>With "zillions" of users they will find a way to make money eventually
Either that or the next thing comes along and they move on. See Slashdot before and after Digg.
An uptick in quality?
(Seriously, what digg did was to pull all the people stupid enough to install Alexa.)
Yeah, maybe there's two periods when a site like Slashdot or Digg is good - before the masses arrive and after they leave.. It's the bell curve upside down :)
monetizing news, is very tricky. i can't thinnk of 1 social news site that makes a lot of money.
Digg has sixty+ employees and was recently described as close to breaking even. So they make money, they just also spend it all.
Also for those who haven't read Sarah Lacy's crappy book on Web 2.0, Kevin has already cashed out some shares.
oh yeah, that must be how Kevin made $60 million in 18 months
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_33/b3997002....
It is a pattern used by many others (both online and offline) and it is easier to create leverage once you have a large established userbase (especially if you are able to determine their demographics), though often it may seem a lot like gambling.
Many of the other big social sites have also yet to make money/profit.