This is an article (Wall Street Journal) that I think has been a long time coming.

Basically, it runs down the biggest social news websites (digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Del.icio.us, Newsvine, and Netscape) but goes one step deeper - instead of just focusing on these companies, what they do, and their quest for success, it hones in on the top contributors - the users that find the digg-worthy stories that all the masses flock to like sheeple.

There are two items that I found interesting: one, that supposedly at digg, with nearly a million registered users, a mere 30 people are responsible for submitting a third of the stories that hit the digg front page. So for all the talk about wisdom of the crowds, it seems that while voting occurs in large numbers, the really cool stuff is still located by surprisingly small group of elite, observant, and I dare say, original thinkers.

The second item of note is how these multimillion dollar invested companies are essentially riding on the membership and opinions of this handful of individuals. The cool part is they’re profiled at the bottom of the WSJ article. Scroll down to the bottom and check it out.

Totally average folks. All slightly nerdy. Just like you and me, if a bit more obsessive / compulsive.

I’m happy to see some attention being paid to these users - after all that’s what this Web 2.0 thing is supposed to be about. But it’s easy to get distracted by the YouTube dudes cashing out with hundreds of millions. It’s good to take a step back and realize YouTube’s success was largely on the backs of average dudes uploading their personal videos and copyright infringement, the former of which got some notoriety but that’s about it (although, this is changing). At least toss Wikipedia (a pre Web 2.0 example of user-created content) a couple of millions to keep it from going under, why don’tcha?

Note: seems the rumors that Wikipedia could go under in 3 - 4 months are untrue. Please read here.

So it seems the next step might be for social news sites to figure out how to attract and retain these uber-users. Otherwise, all you get are hit-and-run types (like me) or spammers. The obvious, cynical answer is: pay ‘em. Netscape is giving some of these top contributing folks $1,000 a month to submit stories to their site. Heck, if there are only 30 top diggers, why not hire them as part of your payroll?

I expect more sites to start paying users for cool content. It’s inevitable. The suits will ask for it, because it’s easier for them to throw money at stuff than to crack the nut of how to attract an uber user. But I’m sure there are other, more noble solutions. How about stock options?

And they (you, we) totally deserve it. It just gets back to how Web 2.0 is supposedly all about You, The Person of the Year. It’s becoming more and more clear this is true.

So bring on the swag, man, I’m ready…

Additional Reading: TechCrunch, digg, Live Digitally, Jason Calacanis

Categories: Technology :: Tags: :: Trackback URL
Front Page
Previous Post: Apple: What I’m Looking Forward To In Leopard
Next Post: Movie Notes: Never Say Never Again
Related Posts: Another Boring, Egotistical Blog Post About Blogging (And Digg) :: Iconistan: Social News Real Estate :: Google Reader + Twitter + MyBlogLog + This Blog + Your Blog = Social Network Site? :: How About a Web 2.0 Newspaper ::