
Diggers will cry foul when some poor soul submits a blog post, especially if that same blogger has an adword campaign. But digg itself has adwords! How is that different? As silly as it sounds, I enjoy telling my friends my ranking on digg. But why not get paid? Look at it this way. What is it that will eventually make EVERYONE leave digg? Real life. Real life for most of us, revolves around money to a certain degree. I go to work everyday because I get a paycheck. As the years go by, that paycheck buys less and less, which means that I have to turn around and figure out other ways to make money.
That being said, would digg be where it is today without the venture capitalists that pumped money into it not so long ago? Would everyone on the back end still be doing it for the love of digg and forsake a "real" job that pays? Would digg be where it is today without the albertpacino's and the bloodjunkies or the attacks or the tysonhy's? Where will digg go if those folks have to give it up to pursue "real life"? The folks on the back end of digg got their handsome payday but how come "monetary compensation" wasn't out of the question then? - jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13If 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. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Also against principles of Digg: monetary compensation affecting large profits.
- Billdozer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I'm amazed how 'greedy' some users here have become by supporting Netscape's proposed model. I think everyone is beginning to miss the point of this site. I always have and always will think of Digg.com as a kind of hang out. It's like being with your friends and somone brings up something they saw online. "Hey, did you see that hing online...?!" Albeit there are hundreds of thousands of users here, so the community is a tad large and less cordial than a smaller group would be.
I guess what I'm saying is if you get offerred money to go look random stories and junk on the internet and submit it to a site, more power to you. But for those of you who EXPECT compensation for Digging even though you were never offerred any compensation in the first place for joining this site, gimme a break. If that's the case, why did you come here in the first place?
Bravo to Kevin, Jay and the whole Rev3 crew for creating and profiting off a successful business model. Go capitalism! - XopherMV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14No see, if Digg started giving all the contributors money, then that takes away some of the money going to the owners.
It's far, far more democratic when just a few people get to collect all the money from the work of the group. - Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It seemed to me that Adelson was pretty clear... It's going to be a level playing field. So I doubt private messaging or beta participation would be considered level.
On a side note... Good luck with your new job, Blood... You made a damned good digg run. :-) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@ lordanus:
What about all the digg users who are so proud of blocking ads? It would be hypocritical for a digg user to expect revenue sharing. - TheSavageNation, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11BloodJunkie, I will miss all of the liberal propaganda. Say it isn’t so!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I can understand monetary compensation. It actually quite a complement being paid for having a "popular interest" so to speak. That the webstories somebody thinks is interesting are consistently agreed upon by many other persons. These diggers are trend spotters.
- jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You are a rockstar, and we'll remember that.
- jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I didn't realize so many users felt their contributions were their vocation. Let me be clear: We appreciate, and are amazed by the level of user participation, and we will do everything we can to encourage this. However, the "user collaborative web" doesn't work if the crowds whose wisdom we depend on can be influenced with money. It destroys neutrality.
- jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Bandwidth is _always_ a concern, my friend.
- doxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Jay you 'da man! Put Netscape to death for us!
- ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9^my thoughts EXACTLY. Although I am not a submitter (I'm never the first one to see anything), I digg actively and comment a fair amount. Still, I get much more out of digg than I put in.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For what it's worth, Jay, I'll gladly take a t-shirt any day over $1000 in dirty money
- cyrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I was trying to think of a way to word my feelings on this matter, but you did it more than well enough.
I'm find it quite childish that people are twisting their words to try and apply them to the people who run the website.
I was under the impression that people submitted stories to Digg because they wanted too...not because they felt it was their job to do so, or they were being forced too. If people really want to get THAT upset over this, then fine....leave. I personally couldn't care less. Someone else will find the exact same story you did and post a link to it anyways, lord knows we get dupes. You really won't be missed.
Now bury me.... - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9So, this CEO works for free then?
