What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
53 Comments
- interg12, on 11/26/2007, -1/+31Agh! i have 25,000 users a day hitting my site! life is sooooo hard. cry me a river, and YOUR WELCOME for the traffic. Nice post. i totally agree.
- decet, on 11/26/2007, -1/+27Leave them alone. Stupidity is its own reward.
- MikeonTV, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1780% of the feeds in my reader I found from a social bookmarking site. There is no argument in my mind. Either be found or don't.
- latova, on 11/26/2007, -1/+10If the webmaster is anal like this, chances are their content isn't worth seeing anyway. I've bookmarked and revisited tons of good sites I found off digg before.
- sockpuppets, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9I think he's just using reverse reverse psychology.
- gbarberi, on 11/26/2007, -1/+7How about we just stick the site on the front page (stationary)? We can do the digg effect everyday as protest.
- HerrEisenheim, on 11/26/2007, -2/+6There is something bigger here that most people miss. The problem isn't necessarily with social media. The problem is this idea that the entire internet can be supported on advertising. More and more people are blocking ads. People aren't clicking the ads they do see. Companies are starting to wake up and realize that while spending $10k on banner ads, or getting on Digg, or both gets them crazy traffic, that doesn't necessarily translate into revenue.
At some point, it's all going to come crashing down, and we are going to see a lot of free Web 2.0 services become pay services. - KaivenTor, on 11/26/2007, -1/+5So if a user turns Javascript or Flash off, can that still be considered "Theft"? How about people still using Lynx? This whole bandwidth theft deal is almost as stupid as suing your own customers. Not getting the conversion rate you want? Blame the software! Sheesh. Try actually putting up ads people either want to see or can't block. You know, evolve something.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4bandwidth costs money. So does time. Employees need to spend time working and using the internet for productivity purposes. Why am I using digg during work time? Cause I'm the Admin, bitch!
- faswich, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Um, me thinks the "why digg is blocked" site is a joke. It is remarkable similar in form to the classic whyfirefoxisblocked.com. Just look at the two sites side by side.
- cesclaveria, on 11/26/2007, -1/+4It is some kind of vendetta against ad-block plus.
- castevens, on 11/26/2007, -3/+5Advertising is as much about "brand recognition" as it is about clicking on a banner. As long as we are seeing it, the ad should be getting it's job done.
- spectre_25gt, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Or they have a good reason not to take it, which is what the OP is trying to say.
- mousky, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2It's up to the end user to decide how to render the content. I can change the font. I can change the font color. I can use my own personal style sheet. I could disable javascript or java. I can choose to not load images. I can write or download a greasemonkey script to do all sorts of neat things. I can replace words I believe to offensive with words that are not.
The content provide is free to suggest how the page should be rendered through the use of appropriate tags, but the end user is free to ignore those suggestions.
Does anyone wonder why Google has been very successful with targeted plain text ads? - AaronCo, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2This is what we call "failing to plan."
If you want to make money from social media traffic you need 3 levels of conversion. Pay per impression, pay per click, and a way to convert some of the traffic to other parts of your page (newsletter, RSS feeds, other articles). But altho that will barely pay for the added bandwidth, a lot of sites will start linking to yours. If your site and article title has a little SEO... you're going to get a lot of good deep links to improve your ranking.
There are benefits to allowing social media traffic, but there are costs too. Both need to be weighed. Frankly I'm more than happy to have traffic on my sites, and if others want to ban it... that's less competition for me. - Kyrgizion, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Using adblock = choosing not to download certain elements off a publicly available web resource. I have never seen any rules about having to download a whole site or page at once being mandatory.
- sgtpppr, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Are you actually saying that once every person and business is online, there will no longer be a purpose to advertising? The only way that works is if you're talking about a single company for every product/service...a 100% monopoly state. The purpose of ads isn't always 'you need this product you've never heard of', but often is 'we know you want to buy this product and there are many stores who offer it, but you should buy it from us instead'. I love people outside of the commercial world acting like they know wtf they are talking about.
- insomniacal, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Sharp point. Just because Digg works for us doesn't mean it works for them. The (occasionally) great content I find through Digg doesn't necessarily mean Digg is good in all cases at all times for all people.
