The new platform is based upon people wanting to see what friends from other social media sites are interested in. I for one can't even convey in words how little I care about what my real life (childhood, gradeschool, highschool, etc..) friends from Facebook are digging.
Excerpt - "In my opinion Digg did a poor job of designing their new platform simply because it didn’t have a home in it for the entirety of Diggs past user base. "
Only problem I had was Kevin's "c'est la vie" attitude on risk taking. A CEO of a corporation that has tens of millions of other people's money at risk needs to have a lot more concern about a project succeeding.
Well that explains all the bugs. They moved to an entirely new architecture. They probably should have taken a cue from what Apple did when they moved to Intel, change very little else.
Lack of traffic is kicking their ass. The 10 top most popular stories are now 300 diggs. Not 700 - 3000 diggs. Advertisers see that and are going to screw digg financially. The top comments of these top stories don't get more 50 diggs.
Digg is imploding. Less diggs. Less users. And very soon, if not now, a lot less advertising revenue. If DIGG were a publicly traded company, its stock price would be plummeting so fast it'd make your head spin. Management would be canned left and right.
You know what would happen in a publicly traded company? Old digg would come back in less than a week.
Look the primary reason people are upset is that the community power of Digg has been SQUASHED and put into the hands of corporations. This is what BETRAYAL looks like. Users build the site up (Digg is nothing without its users) and Kevin throws the site into the hands of big media. It doesn't even matter if he's being paid or not. Big companies land on the front page without effort now and that goes against everything old digg stood for.
Just own up to it already so we can all move on....
That's all well and good, but why can't I easily do the things I used to, like see where I commented and open up just that part of the thread? If I can do that now, I am having a hard time seeing it.
I've been trying to be open minded about the new Digg now that some changes have been made and more are coming.
However, I still hate it. The frontpage is still cluttered with things I don't care about and I have no way of burying them. Publishers still rule. The frontpage has 15 stories which seems like much less than the old Digg. The main column is scrunched to 540 pixels so I have to scroll four times to read 15 titles. The frontpage either moves at a snails pace or blasts through stories faster than I can read them.
The changes are making it better and I am still hoping things work out but lately I've only been coming to Digg to make comments about how much I hate it and to look for anti-Digg articles. I even registered on Reddit and that site's design makes me want to gouge my eyes out (even with some of the userstyles).
I have to agree with the article. The problem with the new Digg is not in implementation (however buggy), it is in philosophy. This new Digg has adopted the philosophy of Twitter. That philosophy works great when you have some sort of following or social sphere. Basically you need fans and friends for this system to have any appeal at all.
Guess what though? I don't have any friends (much less any who are Digg users) or fans. I work from home online exclusively. It is a rare day where I will see the outside or talk to anyone in person. This new "social" digg doesn't work for me, and I'd bet a lot of the so-called "Digg community" is in the same boat.
The old Digg used to be a place where you could just go and find out all the crazy stuff happening in the world and on the internet. Now it's the same thing with a quarter of the stories it used to have hidden away on a second tab and an utterly useless "My News" tab that is filled with 1 digg stories from huge publications (if I wanted to read story on Wired, i would just go to Wired.)
Its not completely back in working order. You can now go to each comment individually and find it, but your profile doesn't show how many diggs and replies you're getting. That makes it terribly time-consuming unless you very rarely comment.
Digg 4 is just difficult to navigate through.
I'm sticking around because I'm hoping someone will listen to me.
Digg never was a social site for me. Don't you think that finding like minded friends encourages bury brigades?
Default to Top News, not My News.
Default expand all replies.
"1 Dugg by ren1999" is useless information to me. How about show me the number of Diggs I got and the number of Dug-Downs I got without having to click on my own comment. This wastes my time.
And stop the auto-feeds from other news sites and blogs. I came to Digg because Diggers controlled what stories were the most popular.
There are only three possible explanations for Digg v4:
-Kevin Rose didn't like the existing Digg community and wanted one that involved more of his blogger friends
-Kevin Rose was offered a s**t-ton of money by the big blogs and decided $ trumps loyalty
-Kevin Rose is a complete f**king idiot
The third choice actually encompasses the first two, so I guess there is only one explanation, really.
