New York Times versus Digg

stevepavlina.com

8 points·vlad··5 comments

I aggree with tx and Laurentvw, but (once again) Steve has missed the point. People who follow loads of links on digg and reddit are not high valued readers (maybe gullible enough to click on ads, but mostly college age geeks). He's on there because they are both a list of crap with catchy titles.

People who read the times are a much different reader. If he was in nyt and had something worthwhile, I'm sure he would have seen value from the article (although maybe not in the form of click throughs on his ads). Since he doesn't produce anything new or interesting, it isn't likely to happen though.

I think what steve was driving at is how many visitors were generated by each service.

If you get 1% conversion of 50,000 visitors from digg, it's still better than if you get 5% of 500 visitors from NYTimes

How can you compare NYT with Digg or Reddit? NYT produce content, while Digg&Reddit produce nothing, just trying to make money on what NYT does.

One can possibly compare NYT with a bunch of bloggers, they are also content producers, but not with Digg/Reddit who produce nothing.

The major difference between Digg and NYTimes is that Digg is a democratic news website, in contrary to the NYTimes.

I agree, social bookmarking websites are different. Also, to be honest, I wouldn't call Digg a news website, I see very few newsworthy stories on Digg... it's more like a collection of cool links.

There is some overlap. The voting mechanisms of news aggregators tend to discover interesting stuff, and that is also the purpose of some of the "content" in papers and magazines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com