- mlwarrior, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1So your logic is that it's diggs fault that they aren't making any money? Here is your "ulterior motive". The webmaster who is not profiting is dumb. It says that in the article. They are dumb, and wrong. They don't understand how to make money (I.E USE A CACHE AND A CHEAP WEB HOST). Thats why they disagree. Just because a debate exits, doesn't mean that both sides actually have a valid point.
For example, you are wrong, and you don't have a point. Just because you didn't understand the article, doesn't mean that the article is wrong. - aliguana, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I totally agree. seems like people's idea of websites is: Think of some content, get some ads, ads will pay for server, bingo. Something for nothing culture. I have ALWAYS paid for servers from my own pocket. I'm not leeching off visitors.
If you have a web2.0 app, and it's good, then remove the bloody ads and charge for it. If it's not worth paying for (in the hypothetical sense) then it's not worth visiting. - mlwarrior, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1If you offer someone a million dollars, and they don't take it, they are dumb as *****.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/26/2007, -2/+3This whole idea is about as stupid as WhyFirefoxIsBlocked.com guy...
- faswich, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Sorry, it appears Farker beat me to the point by a minute, took too long to articulate my thoughts.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1That's why the television and radio advertising models never worked. Makes ya wonder if television or radio would still be around today if they'd chosen a pay service model.
- TheGreatTK, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I like to think i'm helping raise his bandwidth bill :)
- rupertmorris, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1i like to think I'm saving sites a ton of bandwidth by blocking their ads... and thus reducing their hosting costs.
- insomniacal, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2Or, to put it more clearly -- if these guys really were making money from Digg traffic, why would they be complaining? The article fails to explain an ulterior motive, or any reason why they would otherwise be rejecting gobs of Digg-generated revenue.
- breakaway, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Ohh yes **enbles adblock
Look at all these blocked ads
/me nurses boner induced by lack of ads - sgtpppr, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Or you could get a real job instead of being some affiliate. Affiliate programs are what allow large companies to indirectly employ spammers without the negative back lash. You sell a product for them using spam and they say you don't work for them. They get the sales resulting from the spam and your temporary company that simply sells other peoples products gets the bad rep. You make your money, rename the company, and continue spamming. If we wanted a damn cell phone, we'd buy it from the manufacturer or some reputable store instead of Bob and Jim's Cell Phone Bonanza who is just drop shipping phones for someone else.
- MiDri, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2It's logical, just not very nice...
- TheGreatTK, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Something he didn't mention in the adblock category.. how is adblocking "infringing" upon your rights as a webmaster? So when someone visits your site, you dictate what they absolutely must view and for how long? *****. There's a reason that banner ads are on the way out. And it isn't adblock.
I find it an infringement on my rights as an internet user to be forced to have advertising crammed down my throat (I'm looking at you, IGN!) before i can pick up the small bit of information (or even a tl;dr summary of an article) that i came for. Why should i download your advertising (using MY bandwidth, and MY disk space) if I don't want to? Hence, adblock. - sgtpppr, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1It sucks to think about it, but it is a fact. If every single advertiser pulled all their online ads today, digg would have zero revenue stream. Companies like Google would collapse almost immediately. Right now, large companies pay for ads online despite the return on investment. As time goes on and ad conversions continue downward, advertisers will start moving marketing dollars elsewhere. Google is already moving into radio, newspaper, and tv advertisements to diversify its incoming revenue more. It's still all pay-per-click style, but at least they are moving into other mediums. The advertisement explosion really came from the massive influx of non-savy Web users. The average Joe will catch up eventually and be just as immune and jaded by ads on the Web as tech-savy folks and the ads will start getting pulled.
The advertisers also deserve part of the blame here. They went overboard with pop ups, pop unders, flashing banners, banners with sound, very misleading (cloaked) ads, etc.. and people started blocking ALL ads. A few companies literally ruined it for the majority. I like getting my content for the price of some simple advertisements. many site owners took it way too far though and it seems more like a tv channel that plays ads in all 4 corners of the screen, screams at you randomly to buy a product, and randomly changes the channel to an 'all ads all the time channel' which you have to keep trying to block. - thinsoldier, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1If he had google ads on that site, how much money might he make every time it gets on the first page of digg?
