Nearly same time there was article about digg.com cliques and how just 20 people control whole thing. First story is already creating cracks (or making it stronger) to digg.com community, maybe it was intentional purpose?
Is there war going on between netscape.com vs digg.com or is this war between coalition of independent (and commercial) news-services "less popular than digg.com" vs digg.com? :D
Digg.com is on Alexa.com top100, which is good achievement for fairly new web-service. Other similar services aren't so popular and this way they are not so "important". Netscape.com is trying to jump to the band-wagon, but their $$$ tactique has already caused negative impressions on blogosphere. Netscape.com seems to have problems getting people to "digg" their stories and submitting new ones.
Maybe this whole thing is just incident, there isn't any "war" going on, just small battle of nerds (sorry :) ) souls, who voluntarily bring "free" content for community driven news-services. While explaining their $$$ idea, Netscape recruit Jason Calacanis says that crowdsourcing is outmoded idea.
Netscape is trying to bridge the gap between journalism and blogging by paying a small amount for incoming content and using "Netscape Anchors" to moderate the submissions.
Calacanis has said that the eight anchors, or "metajournalists" as he terms them, have backgrounds as bloggers and as traditional journalists. The anchors are responsible for highlighting the more interesting reader-submitted stories and providing richer, more in-depth analysis.
This I found quite interesting idea. It would make netscape.com like crossover between community driven news-service and traditional news agency. Future shows how well this idea works in practice.
Related articles:
digg.com - Wikipedia
Crowdsourcing - Wired Magazine
No comments:
Post a Comment