DISQUS

Jason · 3 years ago

I think the point you miss is that the top diggers and Netscape Navigators are doing social bookmarking for *HOURS* a day.

This is not a simple hobby for them... it's work. Now, they are passionate about the work for sure, but passion doesn't pay the bills.

Kevin Rose is a very bright and talented young man, but when it comes to this issue he is a) wrong and b) he will change his position. It is so obvious that the top social bookmarkers are skilled individuals who deserve to be paid. Why shouldn't they get paid for going out and finding great stories to share with the community? That is what editors at magazines and newspapers do!

In fact, that is what the Netscape Navigators remind me of: GREAT EDITORS! They have the sense of what is hot or interesting, and they know how to package it.

Kevin will change his mind in 2007 and digg will come up with a way to compensate these users. It might be with Google Adsense on their profile pages, it might be with a reward system (think, a free iPod for every 50 stories on the home page--hey, that's a good idea!).

If Kevin doesn't pay them digg will a) lose their top users to Netscape and other services willing to pay people for their hard work and b) digg will have the forces of evil come in and bribe the top digg users--like they are doing now.

I've had multiple people come to me and tell me that they are paying top digg users, but that this didn't work with Netscape users because we are paying them already and those users know that Netscape would fire them if they did take a bribe.

That being said, it is possible (if not probable) that someone will bribe (or has bribed) a Netscape Navigator. Fraud happens. However, the second we (I mean they... I don't work there anymore!) find out about it they will fire the person for breaking the code of ethics.

tony · 3 years ago

I didn't want to use the word "bribe", but I'm glad you did Jason ;)

Netscape's situation kind of reminds me of what goes on in certain cities with dirty cops; the reason why you pay them a good salary is so they're not as tempted to go crooked.

When you don't pay them anything, and you don't respect what they do for you -- well, you've made your own bed.

Time to lay in it, I think.

Svetlana Gladkova · 3 years ago

But taking money for submitting and promoting links on Digg actually violates Digg TOS. And Kevin Rose is free to delete any account - even that of a top user (for no reason at all) - if there is a hint from someone that this user violates Digg TOS. So why does not he do it?

tony · 3 years ago

#1) he's got no names
#2) a mass deletion of accounts would only lead to another group of 20 or 30 to rise to those positions and potentially do the very same thing.

The issue isn't one of security, but a sense of fairness and compensation -- in how the digging community has been treated, and how a competitor is willing to pay real money for the time spent in this hobby.

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Thanks for the comment, Jason. Just for the record, I am leaning towards your and Rob's argument that what Diggers and 'scapers do is "work" and that it perhaps should be compensated in some way -- even if it's just the top 10 -- and that this might encourage others to work in such a way.

Of course, it will also encourage gaming and bribery, but then that apears to be happening anyway. Sometimes, economies form whether we want them to or not.

Eric Berlin · 3 years ago

My guess is that a number of experiments and models will play out, and Jason is and will be known as an early innovator in the emerging "social news industry." Like many other online phenomena, it began as a free wheeling and spirited foray into the void, building on the fantastic online tools that have fueled this "web 2.0" phase that we're now... digging, for lack of a better word!

I believe that the new Netscape is an early model for what most online news publications (including MSM) will look like -- a hybrid of "original" content, featured content (by admin/editors), and popular content as voted on by the audience.

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

I think you're probably right, Eric.

HMTKSteve · 3 years ago

Why not just give the person who submitted the link/story to Digg a portion of the advertising revenue generated by that submission?

I know AdSense offers channels to track ad placements, how hard could it be for Digg to approach AdSense and tell them that they will be modifying the AdSense code only to add the submitters name in an extra field so they can track who brought in what?

They could further modify it so that only frontpaged stories share revenue.

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

That's a good idea, Steve. But Kevin has said that he doesn't want to introduce compensation of any kind because it would distort the social nature of Digg. I wonder whether this will help to change his mind.