Oh... the people who provide the content won't get paid. I see. - mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why is the $1000 Netscape is offering "dirty"? This place is getting ridiculous.
It's fair game - no one is holding a gun to anybody's head to do anything. It's a fair offer - you get paid to perform a service. Gee sounds a lot like everybody I know who has a J.O.B.
Besides, why would Digg care if their top posters left - per Rose's blog they only make up for about 1/3 or less of front page stories so what's the big deal??? - mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@riddlebox: Seriously - for your own good. Grow up.
- Billdozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"There is a place for professional submitters: It's called a newspaper."
Exactly. I want Digg to remain the way it is, SANS the trolling and highly negative comments some people post on here. I love this site and would be deeply dissapointed if it implemented Calacanis's business model.
As for those of you who feel Rev3 should share its profits with the users by paying submitters, remember Calacanis will only be paying 10-12 users to submit. So much for spreading the wealth. Pay a few more people and what you get is a highly controlled, predictable environment which becomes stagnant, devoid of life and personality. Digg has that human touch, while Netscape will quickly lose that, assuming it was there to begin with. This is one of the few cases where we need followers, NOT leaders. - mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Very well put - glad to see there are some mature rational thinking folks left on Digg not just crazy fanboys and Kevin Rose groupies.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The 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? - mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Now Calcanis is offering to pay them so what's the problem? No one is asking Kevin Rose or Adelson to share their money with the users that have carried their site.
- MrLobster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Netscape and Digg are both benefitting from the PR of this BS debate. Digg doesn't really need to pay their users and if they did it would seem like desperate after Netscape has called them out. At any rate it is just a publicity gimmick. Netscape may bomb because they are too much of a clone but the publicity around this and their name recognition might somehow save them.
Digg defenders are annoying though. The comment system here still sucks. Anyone writing an intelligent post that isn't popular gets modded down. - Yupp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am proud to be part of the Digg community. I am happy to make a contribution, and do not mind the long hours making Nike sneakers.
/ ok, can I have my bowl of rice now? I'm hungry! - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It seems like all I read for a while is how "unfair" it is that a few people make all the diggs, have all the friends, promote their stories, and now people are bitching that those people might spend their time somewhere else, boo-hoo, etc. Which way do you want it?
If this thing is really worthwhile, then it will be bigger than any single digger or group of diggers. If its going to fall apart because Bloodjunkie wants to be paid for his time (nothing wrong with that- some people make a living by getting paid), then it probably should fall apart. Personally, I will miss the dude, even though I have only just "met" him, but I suspect Digg will continue, and continue to evolve. - Elminster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This subject has come up before. While I am not kidding myself by saying there is not a lot of money for the Revision3 group, there are significant costs behind the site. I wonder how many servers they've added recently... Bandwidth costs must also be staggering. While I pay nothing to be part of this site and I don't personally block ads I am glad to see the people behind Digg have some money to kick around. In my opinion they are providing a service I enjoy and they deserve some cash.
Just my opinion... - SPARTACVS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think he's talking about AlbertPacino. He's gone off the top users list all of a sudden...
- concept, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why should digg have to pay its top users? if users do not want to submit content because they are not getting paid, then they dont have to.... it's that simple.
- SPARTACVS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That isn't set up by Digg.com. It's an third party.
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8People post on digg because people like digg.
Paying people to post will lead to a flood of crap showing up on digg.
There's not that many story's out there and there are already a lot of dupes
that end up on digg. Paying people to post will just make it worse.
Don't get sucked by AOL into turning digg into a suck hole.
You have something that works stick with it.
Take a look at the Current state of AOL. They have paid moderators.
They are still going down the hole.
Do you really want to follow that business model?