There are two tides to his story, he is trying to take his vision to the place he wanted to be, if he told his investors where he wanted to be with the company, its his responsibility to take it to that place because thats what sold them on investing in digg (even if it does involve risk of loosing a user base). Apple does it all the time, in the long run people forget and the people who really enjoy the service for what it is, come back to it.
I don't think people are giving Kevin enough credit, he built a company based on his final dream of aggregating news for the masses, the fastest way for a small news story to be seen by lots of people is to aggregate it through friends. It is different if a large source posts the news, that is already done by news sources like CNN and FOX which skew the news stories to whatever they want them to be. You only hear half truths with large news sources, but if I was able to get news from small sources or direct from the mouth of the source, I wouldn't get the crap I hear I CNN and FOX and I would get more true news sources.
If you understand his view for the company is a much better ideal for news rather than a few top posters "controlling" the top 24 hour feeds. Personally I don't give a crap who posts what, as long as the story is interesting, I will read it.
maszakrySep 8, 2010Buried
The new platform is based upon people wanting to see what friends from other social media sites are interested in. I for one can't even convey in words how little I care about what my real life (childhood, gradeschool, highschool, etc..) friends from Facebook are digging.
abeautifuldaySep 7, 2010Buried
Excerpt - "In my opinion Digg did a poor job of designing their new platform simply because it didn’t have a home in it for the entirety of Diggs past user base. "
Couldn't agree more!
thejokkerSep 7, 2010Buried
remember in the old digg where people submitted the original article, not one of a million blogs who linked to it and said something about it?
...echo...
jonmilnerSep 8, 2010Buried
1st attempt: Digg has broken an axel.
2nd attempt: Failed to load story.
3rd attempt: I wish I could bury this article.
themachine1Sep 8, 2010Buried
Only problem I had was Kevin's "c'est la vie" attitude on risk taking. A CEO of a corporation that has tens of millions of other people's money at risk needs to have a lot more concern about a project succeeding.
cyberdactylSep 8, 2010Buried
Kevin is just a young dude like the millions of other dudes out there on the net. He just got a big break and foot in the door with the Screen Savers.
He is DEFINITELY not a IT business genius by any stretch of the imagination.
andywwwSep 8, 2010Buried
Well said!
Ironically, I only come to digg now to grouse about the changes in digg and look for anti-v4 articles.
mynameisjoeSep 7, 2010Buried
Well that explains all the bugs. They moved to an entirely new architecture. They probably should have taken a cue from what Apple did when they moved to Intel, change very little else.
yourmanstanSep 8, 2010Buried
changing architecture + changing formula = recipe for failure
davidg11Sep 8, 2010Buried
Lack of traffic is kicking their ass. The 10 top most popular stories are now 300 diggs. Not 700 - 3000 diggs. Advertisers see that and are going to screw digg financially. The top comments of these top stories don't get more 50 diggs.
Digg is imploding. Less diggs. Less users. And very soon, if not now, a lot less advertising revenue. If DIGG were a publicly traded company, its stock price would be plummeting so fast it'd make your head spin. Management would be canned left and right.
You know what would happen in a publicly traded company? Old digg would come back in less than a week.
rikkuotakuSep 8, 2010Buried
Look the primary reason people are upset is that the community power of Digg has been SQUASHED and put into the hands of corporations. This is what BETRAYAL looks like. Users build the site up (Digg is nothing without its users) and Kevin throws the site into the hands of big media. It doesn't even matter if he's being paid or not. Big companies land on the front page without effort now and that goes against everything old digg stood for.
Just own up to it already so we can all move on....
kliskSep 9, 2010Buried
See, I liked Digg BECAUSE I don't HAVE friends to get news from. I don't know many people, or find many people interesting.
Digg brought out articles I otherwise would of never saw.