... and why does nothing on digg work in Safari??? - TheGreatTK, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2Do those 5% of brown-shirt wearing people cost you money by browsing your store? No. Did you just alienate potential customers for no good reason? Yes. Bad business, and worse analogy.
As debunked in the article, if the amount of social website users is so small, then how are you losing so much money by "allowing" them into your site? - WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1The people wearing brown shirts have pooped on them, and probably aren't in much of a buying mood. If I were you, I'd place a large display of clean white shirts right at the front of the store at a reasonable price. That should get their attention.
- loker269, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I clicked a few ad's on that site just because the site was willing to go out on a limb and offer a different view....
- adwarereport, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I've been dugg a few times. Digg traffic is basically worthless from an advertising perspective. For instance, I had 50,000 visitors on one page and made $27 in advertising. At the same time, complaining about bandwidth is moronic as well ... bandwidth is dirt cheap. Nevertheless, being dugg can lead to long-term SEO benefits, so it's really quite self-defeating to block it. Not to mention, this protest is stupid - it will do nothing to stop social networking sites.
- mousky, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Yes, those brown-shirt wearing people do cost me money. I may need to hire salespeople to serve them. I may need to provide parking spaces (that, in some climates, need to be cleared of snow). I may need to have a slightly larger store to accommodate them. I may have to replace or reset demo products more often. I may have to clean the floors and bathrooms more often.
The analogy may not be perfect - most analogies are not - but it is a good one. - MiDri, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1If ad programs really wanted to get tricky using ajax you can prevent page content from loading if firefox blocks ads. Or you can load different content. -- So in theory if your image ads are blocked you could use asp/php & ajax to load more intrusive text style ads... Just saying... I hate ads... but I love thinking up new ways to get around stuff... even if it's evil...
- sillywampa, on 11/26/2007, -2/+2So, I own a store and over time I notice in my stats that 75% of people coming into my store are wearing blue shirts, 10% wear red shirts, 10% wear black shirts and only 5% wear brown shirts. Of that 5% wearing brown shirts, only 40% of them actually spend money in my store. So I stand outside my store and allow only the other 95% of non-brown-shirt-wearing people into my store. If someone has a brown shirt on, it doesn't matter what their intention is, they are not allowed to go into my store until they change to a blue shirt. I explain to them that because people wearing that color shirt don't spend as much money in my store as blue-shirt-wearers, it's like they're stealing from me if they come in. How does that logic grab ya?
- snowwrestler, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0Posted by "a social media consultant and a top-ranked community member on multiple social news sites." Yeah, if you make your living charging companies to help them get their links to the top of the Digg homepage, I can see why you might disagree.
- MSP1, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Global adoption of the Internet should make all advertising unnecessary as it enables customer pull to replace seller push. Unfortunately it will probably take sometime for the pushy cretins in the commercial world to realize this.
- MiDri, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1The sweet feeling that no one is watching you, because you're watching every one else -- It's good to be on the top.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0Nope...WhyFirefoxIsBlocked.com. IE Brings it up OK though.
- Scienceisfun, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0I wonder about this. If it's the same guy as last time, would the whydiggisblocked website show up if you got there from a link in the comments section? Time to find out, I guess.
http://jacklewis.net/weblog/ - rickmb, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0But feeding the trolls is a good plan?
- WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1"Or you could get a real job instead of being some affiliate."
You're either jealous, clueless, or both. - Scienceisfun, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0Nope, totally doesn't work. Goes to the guy's blog using IE, but still goes to whyfirefoxisblocked in Mozilla. Maybe it is a joke after all. It's sad that it's entirely plausible that it's not.
- castevens, on 11/26/2007, -2/+1We could just get the link, go there 1,000 times "on our own" without being relayed from digg, and not click any of their ads to make a point
- yellowpez, on 11/26/2007, -1/+0We need to stop perpetuating this "no digg" guy's stupidly obvious cry for attention.
He and anybody in his business knows he can move to an advertising model that isn't "pay-per-click" and make a killing from his "digg traffic problem." -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is