digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Kevin Rose Failing Social Media 101 Miserably

deepjiveinterests.com — Of course, I ’m not talking about that 150 million dollar evaluation floating around, nor the rumours that Digg will be scooped up by Fox any minute to turn it into a MySpace Widget. No — I’m referring to the latest algorithm change over at Digg.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SweetyCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16It's his web site. He can do whatever he wants with it. What if he decided to shut it down? What if he charges membership fees? Stop gripping when you're all getting freebies!
    • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I suspect that in being diplomatic he is hesitant to respond to each and every challenge. That is, I think there are already different factions, and there is no way to please them all.

      Imagine that, Digg is already big enough to have created different political factions.

      So, perhaps Kevin is faced with the thought of having to have dedicated P.R. representatives. Given his demeanor, I doubt that he is comfortable with this.

      Yes, I would like to hear from him. But, I don't think it's right to try and drag him out for a public statement like some aberrant politician.

    • thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4that's hilarious!
      if he started charging for this landfill that I'm always having to sift through to find good material, I'd say "screw that"

      besides, there's no value in "owning" a site like this if there aren't people using it

      Moreover, Slash is better, hell Netscape is better, Ars is better yet. You only have to venture away from Digg to find that out.
    • Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From the Article: "The reality, however, is that the Digg Overlords may here the squeaks of their puny serfs, but doesn’t engage anyone at anytime about their opinion on anything. KRo and Co. ultimately make decisions unilaterally and for the best interests of Digg at large, often regardless of what the current opinion is."

      So he is complaining about them doing what best for Digg at large!!! Now what is so wrong with that.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16can we have a whiner purging algorythm.. I mean seriously some people act like they are getting paid to digg and kevin just took money out their mouth.
    I really hate these posts. If you hate digg leave.
    • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Nice thought experiment.

      If they've invested so much time that they feel they are owed some reward, then they need to re-examine they're priorities.

      Participation here is supposed to be a matter of recreation--not employment. It would seem to be a mistake to make sacrifices when there have been no guarantees of reward.

      The entertainment of participation is supposed to be a reward unto itself.

      Let me, for example, speak a little heresy: Suppose that the majority were to vote that the top user list was to be abandoned and taken down. How would you feel the day you're spectacular rankings were suddenly taken away. If the thought of this make you squirm, even a little, then its time to re-examine your priorities. Now, I don't really want the top user page to go away, but I hope never to be so attached to it (and please call me on it if I do).
    • Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How would you feel the day you're spectacular rankings were suddenly taken away. If the thought of this make you squirm, even a little, then its time to re-examine your priorities."

      Thats beside the point. Some people like the recognition of being heavy contributors. Some don't. Some judge others on their contributions. Some don't.

      Generally speaking, life works on a recognition system. Do a good job, get promoted (or a raise), etc. Its when things get taken too seriously that there is a problem.

      My point is that there is nothing wrong with rewards, and just because someone wants to see their name on a "top users" page doesn't mean they need a priority adjustment. They just need to make sure that being on the "top user" page is enough.
    • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They just need to make sure that being on the 'top user' page is enough."

      This is a good point, and I don't really think that it's wrong to enjoy a little recognition.

      However, it's not good business to become dependent upon something that is not guaranteed.

      I'm not going to claim that I'm somehow above the emotional pull that comes from such recognition. But, I really hope that no one is facing an emotional crisis just because the Digg algorithm has changed (not to suggest that the author of this article is experiencing a mental breakdown).
  • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Negative tone and conclusion--one that I can't agree with. (The whinny-ness gets to me too.)

    Still, there are some fair observations and legitimate questions here.

    I should at least ask: does Kevin understand how curious his silence seems?
    • def1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Digg is trying to be an organization, not a person. The more Kevin responds to a handful of whiner, which this guy clearly is, the more he'll be expected to do so in the future. You can't maintain an organization with millions of members like that. If not getting on the Digg homepage is really distressing, it's surely a sign of a larger problem. Kevin this, Kevin that. Do we expect the same of all other company founders? No one's crying that Pierre doesn't answer their eBay emails.
    • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed. We can't expect the executives of Digg to be the television personalities that they once were, and we can't fault them for moving on to new ventures.
  • tonage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't get this. Do people get paid for getting their stories on the front page? Are these people really so childish that they care about this stuff? What losers.
  • dayquil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As much as I hate commenters repeatedly throwing his name around like they've met:

    Let's say for a moment you're Kevin Rose. You have this wildly popular site. People are commenting every day that it's a popularity contest and the same peoples' stories keep getting promoted.

    Let's say for a moment you're being courted by investors. Perhaps buyout candidates. Let's say for a moment all the rumors are true. Let's say for a moment that you and your fellow workers sure as hell could use the money.

    Do you:
    a) Deal with the problem being pointed out by a sea of potentially active users who are frustrated that they can't get any play
    or
    b) Say "***** 'em" and make sure your old guard doesn't get even a little bit alienated

    ?

    To me, it's no contest. Web sites make money by getting hits. Hits from lots and lots of users.

    This "Kevin Rose", whoever the ***** he is, is doing what any smart businessperson should do, but happens to be connected socially to his userbase in a way that makes it hurt more when he gets raked over the coals. How about you put yourself in the position of a person who is trying to make a business work, if only for a minute. I think you'll find the decisions are a whole hell of a lot tougher than people are making them sound.

    I really couldn't give a ***** either way, I just think both camps are being awfully silly about how seriously they should be taken. Anyone demanding any kind of social responsibility from this guy is a pure and natural dolt.
    • GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There seem to be plenty of people who remember Kevin Rose from television. He is an amiable and likable public personality. But, you're right. There are plenty of people who like to feel that they are somehow involved with the public personalities that they are fond of. And, there seem to be plenty of people here who expect him to continue in that public role and make regular appearances.
  • akhomerun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3why does this turd burgler have to bold every other phrase? the article could have also been shorter - something like "I hate kevin rose because he's rich and the digg team isn't 100% perfect at algorithm writing. furthermore he has a life and doesn't have time to deal with my bitching by taking every retarded criticism seriously and responding to it. Damn my mom's basement smells!"

    what a ***** article. I can't believe I wasted 5 minutes reading it.

    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Did you spot the spelling/grammar mistakes too?
      There were quite a few.
      Its only a blog (and a damn crappy one too), but thats no excuse for mangling the English language!
  • apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5WE GET YOUR POINT!! You don't like the new algorithm... boohoo!
  • LastDinosaur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think Kevin Rose would be failing miserably if he sat down with every self-entitled feeling blogger and revised the algorithm just for them. Bitching about the algorithm changes are fine, but if it's really that horrible you always have the option to leave. If digg can be easily gamed by a small group of elite users, what makes it any different from a site with designated editors? This isn't betraying supporters, this is keeping things fair, and that means some people are going to be unhappy.
  • shanesemler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Pathetic whiner. Does this loser have 50 alternate accounts just so he can digg himself up? Lame. Bury this *****.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No. Hes not Daniel Eran so he probably only has 2 or 3 accounts. Not 50 or 60.
  • Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Why then, we wonder, does Digg continue to snub its most prolific community members, rather than reward or even encourage them?"

    Welcome to life on any forum or W2.0 site. Contribute your ass off, get kicked in the nuts. Repeatedly. Why? Keep reading.

    "In an interview surrounding the last debacle which forced an early algo update in September, I’ve heard that the interview was setup and through Digg’s PR firm, which tried to massage the interview most favourably in Digg’s favour."

    Holy beans, Batman! You've discovered why companies hire PR firms!!

    "Where’s Kevin “Dark-Tipper” Rose in all of this?
    Silent."

    Yes, silent. He's trying not to pour salt of the nuts of those he just kicked (or rather, the nuts that the rest of the community / gamers FORCED him to kick). Smart man.

    This is part of life - no matter what you do, you can't please everyone. Its not possible. The solution? If you don't like it, you're free to move on. Otherwise, learn to live with the fact that digg doesn't exist to bend to your every desire. The rest of us diggers would appreciate it if all you whiners would put up and shut up.
    • misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree with you, up to a point. Up to the "put up or shut up" point, that is. We could all leave, but what's wrong with discussing the issues? Nothing.

      In general, I see nothing wrong with discussions and comments by the Digg users on how the site is working for them and their impressions of the changes. All the content is generated (vis-a-vis) the users, so what would Digg be without the users submitting stories? Surely a "user driven social content website" can have an expectation of some transparency and a clear description of the methods and protocols somewhere? What are users to expect otherwise?
  • blackvlad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0The only thing interesting about this blogspam is the random usage of bold typeface in the middle of sentences. Utter nonsense otherwise.
  • Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If you don't like it, leave. They wouldn't have changed it if they didn't think it was for the greater good.
  • misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Digg is trying to be an organization, not a person." - def1

    Excellent point. As an organization, Digg should be focused on more than trying to manipulate the frontpage articles. If they want people to stick around for the long-term, people need to feel like they actually contribute and can "grow" or "expand" while they're here. After awhile, it would just get boring and repetative.

    Digg could strictly be a site to distribute information--or it could be a site to build social connections focused on sharing information. These "whiners" and "complainers" are getting annoying, but the issues seem legit and Digg (not just Kevin) should address the algorithm issue and explain why there are less stories getting promoted and more diggs are needed for certain stories/submitters.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.