3 ms·

1. Digg is still a place for finding crowd sourced news. It simply is recognizing user demand seen across the web for social features and adding that into its p

1. Digg is still a place for finding crowd sourced news. It simply is recognizing user demand seen across the web for social features and adding that into its product. 2. You say you get enough sharing on Facebook, etc. but what's funny is every time a new sharing/social site launches, over time, we've all grown to begin using it anyway. First we had Delicious (2003), then we added Facebook (2004), then we added Twitter (2006), then we added Google Buzz (2010). Clearly folks ARENT getting enough of it on any one of those sites, since each site has been able to build sufficient user bases. The Internet's a huge world, and different products will appeal to different groups; many can survive. Besides, if we only had one platform, all the privacy folks would be up in arms (as they get from time to time about Google or more recently Facebook) that X company controls too much of our information. Ultimately, competition/multiple platforms is a good thing. Digg entering this space only adds to that. 3. You can still type in Digg.com and see what the "world" finds interesting, however now you'll get to see what your friends/followers/"tastemakers" find interesting too. Think of it as a USA Today adding a "local" section. 4. At first, I agreed with your point that v4 does not appear to show a solution to Digg's lowest common denominator problem. However, upon further thought, it does. Digg has given the power to the user. During the "onboarding process" you select who you follow, friend, etc. and decide what your stream of "My News" will look like. Follow all brilliant people and you'll get interesting, valuable content. Follow idiots and you'll get great funny pictures of cats. Follow a mix and you'll get both. 5. Ultimately I can see myself using the new Digg, but it will take time to see how it fits into my arsenal of social websites. If it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself, it'll go by the wayside. However, as history has shown us, we seem to have no problem adding another site to the mix.

abossy 16y ago
Re: 2. Two social sites are clear winners: Facebook and Twitter. Delicious initially had strong adoption, hence they were acquired, but it's been downhill since then. Google Buzz can be considered a failure; Google forced their social graph upon users and they weren't happy. For the two successful sharing sites out there, hundreds are struggling (Digg included) or dead. In regards to the rest of your points, there's no telling how the product will exactly play out until we have access to play with it for ourselves.

abossy 16y ago

Re: 2. Two social sites are clear winners: Facebook and Twitter. Delicious initially had strong adoption, hence they were acquired, but it's been downhill since then. Google Buzz can be considered a failure; Google forced their social graph upon users and they weren't happy. For the two successful sharing sites out there, hundreds are struggling (Digg included) or dead. In regards to the rest of your points, there's no telling how the product will exactly play out until we have access to play with it for ourselves.