Now it's back to having to rely on my inexistent friends. Which defeats the entire reason I would use a site like Digg.
nickm68Sep 8, 2010Buried
That's all well and good, but why can't I easily do the things I used to, like see where I commented and open up just that part of the thread? If I can do that now, I am having a hard time seeing it.
shustoneSep 8, 2010Buried
I've been trying to be open minded about the new Digg now that some changes have been made and more are coming.
However, I still hate it. The frontpage is still cluttered with things I don't care about and I have no way of burying them. Publishers still rule. The frontpage has 15 stories which seems like much less than the old Digg. The main column is scrunched to 540 pixels so I have to scroll four times to read 15 titles. The frontpage either moves at a snails pace or blasts through stories faster than I can read them.
The changes are making it better and I am still hoping things work out but lately I've only been coming to Digg to make comments about how much I hate it and to look for anti-Digg articles. I even registered on Reddit and that site's design makes me want to gouge my eyes out (even with some of the userstyles).
saintdesySep 8, 2010Buried
I have to agree with the article. The problem with the new Digg is not in implementation (however buggy), it is in philosophy. This new Digg has adopted the philosophy of Twitter. That philosophy works great when you have some sort of following or social sphere. Basically you need fans and friends for this system to have any appeal at all.
Guess what though? I don't have any friends (much less any who are Digg users) or fans. I work from home online exclusively. It is a rare day where I will see the outside or talk to anyone in person. This new "social" digg doesn't work for me, and I'd bet a lot of the so-called "Digg community" is in the same boat.
The old Digg used to be a place where you could just go and find out all the crazy stuff happening in the world and on the internet. Now it's the same thing with a quarter of the stories it used to have hidden away on a second tab and an utterly useless "My News" tab that is filled with 1 digg stories from huge publications (if I wanted to read story on Wired, i would just go to Wired.)
bdbrSep 8, 2010Buried
Its not completely back in working order. You can now go to each comment individually and find it, but your profile doesn't show how many diggs and replies you're getting. That makes it terribly time-consuming unless you very rarely comment.
ren1999Sep 9, 2010Buried
Digg 4 is just difficult to navigate through.
I'm sticking around because I'm hoping someone will listen to me.
Digg never was a social site for me. Don't you think that finding like minded friends encourages bury brigades?
Default to Top News, not My News.
Default expand all replies.
"1 Dugg by ren1999" is useless information to me. How about show me the number of Diggs I got and the number of Dug-Downs I got without having to click on my own comment. This wastes my time.
And stop the auto-feeds from other news sites and blogs. I came to Digg because Diggers controlled what stories were the most popular.
kiantechSep 8, 2010Buried
remember the old digg when only power users got on the frontpage...the only difference is the poweruser now is the website....
fishbeef33Sep 8, 2010Buried
There are only three possible explanations for Digg v4:
-Kevin Rose didn't like the existing Digg community and wanted one that involved more of his blogger friends
-Kevin Rose was offered a s**t-ton of money by the big blogs and decided $ trumps loyalty
-Kevin Rose is a complete f**king idiot
The third choice actually encompasses the first two, so I guess there is only one explanation, really.
zgradisSep 8, 2010Buried
There are two tides to his story, he is trying to take his vision to the place he wanted to be, if he told his investors where he wanted to be with the company, its his responsibility to take it to that place because thats what sold them on investing in digg (even if it does involve risk of loosing a user base). Apple does it all the time, in the long run people forget and the people who really enjoy the service for what it is, come back to it.
I don't think people are giving Kevin enough credit, he built a company based on his final dream of aggregating news for the masses, the fastest way for a small news story to be seen by lots of people is to aggregate it through friends. It is different if a large source posts the news, that is already done by news sources like CNN and FOX which skew the news stories to whatever they want them to be. You only hear half truths with large news sources, but if I was able to get news from small sources or direct from the mouth of the source, I wouldn't get the crap I hear I CNN and FOX and I would get more true news sources.
If you understand his view for the company is a much better ideal for news rather than a few top posters "controlling" the top 24 hour feeds. Personally I don't give a crap who posts what, as long as the story is interesting, I will read it.