Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Thoughts on why Digg failed

<< < (2/2)

dk70:
I can recognize most of what he says, though not taken any part of the digging up and down, hunt for frontpage etc. Difference to a forum without management is very little. Same forum can have good content of course - like some videos on Youtube are great. As he says they already have rules to avoid the worst comment fighting - a few more could limit numbers of duplicates and intentionally stupid headlines. Matter of what they want, not impossible to police. If there were visible management only few would not understand rules - same people who get kicked out of forums and other places.

All that about being "top" submitter, getting many diggs while original story from yesterday get zero - hopeless no matter algorithms. Not taking it seriously seems easy to me.

User submitted links has not much to do with journalism but Digg has proved system works as attraction/entertainment. Now MSN is testing similar setup in some countries. Too bad for Digg since it could be more difficult to sell concept and regret they didnt go for highest bid when there was interest. Ive never understood how it could be of much value anyway. Same goes for Youtube. All they have is traffic - anything else can be copied easy, already is. Not like users are loyal to X site! Sooner than later nobody cares and go for next brightest light, matter of guiding traffic. But I dont understand internet deals.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page