5 ms·
That WSJ article attributes Digg's fall from grace to "rivals like Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc." and makes no mention of the Digg v4 redesign disaster. That
by akanster 14y ago
That WSJ article attributes Digg's fall from grace to "rivals like Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc." and makes no mention of the Digg v4 redesign disaster. That was what did them in more than anything.
EDIT: The story has been updated with a new paragraph, "A series of redesigns..."
- speg 14y agoIt was going downhill long before v4 IMO.
- BiWinning 14y agoThere was point, years before the v4 redesign, where 90% of the content hitting the front-page was supplied by 100 or so so-called "power users". Of that 90%, probably 40% was supplied by Mr. Baby Man himself. Hitting the frontpage was an impossibility unless you went around friending other users and building up your network. A worthwhile investment if you were doing social media professionally but for the average user they had no voice except in a comments section. After I realized this I moved onto reddit and never looked back. Of course reddit has suffered it's own unique set of consequences from becoming the kid on the block.
- michaelhoffman 14y agoAgreed, but for many (including myself), the Digg v4 fiasco was the last straw, and there was an organized exodus of users at that point.
- mcbutterbunz 14y agoYes it was. Remember the digg bar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg#Digg_Bar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg#Digg_Bar
- jshen 14y agodigg had reached a local maximum prior to v4 that wasn't sufficient for the amount of money they had raised.