July 20, 2006

15 Comments »

1. Great point robert. I believe what Jason is doing is bold, but I just dont think it will work if he wants to use it as a means to compete with digg. Digg users will definitely “recycle” themselves if the top people leave.

   Comment by Nick — July 20, 2006 @ 8:15 pm

2. I like your analysis. Sharing the wealth is the foundation of start-ups.

   Check out Revver. They seem to be in line with your philosophy.

   Kevin

   Comment by Kevin Heisler — July 20, 2006 @ 9:03 pm

3. Any take on the furor Calacanis has created by replacing a traditional portal with a lame Digg rip-off? That’s a far more interesting story; seems to me, he’s getting blown out of the water by AOL doesn’t care, just users.

   Comment by Goebbels — July 20, 2006 @ 9:11 pm

4. I can’t throw rocks at AOL cause PodTech has a lame portal too.

   Comment by Robert Scoble — July 20, 2006 @ 9:22 pm

5. 
   http://digg.com/topusers

   http://digg.com/users/SearchEngines/homepage
   

   The problem is that hiring those people isn’t good enough to recreate Digg. If you take away those 100 people another 100 would jump into their spots. Why? Cause our relationship is with Digg, not with those people

   100 people would NOT really be able to replace those who left - few people really know how to find news and to post a headline and description that would REALLY stimulate HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS to give it a Digg

   Being PAID for doing something that is not only making a profit for DIGG - but for HUNDREDS of companies that were successfully DIGG-ed to the homepage

   Paradise - hold on $$$$$$$$$

   Comment by SearchEngines — July 20, 2006 @ 9:43 pm

6. Yes, it does: but does it teach you anything that the oldschool beats newschool?

   Comment by Goebbels — July 20, 2006 @ 9:44 pm

7. 
   http://digg.com/topusers

   http://digg.com/users/SearchEngines/homepage
   

   The problem is that hiring those people isn’t good enough to recreate Digg. If you take away those 100 people another 100 would jump into their spots. Why? Cause our relationship is with Digg, not with those people

   100 people would NOT really be able to replace those who left - few people really know how to find news and to post a headline and description that would REALLY stimulate HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS to give it a Digg

   Being PAID for doing something that is not only making a profit for DIGG - but for HUNDREDS of companies that were successfully DIGG-ed to the homepage….. :LOL

   Paradise - hold on $$$$$$$$$

   Comment by SearchEngines — July 20, 2006 @ 9:45 pm

8. 100 would replace the other 100? Keep dreaming…

   The best Special Forces teams replace a small Army. You take away the heads, the whole thing falls apart and no one is motivated to keep it up, or return it to it’s former glory. Talent is not unlimited. If you take away the 100, something new, cooler and trendier pops up, this is internet time, member? Nothing is forever.

   One well-positioned Sniper is worth an Entire Division…

   Comment by Christopher Coulter — July 21, 2006 @ 2:33 am

9. Check out http://www.dotnetkicks.com/ - a similar idea to Digg but with the community revenue sharing model.

   Comment by Leo Nelson — July 21, 2006 @ 4:31 am

10. Sharing the profit. Isn’t that what Jason is doing. He is gonna share the profit with the top 100 contributors. Where as Digg shares the profit with nobody. I like your thought of sharing the profit Robert. But I think it would be very difficult to find a model where you could share the profit with all the users (thusands). Would they share according to contributions and how will you calculate that for all the users? Could get very complicated.

    Comment by Kasper Retvig — July 21, 2006 @ 5:16 am

11. “If you take away those 100 people another 100 would jump into their spots. Why? Cause our relationship is with Digg, not with those people.”

    But that assumes that those 100 new people can do exactly the same job as the 100 old people. If not, you’re getting less value - and Netscape wins.

    Comment by Ian Betteridge — July 21, 2006 @ 6:29 am

12. I put my thoughts on this here: http://www.richbrownell.com/page.php?id=239

    The short version is: pretty slimy move. It’s one thing to copy a service, but to then try to buy the users of the service? Lame.

    Comment by Richard Brownell — July 21, 2006 @ 7:47 am

13. “If Jason Calacanis could actually hire away all of the top Digg’ers, that’d cost him $1.2 million. But, look at the value that would be created by doing that! Digg is already valued at many times that amount.”

    Valued at many times $1.2 million based on what? Perceived potential profitable revenue streams? When are those going to occur?

    Just curious. Seems like “A fool and his money….”

    Comment by Mike Drips — July 21, 2006 @ 8:41 am

14. Newsvine.com has ad-based revenue sharing. The details are listed in the “Advertising Payments” section in their user agreement…

    http://www.newsvine.com/_cms/info/useragreement

    Note, there are no ads yet.

    Comment by Matt Savarino — July 21, 2006 @ 1:10 pm

15. Well, sometimes, 100 people is not enough for something new,but sometimes “it” can do. Why not? It quite depends on how you”acquire” them into a team.

    Comment by tranngocchau — August 12, 2006 @ 3:37 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment