Users who Dugg This
AngelWardriver
11953 Followers
Derek Ward
2685 Followers
Redsfaithful
5953 Followers
SocialHype
649 Followers
gratOct 25, 2010
The beginning of the end?
hurrayforschoolOct 26, 2010
The end of the end.
rholland356Oct 26, 2010
The "poking if the corpse with a stick" end, or the "choking on a bit of steak in a restaurant filled with libertarians" end?
speedyrevOct 26, 2010
The "vultures circling but not seeing enough left to bother with" end.
docholiday22Oct 26, 2010
Nearing closure...
paduraOct 25, 2010
sad
anomaly100Oct 25, 2010
FTA:
Al Gore's Current Media had wanted Digg and was willing to pay $100 million.
I wonder what the price would be now?
badqatOct 25, 2010
According to Jay Adelson, there was never any written, formal offer to purchase Digg presented. So either Jay is lying, or the article is wrong.
rholland356Oct 26, 2010
"had wanted and was willing to pay" does not equal "negotiated a deal and presented an offer". Typically these things get bantered about before pen goes to paper.
And, Jay may very well be lying. You don't know that, and I don't know that.
badqatOct 25, 2010
How I miss the five minute edit time.
I should have included the fact that I do believe Jay is speaking the truth. He clams there was lots of talk about potential offers. But that none of it ever materialized into a real offer.
Also, think about this: Jay says they spent a whole week negotiating with NewsCorp as well. So Digg could have ended up in Rupert Murdoch's family.
How's that for a thought?
netantOct 26, 2010
Digg goint to Rupert Murdoch's empire might have been a good thing. So little was done to myspace to make it competitive to facebook, that same inertia might have still kept around digg v.3
hurrayforschoolOct 26, 2010
At least Rupert Murdoch doesn't masquerade in sheep's clothing.
rholland356Oct 26, 2010
Much better expression of your thinking, badqat.
anomaly100Oct 27, 2010
They need to go back to the 5 minutes of editing time. How I *wish* they would!
kevenmOct 26, 2010
$5, some pocket lint, and a couple of those McDonald's fries that fell to the bottom of the bag.
anomaly100Oct 27, 2010
I dunno, that's asking a lot really....
Closed AccountOct 26, 2010
There was plenty of bulls**t fake offers being "leaked" a few years ago because Digg was trying to fool the investors into giving them another round of funding despite the fact that it was clear that the site was not going to be profitable.
aldolinaresOct 25, 2010
If they have just bring back the version 3... but now its to late
rholland356Oct 26, 2010
It is never too late. Have you seen the mess that is Reddit?
PyriteGenieOct 25, 2010
Looks like Digg HR found the Bury Button -- on the backs of 37% of their employees.
particleman420Oct 25, 2010
if it aint broke, fix it 'til it is
betteroffedOct 26, 2010
You win the internet today, kind sir.
godsbongOct 26, 2010
Your comment hurts my head :'(
novenatorOct 26, 2010
Laying off their staff is the wrong answer to jittery investors, improving their product is, and that is increasingly difficult to do with less folks on the payroll.
ecwilsonazOct 26, 2010
Investors? Profitability is about making payroll and having money leftover, not running out prematurely and having to beg investors for more money.
ryebryeOct 26, 2010
If investors demand a burn-rate cut, you can't say "no" and expect to keep funding.
Closed AccountOct 26, 2010
Except...clueless idiot...it has been said for a LONG time that Digg is overstaffed, as well as the rest of hteir overhead is way too high.
The site is little more than a f**king MESSAGE BOARD. There is no need for 70+ employees. There are plenty of articles about how Digg had something like 150% more (so 2.5 times) employees than websites with comperable traffic, and over 3 times as many servers.
It is inefficiency that was pissing off the investors. That and the fact that the site wasrun by man-children who think it is professional to never appear without a drink in their hand in their early 30s.
dutchguilder2Oct 26, 2010
Exactly right, except its more like 10x too many servers. Digg needs to fire most of their staff then bring in some adult supervision.
particleman420Oct 28, 2010
wtf kind of douchebag explains something like that?
how about you notch it down a little comicbook guy. no one likes a prick.
grafenbergOct 26, 2010
I miss digg. They used to listen to their users. Too bad they sold out.
G.SanchezOct 26, 2010
digg right now has not win over the community.
duffman5Oct 26, 2010
Let's just hope that anyone involved with version 4 are first to go. This was at one time a great site and I'm sure there were a lot of people involved who deserved to keep their jobs.
Of course, those who made the decisions leading to version 4 will be the "higher-ups" and therefore immune to layoffs while the pawns who implemented as they were told will be the ones to take the heat.
Not that anyone's reading, but no offence intended in calling you pawns... and good luck in the future.
moganiOct 26, 2010
i hear you on that. i like the version 3 it was perfect. the first time i came back after version 4 was release i was like wth is this crap. honestly do they not read any feedback from beta testing jeesh. this site is pretty much dead at least to me.
freqhzOct 26, 2010
hopefully you laid off the ones who thought "4" was some kind
of improvement.
new and improved, the oxymoron of the times.
almost delusional
lodleaderOct 26, 2010
nuff said...
http://digg.com/news/business/mass_firings_at_digg_2
trax852Oct 26, 2010
At least this is a good thing:
" industry recognition of Digg employee talent is evident in the number of companies that have been eager to scoop them up."
caughtthinkingOct 26, 2010
Yeah definitely. There's a comment box, and uh, you can submit a url... and uh.... um.... wait, they're awesome at... well, at least they never cra- uh....
yeah, talent.
RobertHillbergOct 26, 2010
I called it back in August.
http://digg.com/news/offbeat/have_a_sexy_saturday/20100830035604:5cbb3da1aadb4de986a31a7629ea7826#20100830035604:5cbb3da1aadb4de986a31a7629ea7826
"No users = No Revenue = No Investors = No Employees = No Digg. It's just that simple."
arbiincOct 26, 2010Submitter
Well said! I'll repost your comment here for others to read. Thanks for the share:
From @RobertHillberg on Aug 30, 2010:
You just don't get it Kevin, your business advisors/partners don't get it and your investors don't get it but all of you WILL get it when people find other alternatives. Digg is about user driven content not content driven content.
No users = No Revenue = No Investors = No Employees = No Digg. It's just that simple.
The recent tropicana orange juice label debacle should be a good indicator of digg's future but unlike you, they quickly "got it" once they saw their profits dip 20%.
Funny thing is many of the sites spamming digg today would have gone belly up long ago if it werent for users submitting their content on digg and in case you forget, if it werent for the users no one would give a crap about you "Kevin Rose".
And before some of you say "well they're still working it, LOOK THEY BROUGHT THE THUMBS BAACK!!" It's not about "bugs" or "thumbs", it's about the fundamental changes that have taken place here. It has gone from a website where millions of people read, post and vote on interesting/comments to a dead site filled with dull direct submissions from major media conglomerates like time,engadget,mashable, etc.
It would be like ebay getting rid of private listings and only allowing companies like jcpenny and macy's list products,
netantOct 26, 2010
Actually, ebay in effect has gotten rid of its private listings. Unless you're a "power" user moving hundreds of dollars through ebay each day, you're "penalized" with lackluster service and higher transaction fees. And now they're castrating the user feedback system to benefit the high volume ripoff sellers.
ericdanoOct 26, 2010
Honestly, Digg is dead to me. I have an RSS feed in Google Reader and it rarely open it.
dharmaturtleOct 26, 2010
1000+ stories.... that slowly dwindled as they all passed the cutoff date and because I left Digg v4, just left the RSS to remember to check back occasionally to see if they reverted to v3. Stopping by because of a Reddit story.
Digg never fixed their RSS feed, good job with that.
rowlodgeOct 26, 2010
if i could still get at least a million dollars for something i made ( if i could sell it) without paying anything out ,i would be happy.
Closed AccountOct 26, 2010
Happy? Sure. But not when you consider that now you could get just $1 million (not enough to live off for the rest of your life) and had they sold before, each of the top guys would have gotten at least $10 million, which would be enough to live off, plus a few million to play with.
rowlodgeOct 26, 2010
i know for sure ,i would be happy.
Closed AccountOct 26, 2010
But you are looking at it from the standpoint of someone with no money. But effectively they HAD that money in their hands already. They just chose not to accept it.
Would you be happy losing $9 million?
digtasticOct 26, 2010
http://digg.com/news/entertainment/the_new_digg_a_comedy_in_one_act
philbertOct 26, 2010
Maybe we'll get the bury button back and get rid of all the spam.
hurrayforschoolOct 26, 2010
That would fix a single problem in an ocean of problems.
tymeOct 26, 2010
"...and promises to refocus on product and profitability."
That's the problem. You seem to have forgotten about community.
exploit67Oct 26, 2010
I really have no idea what they were thinking with v4...f**ked it all up
iriemeditationOct 26, 2010
they were thinking 1 thing.. profit :(
mhuntOct 26, 2010
1) release digg V4
2) ignore comments from users
3) ???
4) profit
As usual, step 3 seems to be the problem.
theIndustryXOct 26, 2010
Sad
crazytreeOct 26, 2010
So it turns out that Kevin Rose wasn't Jesus Christ incarnate?
crazytreeOct 26, 2010
PS... F MrBabyMan too...
iriemeditationOct 26, 2010
New Digg sucks. AND now they promise to focus on profitability..... but isn't that just what f**ked Digg.... selling out! and also why its almost time for its death rattle LOL Greedy Bastards.....
sabazouOct 26, 2010
Digg is a business. Striving to reach profitability is not greed, it's a requirement to keep it running.
iriemeditationOct 26, 2010
New Digg sucks. AND now they promise to focus on profitability..... but isn't that just what f@ked Digg.... selling out! and also why its almost time for its death rattle LOL Greedy Bastards.....
bluepandaOct 26, 2010
I wonder if the Digg employees read all of these posts..
canyoucountOct 26, 2010
Probably not all of them, but yes, we do.
sabazouOct 26, 2010
I do
bluepandaOct 26, 2010
Must be quite the rollercoaster for you guys right now. Hang in there.
richidOct 26, 2010Staff
Ditto.
bpocanadaOct 26, 2010
We are unable to delete the comments you’ve requested, as once they are posted on Digg, they become dedicated to the public domain under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication, available at *http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/*.
From our Terms of Use (*http://about.digg.com/terms-use*):
6. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE
*By creating and posting Content to Digg, you warrant that you own all rights to the Content, agree that the Content will be dedicated to the public domain under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication, available at http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ and that you will not object to the use of the Content by Digg in any context. To clarify, the above does not apply to the Content on external sites linked to by the original submission.*
=== And this policy is not applied uniformly. Their support needs to have clear policies.
rholland356Oct 26, 2010
Wait! Don't lay off the guy who knows where the bury button code is kept!
Or, at least if you do, please contract him back for a half day to roll out the bury button code, so you can KEEP YOUR PROMISE TO US.
5wallaceOct 26, 2010
Can anyone tell me why the "My News" section has not changed on my Digg homepage in 21 days? The "Top News" sidebar changes, but the stories in "My News" stay the same. This is very frustrating and makes me hate the new Digg. I actually like the idea of choosing to follow people and getting top stories based on those choices, but not if my top news doesn't ever change.
I am following 22 people, so I don't think this is the issue.
richidOct 26, 2010Staff
I'm inclined to believe that is a bug since you mentioned that the "Top news from people you follow" sidebar is changing. As a sanity check, are the 22 people you are following active on the site?
5wallaceOct 26, 2010
Talking Points Memo, New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, Robert Scoble, io9, Boing Boing, Kotaku, Gawker, Gizmodo, The Oatmeal, lifehacker, leo laporte, kevin rose, huffington post, engadget.
I assumed some of these people would be a little more active.
Actually, amazingly, "My News" seems to be updating. I now have 3 stories at the top of my list from "5 minutes ago." First time this has updated in 21 days. Maybe someone is listening.
richidOct 26, 2010Staff
Well, following those accounts you should definitely have a lot of activity in there.
I wish I could take credit for fixing something. However, I will poke around and see if I can figure out what's going on.
5wallaceOct 26, 2010
Someone definitely fixed something. "My News" is updating pretty rapidly now. Like I said, first time I have seen new stories in 21 days. Someone must have caught my comment and fixed something.
dcjoedogv2Oct 26, 2010
How about they fire the promote brigade they have on staff.