What is Digg?103 Comments
- abosio, on 10/11/2007, -2/+36Subscription canceled. Account deleted.
- uptown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29Revisionist history for a magazine? What does Paul stand to gain from doing that? I just don't get it.
- mahke, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31The whole thing stinks. Viva la Powazek-Champ!
- skaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26Wow, Derek and Heather - I wish you guys luck in your future endeavors.
- ibettinger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26Account deleted. So sad for Derek and Heather.
- dalelum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23What they did at JPG was delete more than half their product line (issues #1-6 are gone) in order to rewrite history. How does that contribute to the health of the publication?
- flamingbore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Go to "edit profile" and you can cancel from there.
- rfinn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19I loved how JPG started. I hope Derek and Heather's next project is as amazing.
- ryanpc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Account deleted. So disappointing...
- Hirusan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18This is terrible. I can't believe a business could take this course of action. It sickens me.
- stevievep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Enjoying that the 'Real Story of JPG Magazine' is listed in teh wikipedia entry now.
- apsk121, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Account deleted.
Reminds me of that saying: Nice guys (and gals) always finish last. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+26@raynar
you're a dick. - dalelum, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Account deleted. If you refresh JPG's photo page (http://jpgmag.com/photos/) every so often, you can see that the photo page count is dropping as people hear about this and delete their accounts. D'oh! Bad business decision!
- DiggzDE, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16I think it would be a great show of support from the community if people continued to cancel subscriptions.
Similar to Digg, JPG's content consists of stuff from it's users. Sure there will always be part of the community who is not concerned about the origins of the current company or magazine but I wouldn't be suprised if a large portion of people have been some sort of influence with JPG from toward the beginning.
Leaving now, although possibly destroying a good magazine, would certainly show just how important the userbase is and just how powerful they are in letting company "big wigs" know that they can't just go and do things like this.
Restaffing is one thing. Rewriting History is another. - Nantel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I am certainly seeing some similarities between what is happening with 8020 Publishing and the Digg revolt from a couple of weeks ago.
You can achieve great things with a community-based business model...as long as you piss off the very people who brought you there.
Somebody is about to learn a very valuable lesson. - redlantern64, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19@masterOfNone: Yes, he IS a dick, but unfortunately he's a dick w/ a good point. Be very careful of whom you trust when entering into a business arrangement.
Still...cancelling my JPG account even as we speak. - hellogoodbye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14I wonder how much business the magazine is going to lose from this.
- trekkie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Account Deleted.
- mrmcbastard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13If they hadn't created it you wouldn't be enjoying it now. That's what they did.
- riondotnu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I'm very proud to say that one of my photographs was in the inaugural issue of JPG magazine (Origin), and that I was one of the two the featured photographers in issue 6 (Oops!).
...I find it strange that my contributions, and the contributions of my friends and colleagues in those first six issues, have been wiped aside as if those contributions weren't worth acknowledging as a part of the magazine's accomplishments. I'm more confused as to why those who run JPG now didn't see the value of Derek and Heather's vision, passion, and (hello?) well-known and highly-regarded reputations as founders of the magazine. And I'm completely perplexed as to what this new administration was thinking when they thought they could rewrite history in an environment where everything you post online is out there permanently in some form. Maybe they think any stir-up will blow over, and thousands of new users will join with no understanding of how JPG started, making Cloutier and company "successful" in the long run? It's a damn shame.
JPG was always about community, about the movement of photoblogging (and how it might evolve), and about photography... as Heather and Derek stated in their now-deleted About page: "a magazine for us – the in-between folks who shoot for love, not money."
It looks like the current JPG administration does not share those values.
Account deleted. - groovylab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Stunning.
I have deleted my account. - eamonchaney, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13That's just ***** up. I was thinking about getting a subscription, but not now. How can you ever trust them again?
- zakangelle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Further proof that, when given the opportunity, people can be selfish *****.
- zclip, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I remember reading about the jpg magazine a little while ago and meant to sign up but I could never find the time. Now, obviously, I won't be signing up, but that is not the purpose of my comment here. I want to give props to all your diggers who have been deleting your accounts (and I'm sure are doing what you can to spread word about this) because that is where we as consumers — and contributors in the web 2.0 world — have the power and influence. It's so refreshing when compared to the average person who may say "yeah, I hate how walmart [or some other place] treats their employees [or has bad products]" but they shop there anyway because it's close, convenient and little bit cheaper.
Way to go diggers! - SteelChicken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Most business lessons are learned through bad decisions. Welcome to the club.
- villageatheist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13"People are too smart and well-connected to believe a lie anymore."
No. You just didn't repeat it enough. - atomicshed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10what a damn shame! any suggestions on sites that deserve our patronage?
- shanesemler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9"unfortunately that's business..."
So making it in business means being a lying, manipulative sack of ***** ready to screw over you're closest friends? I think I'll stay poor. - itsrainin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9deleted my account as well.
the image count is dropping steadily. - uptown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8JPG Magazine falls ... Amazon purchases DPReview.com.
Lots of changes in the digital photography online landscape. - Shky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Agreed. Now that I finally have some money I was looking into magazines that I'd want to subscribe to. Just signed up for New Scientist yesterday, and was considering JPG. Not so much with that anymore...
- Maarek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Yes... perhaps they will think of that next time they try to pull one over on a mob.
MOB SMASH!!!!!!
*sigh* - alabut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6OH SNAP! I think I may have caught Paul in a flat out lie. He says he never tried to rewrite history, but JPG's current about page and Google's cached one are markedly different and I took a screenshot just now:
http://flickr.com/photos/alabut/500272346/
Summary: there wasn't a word about Derek, Heather or the early issues on May 9th, now there's mysteriously a paragraph about that stuff reintroduced. I think this lame attempt at damage control might blow up in his face. - Sippi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6lets just help start a new JPG mag and this time they keep 100% control. Call it something like .PNG or .PSD.
- jcheng, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6think4aminute, the only story you've digged so far is entitled "Derek Powazek: Talented and difficult" and the only comment you've left is this one. If you're not astroturfing for 8020, you're doing an awfully good job of making it look like you are.
- scribeoflight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Account deleted.
- roromx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Photos and account deleted
tell the world to do that - scottschiller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The archived "About" page, for reference:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060421173233/http://www.jpgmag.com/about/ - sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7i can't believe i botched heather's name.
- spukeesan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Looks to me like he gained a publishing company and a magazine with a quickly growing readership. I don't agree with it, but unfortunately that's business...
- ScottY07, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Apple fired their CEO, fire yours!
It really sucks that things like this happen though. What i don't understand is previous issues only goes to 7, people will always wonder what happened to the first 6? - Pentarix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Account deleted.
All the best to Derek and Heather in the future! - roromx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Paul Cloutier profile on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theorem/
Send it your love! - Nantel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I meant "don't piss off".
God I'm such a moron! - derlin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6amen.
- BarneyXP, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Account Deleted
http://jpgmag.com/about/contact.html - hellogoodbye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Perfectly said.
- masgrada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Probably because the CEO has a larger share.
- matriculated, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Wow... I guess sometimes you really don't know who your friends are.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is