Besides that dude over at AOL sounds like a Used car salesman. - sunnyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Monetary Compensation For Submitting Stories That Should Otherwise Come From The General Unpaid Public To Minimize Bias != True Democracy
(sorry for the sentence-case caps, it was supposed to be a short formula)
Edit: was supposed to be a reply to above - zoombusa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I give up searching and submitting stories on Digg. I guess I don't kiss enough ass and have friends on here. LOL. Really though it is hard to get a high ranked page unless you have a huge friends list that will digg everything you submit. I will just submit to comments only.
- Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So rewarding top users with more influences doesn't pollute your idea of true democracy? That sounds more like meritocracy to me. Either way the point of digg isn't some ideal, it's to make money for its owners just like every other company. If it wasn't they'd be running it as a non-profit.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This Digg vs Netscape Controversy is great for Digg. Its like war. When a persons country (website community) is under threat by a another country (Netscape) citizens of that country (digg users) become hardened in their sense of nationalism. They become blinded by loyalty and stubborn in opinion. They demonize the enemy and praise the virtues of their mother country.
Its Netscape Fascism vs Digg Communism. The Nazis vs the Soviets. Im I right fellow comrades? - carniv0re, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm going to go against the grain (and subsequently face being dugg down) but hear me out. I don't see how paying top digg users in any way harms the supposed purity of the site. I say this because the system is self-policing and there is still no barrier to entry for somebody to join.
For example, the system could be based on the continuing contributions of top digg news items. If a paid digg poster does not continue to produce content that the general community finds interesting or if his posts become so sensationalist, then the digg community should and most likely will stop digging those posts. Heck, make it obvious, make an identifier that a digg user is getting paid and people will scrutinize it even more (of course then you may get people who will not digg on the basis of rebelling against it, but it's less a concern since they can't digg it down.)
My second point, that there is no barrier to entry is equally important. Just because somebody gets paid, doesn't prevent somebody from out of nowhere joining and then posting the most amazing posts. On the contrary, it may even encourage it and from the top posters encourage even more professionalism in reporting (i.e. less grammar, spelling issues).
What I find even more absurd is the notion that revision3 is trying to portray, as some kind of protector of freedom of information against evil and what not, yet are clearly profiting from it. It's not that they shouldn't but let's get serious here. They have created a good system, but are still obviously gaining from the (admittedly completely voluntary) effort of users. Hello, you live in America, land of capitalism and democracy and all that junk. Companies have to deal with how to keep their best talent all the time. Getting paid doesn't cheapen the system, it's how the real world operates!
Also, the talk about AOL warchests and what not sounds like desperation. Guess what, if you can't play with the big boys, you should probably give up now. The good entrepreneurs learn to use their small size as an advantage and innovate (which revision3 does do), the bad ones whine and subsequently are forgotten. - lordanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@jibber11: You're assuming people will get paid per post. There are many different ways to compensate people that does not encourage quantity over quality.
- WalkerBurgin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They won't pay contributors because they don't have to. If they loose one contributor someone else will step in and take his place. Should they pay those who regularly make significant contributions? Probably, but they're not going to.
- jibber11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Loyal readers from the early days, will stay! Don't get into a pissing match! We can only hope there is still loyalty in the world. Digg is looking at the long tail, Netscape is looking at the short tail!!! If people get paid for post, it will be quantity over quality.
- adam.skinner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Excellent 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. - SwordofKahless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is getting ridiculous now. Seems like an effort to create a controversy so AOL-Netscape or Yahoo will buy you.
- XopherMV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Let's see, the top leaders get paid for all the work of everyone. And all the peons get squat other than "recognition"... Isn't it communism when a small group of people control all the profits from the work of a large group of people? Or, is that fascism? I can never remember...
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Bloodjunkie....come on! You're going to the dark side, man!
Seriously, Netscape isn't worth anything, they're simple imitators. While Digg was not certainly the first site to think of the "I like this story, so should you" idea, as of now, it's the best by far.
Good luck on the paycheck, man, but realize that they own you - willin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a tab at the top of the top users page - "recent" and "all-time." Albert Pacino is still at the top of the all-time.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 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