That seems like a huge price to pay for digg - especially since I assume the way to make money off social news sites is with ads, and the type of community digg attracts is the type that blocks/ignores ads. Maybe I'm way overestimating how many people use that, or maybe that's why they haven't been bought yet?
While Kevin Rose (via Diggnation) and the digg audience generally advocate piracy, that doesn't necessary correlate to the audience using ad blocking software.
Wanting something for free, and wanting something that is already free to be without ads are different things.
You could also serve the ads from the same domain as the thumbnails and images, making it more difficult for blocking software.
Exactly - given that any day some other site could become the top social news site, it seems weird they would be trying to get such a large/unlikely amount.
Digg has so much room to expand, I'm not sure why they haven't done so. For instance, users should be able to create 'sub-digg' pages for specific subjects that they can then build a community around, or even embed into their own sites, instead of using pligg, etc. By allowing niche communities to develop, quality of news will increase, and digg can become a pretty reputable and valuable source of news. Also, by catering to niches, users will see a greater value in using and contributing to digg. I still see digg as a novelty site which serves as a mere gateway for internet jokes and the typical anti-cop/george bush/microsoft/etc. shit.
Interesting ideas, but once you start adding tons and tons of features that look good on paper, the site starts to lose its community focus and you alienate some people.
By nichifying digg, you'd convert one huge community in a ton of little ones.
Anyway, you can already kind of do this, by selecting specific categories and viewing only stories sorted there.
Well, I'd rather be part of a bunch of smaller communities who share the same interests as I do, tend to have more in depth knowledge than the whole community about said subjects, and who care about the quality of submissions, like here on news.yc. I find much more value in that. And I think news.yc is evidence enough that social news sites run by niche communities can thrive and prosper.
Yeah, but from the perspective of converting digg into a bunch of news.yc communities surrounding other niches, I highly doubt that could ever happen. And any attempt to do that would just ruin the digg community.
Goes to show why you shouldn't take 11 million in funding when you're a social news site. How much do you think Kevin's going to take home if they sell for $10-20 million?
Maybe enough for a new pair of cargo pants and a latte.
Bill: Dude, are we better than Reddit?
Ted: Like, yeah, man, totally.
Bill: Dude, like how much better?
Ted: Like a hundred times, bro!
Bill: Then we should like sell it for... like... a hundred times as much!
Ted: Whoah, do you have any idea how much weed that would buy?
[They look at each other]
Wyld Stallyns!
I was under the impression it was closer to 10-12mm.
Now I love Reddit, but I do think the Reddit guys made out like bandits. It will be a while before Conde Nast recoups their investment, especially if the site continues to stagnate.
Conde Nast purchased Reddit to take their engine mainsteam, as there are more people interested in fashion and gossip then electronics and programming.
CNs mainstrean reddit, lipstick.com, is stagnating, and has hardly any activity.
Check out sugarloving.com for a decent, mainsteam-content social news site (that does a lot better than lipstick.com)
Both sites, however, miss how visual such interests are.
If Tara Reid falls over drunk again, then you better have a picture of her falling over drunk. Galliano's new collection is better described by images than a paragraph of text.
Wow, I looked at sugarloving, and my eyes immediately glazed over.
Booo-ring!
I have also always wondered about social slashdots. Especially, I mean - women, they love to talk, right? So how come the only obsessive online-communities appear to be dominated by males? It doesn't make sense.
While we're generalizing women do seem to like to talk to each other and they seem to exchange all sorts of information and experiences that way. But have you ever noticed that they also look at each other when they are talking, I think women like to actually exchange a lot more through non-verbal cues. Perhaps that's not true of men.
Also, perhaps for women it is more a tool of trading, maybe they don't like to broadcast to the world. Rather, they like to be able to be picky in chosing people they relay information to.
