What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
56 Comments
- sexybobo, on 02/16/2009, -2/+38Is this guy really bitching that google doesn't show him his posts when he googles keywords from it?
- michaelpinto, on 02/16/2009, -2/+33I though that it was Craig's List that destroyed the value of newspapers by killing the ad revenue from classifieds? Besides if anything google allows non-local readers to discover local newspapers...
- agsinger, on 02/16/2009, -0/+16I'm going to quote Mike Masnick because he really nailed the response to this:
"This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Google doesn't devalue things it touches. It increases their value by making them easier to find and access. Google increases your audience as a content creator, which is the most important asset you have. It takes a special kind of cluelessness to claim that something that increases your biggest asset "devalues" your business."
More here:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090213/0249023757.s ... - ErickStevenson, on 02/16/2009, -2/+18Why do people hate Google so much? Google rocks! Too many haters...
- LiquidSpark, on 02/16/2009, -2/+12What a joke. The newspapers want to be high in search results without actually publishing the content (so they can charge for it). Then they blame Google because their scheme wont fly. Good luck with that.
- dtfinch, on 02/16/2009, -0/+8Competition, destroyer of profit margins.
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -1/+8maybe google simply exposes the lack of value that we wore getting from corporate newspapers.
- Virindi, on 02/16/2009, -1/+7"This just in: Henry Ford's cars are destroying the value of buggies and whips. Tonight at 9: Is fluorinated water destroying dentistry? Does moonshine destroy the water market?"
Times change, so adapt or die. They have a chance to save their business if they try, but it's up to them. The internet was popular a long time ago, and they can see the trends just like anyone else. - cx0der, on 02/16/2009, -3/+9How many more Google is "evil" stories are we going to read?
- qwertydvorak, on 02/16/2009, -0/+5"The real destroyer of value is the publishing companies themselves."
it is the publishing companies, but not totally for the reason you put out. my local paper mostly runs stories straight from the AP. they don't add anything at all to it. many stories could use local examples stuck into the sidebar, but that would require actual research. most of the time when i read the local paper, i have already read most of the news days before.
if newspapers wanted to make themselves more relevant they would start producing more local content. otherwise why do we need the paper when we can just read the reuters or AP feed from google directly for national and world news. - shakabrah, on 02/16/2009, -2/+6Why do we *need* newspapers? Isn't it the natural order for newer, better technologies to replace older, inferior technologies? Did the Wall Street Journal bemoan the downfall of the record, the 8-track, or the cassette tape?
- zapass, on 02/16/2009, -0/+4cnet: the great **microsoft propaganda megaphone**
it's an interesting coincidence that digg is regularly fed with cnet articles that are perfectly inline with microsoft's agenda.
you'd almost think there are people whose job it is to make sure it happens! - Unknown038, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3seconded
- Gerz1219, on 02/16/2009, -2/+5Well, if the publishing companies are dinosaurs whose time is up, then fine, but their value hasn't actually been transferred to Google, a smarter and more innovative competitor. The value has, in fact, been destroyed or evaporated or however else you want to put it.
Google operates at a ridiculously high margin because its delivery mechanism is much cheaper to maintain and more efficient. But by bringing in pennies on the dollar compared to Old Media, Google has indirectly devastated an entire industry, and there's no way to make up the shortfall.
Obviously, it's wrong to blame Google specifically, because the internet made Old Media's downfall inevitable. Still, in a publishing universe in which nobody can get paid for content, it's difficult to argue that a significant amount of value hasn't been destroyed rather than transferred. - skipdog172, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3May I ask you what kind of articles you constitute as "good"? Can you go out and find enough "good" articles to fill Digg's front page every day?
- iMarv, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3So we have people bitching here that their 'qualitative' content is not displayed in search results ? oh well .. can they come up with any algorithm to display 'only' the 'qualitative' content and not the quantitative one!! . And how is Google supposed to tag qualitative content , given that being 'qualitative' is itself subjective...
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3boo hoo, people get a break i guess thats bad.
Ha Ha! Your medium is dying! - sv650touring, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3Google & craigslist removed all desire to even pick up the local fishwrap for me.
- ousthouse, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3And the refrigerator made the milkman's job obsolete. Boo hoo.
- paulright, on 02/16/2009, -0/+3The Machines, they took our jobs!
but sarcasm aside, because of the advancement of technology, many jobs are disappearing and the idea of full employment may soon be a myth. How are we going to handle that, cause digging holes and filling them up again is not an answer. - mrgarci1, on 02/16/2009, -1/+3Google doesn't destroy value, as such - they're just a great example of the creative destruction that is inherent in the tech business (and every other business, some would argue).
- MWeather, on 02/16/2009, -0/+2So any time a commodity (in the case content) can be produced/delivered at a lower cost, value is destroyed?
Let's hope for consumers' sake value keep getting lost. - ousthouse, on 02/16/2009, -0/+2No... the fact that Google shows much of the world from a street level view is somewhere around the 8th best thing about them.
- earthwormzim, on 02/16/2009, -0/+2Here's a crazy idea: the higher the quality of your *****...the more likely it is that other people will share it with their friends and such by putting links to it on their sites/blog posts. But if your ***** is boring ass garbage that no one gives a ***** about, then no one will link to it because it's so ***** lame. In other words, the "quantity" of links is probably an indicator of your "quality".
- w3ber, on 02/16/2009, -2/+4Yes, and the title should be: "Search engines, the bla bla bla"
- Pinkertinkle, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1The model of print publishing is dying and instead of figuring out a new model the newspapers just bitch and moan. They can go to hell.
- lornali, on 02/17/2009, -0/+1The good old newspaper is different
- Gerz1219, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1The issue here is that internet ads are far cheaper than traditional print ads, so while Old Media sites like the NY Times and Washington Post are probably getting more eyeballs than they did during the print-only days, they're actually taking in a lot less money.
This is problematic insofar as most of the blogosphere is still heavily reliant on Old Media investigative reporting. Bloggers link and summarize to fit their ideological slant. If Old Media publications start disappearing or heavily consolidating due to lack of revenue, there will be a much small universe of actual news for the bloggers to pilfer.
Also, the horse-and-buggy gave way to the much more lucrative auto industry, and the 8-track gave way to the cheaper-to-produce (yet higher margin) CD. The digital transition has been painful for many industries because while the delivery mechanisms are cheaper, it's proven significantly more difficult to monetize digital content, which more than cancels out any cost savings. - Jsmuli2, on 02/16/2009, -2/+3Why do all these critics and writers use Google, instead of "Internet" or "people of the world" Google is just a medium between the sharing of information. The actual sharing is done by the people. So, basically, they shouldn't hate on Google, they should be hating on people...you know the same people who realize they'd rather read the news that is more accessible and paperless.
- BenTheTank, on 02/16/2009, -2/+3Google is amazing for countless reasons, but my absolute favorite is the fact that I can bring up GoogleMaps Street View and tour my beloved old hometown anytime. Nostalgia can be a powerful thing. And SketchUp is pretty kickass too.
BTW I didn't read the article, because anything criticizing Google automatically sucks in my book; unless it's by DOB. - mattearle, on 02/16/2009, -1/+2It doesn't really matter if the efficiencies Google creates are good or bad for society, they are going to happen.
- digger0007, on 02/17/2009, -0/+1Although I respect the Wall Street Journal and its content, I am shocked at the navel gazing self-aggrandizing introspection from the ivory tower that Robert Thompson lives in. This is very surprising considering the breadth and openness of the Wall Street Journal itself.
Google is about much more than newspaper articles. The value added by Google is not measured by the ranking of searched for information. Google created huge values when it made information of all types available to anyone with an internet connection.
The old media, of which newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal is one of the oldest and among the most respected, is being displaced by the new media, as happened many times in history. The survival strategy is not to complain about the value added by the new competitor, but by changing to deliver value that is useful in the new environment. These old stogies have not been able to identify a new niche for themselves and complain about the new comers. How typical and sad! The Wall Street Journal occupied a unique position for a long time in the business and investment community, but it is being displayed increasingly by bloggers and the electronic media. It is not Google that destroys value. It is the old media wishing for the old glory days when they were the central power, the gatekeeper, the holder of the sacred keys to insider information. Those days are gone, Mr. Thompson. As surely as the computer changed the book publishing and music publishing business, the internet and Web 2.0 will change the news distribution business.
How ironic that this man complained about the destruction of value on a television interview, and is critiqued on digg! - earthwormzim, on 02/16/2009, -1/+2Booohooo! *****' crybaby. He's just mad because he isn't getting any page hits (probably because his ***** sucks).
- grimacebrown, on 02/16/2009, -1/+2... So we're asking if consolidating public RSS feeds from Newspaper websites, supplied by the newspaper is stealing value?
1.) Old discussion
2.) Kinda ridiculous... - BenTheTank, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1You're right, my opinion *is* wrong! Thanks Ousthouse!
I guess you wouldn't understand what it's like to miss your hometown when you still live with your Mom.
j/k - philipz78, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1Cemetaries are quite lucrative.
- raspax, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1The wal-mart to google analysis is an interesting comparison that definitely won't win you any friends here on digg.
- marktastic, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1irregardless!
- benologist, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1I'm pretty sure they're keenly aware of the state of their business. There was a writeup on one of the nytimes blogs about it just last week.
- ousthouse, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1Why leave mom's basement if I can see the rest of the world via google?
- gnotDigger, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1STOP WRITING ***** *****
- hawksfan03, on 02/16/2009, -0/+1why is this on the front page? learn how to tag your posts properly and you won't have a problem. I have a blog that i get one hit a day to and if i google a title of one of my posts it's almost always in the top 10
- Thex1138, on 02/16/2009, -1/+1If Google News can destroy the value of Rupert Murdoch's biased and despicable media empire, then I say BRING! IT! ON!
- pjdietz, on 02/18/2009, -0/+0What's a newspaper?
You mean that stuff you use to line bird cages? - moneymanager007, on 02/17/2009, -0/+0case of sour grapes????
- hpychan, on 02/17/2009, -0/+0From the article, isn't it the problem that Digg needs to solve as well? Reward the first who post the link, and lower the ranking of the same link which posted second or third time?
- intrepidia, on 02/17/2009, -0/+0Ahh... It's not creating value for the customer that's the question here. I'ts doing a wonderful job of destroying shareholder value... That's why they have their panties up in a bunch....
- mjsilva, on 02/17/2009, -0/+0Yes, resuming the whole article it comes to it!
It's something like "bla bla bla..., why google don't think my post have quality, since I do... bla bla bla....." - Bravetiger, on 02/16/2009, -0/+0Google does not create content they are just collect it and make it fast and easy to find.
So google did not destroy the value of content.... directly.
Google search's preference of fastest breaking news (regardless of accuracy) and inability to vet content to make sure the content is actual and truthful.... combined with the public's lack of interest of in real depth news is destroying value. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is