Forum Moderators: rogerd
"We have to do better," he said in his talk, called "The Future of News," and said that it's time for the social news site that he founded in 2004 to to expand beyond the geek set and get some real-world relevance. "Why click a button and make the number go up by one? Why does that matter?"Digg, after all, gets more than 30 million monthly visitors, but Rose said that the site only has slightly over three million registered user accounts--those are the people actually "Digging." That indirectly confirmed what Digg critics hve been saying all along: that it's reflective of only a tiny and vocal subset of the Web, resulting in a heavy bias toward anything iPhone, anything Linux, anything Barack Obama, and plenty of wacky local news stories.
Digg, after all, gets more than 30 million monthly visitors
Holy cow!, I like Digg and really respect what those guys have done, but to me, its mind blowing its not profitable with that kind of traffic.
If people aren't hanging around looking at the ads, how can you make money?
I could easily 10 great viable money making ideas for digg if I had the time to sit and think. So much potential with that type of traffic.
If people aren't hanging around looking at the ads, how can you make money?
If I'm not mistaken, most of the activity up until recently has been automated hence the major bannings that took place in the last 30 days. I thought that was a great move on Digg's behalf and I'm having fun watching all the whiners.
I do believe most of Digg's major activity happens at a layer that would make them "zero" revenue. We'll see how their recent changes pan out and I wish them the best.
That's the whole idea behind search engines. Even if you send people off to another site, you can still find ways to monetize.
