4 ms·

I asked this in the other thread already, but let me ask again. So as startup founders, what do you guys think is the right move here? Do you do what your user

by vinhboy 16y ago

I asked this in the other thread already, but let me ask again. So as startup founders, what do you guys think is the right move here? Do you do what your users want, or stand your ground and do what you think is best for the company??

timwiseman 16y ago
What your users want is almost always what is best for the company. (Note that what your users want is not always the same as what they say they want.)
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  What your users want or what your customers want?
ojbyrne 16y ago
If it was me, I'd be doing what they're doing - putting back the lost features, and trying to assuage disgruntled users. I think the people in charge stopped thinking about what's best for the company long ago in favor of what's best for themselves. That also needs to be reversed.
rwmj 16y ago
If you've only got 30 users and you're aiming to get millions, then you might consider "standing your ground" (although even this situation is dubious -- it seems almost always better to build). But as Digg has millions of users already, what your users want is the same thing as what is best for the company. You say sorry and revert back to the old site, then have a long hard think about what you did wrong and how to avoid making that mistake ever again.
- quinndupont 16y ago
  I don't think there is any coherent point that the users want. Some want V3 because they don't like change, others want unicorns, others want to have fun burning Digg to the ground. I'd love to see it succeed, but I seriously doubt it will.
- webwright 16y ago
  I disagree. They have millions of users and their growth is flat-- but they've raised enough money that they really can't afford to be flat. They need to see if they're being attacked my a vocal minority or a true majority. If it's the latter, a revert should happen. If the former, they should consider standing their ground. See every major change Facebook has ever done. When people exploded about the privacy implications of having a news feed (Oh no!), should Facebook have punted?
  - Lewisham 16y ago
    I think there's a very strong difference between Facebook's changes and Digg's. The changes to Facebook were most definitely what the company thought was best for the user. Lots of people don't like change, but Facebook stood their ground and said "we did this for you, you will like it in time." Which the users did. Can you imagine Facebook without the News Feed? The changes to Digg are very questionably for the benefit of the end-user. I'm not sure what Kevin and Digg hoped to achieve by having publishers directly spamming the Digg front page with content. It's a very rudimentary, very poor, RSS reader, and the anti-thesis of what Digg was about, user-selected stories from all over the web. I can only think Digg are getting an affiliate kickback from the larger publishers. I'm not a disgruntled Digg user; I abandoned it for Reddit about 3 months ago, and I haven't looked back. It seems to me the small Reddit team know their users pretty well (see the way they handled Prop 14 without the need for a user revolt). I honestly wonder exactly who Digg think they are serving with v4.
    - enjo 16y ago
      Isn't it just a matter of time until Digg is in the same monetization conundrum? They're limping along right now, but at some point you have to think Conde Nast is going to say "alright.. make some damn money already." Reddit gold isn't going to do that on a large scale. I fully expect to see a similar scenario play out on Reddit at some point.
    - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
      I disagree on two points. First,the Facebook changes were IMO made in the best interest of Facebook/shareholders first, users second. Also, I can easily imagine Facebook without the News Feed, in fact it's my least favorite part of it and most of my friends's least favorite part. And to answer your question: Digg thinks they are serving Digg/their shareholders. They think the changes are in their best interest, which they may soon reconsider.
nandemo 16y ago
I'm not a startup founder (yet). If I start a company it will have paying customers, not "users", so I wouldn't have that dilemma.
frognibble 16y ago
Facebook stood their ground for a few changes that users didn't like. For example, users hated the newsfeed when it was introduced. The newsfeed is now one of the most important features on Facebook. The only big feature that I can think of where Facebook backed down is Beacon. It's important to listen to users, but Facebook has shown that it's also important to ignore them at times.

by vinhboy 16y ago

timwiseman 16y ago

What your users want is almost always what is best for the company. (Note that what your users want is not always the same as what they say they want.)

bruceboughton 16y ago
What your users want or what your customers want?

ojbyrne 16y ago

If it was me, I'd be doing what they're doing - putting back the lost features, and trying to assuage disgruntled users. I think the people in charge stopped thinking about what's best for the company long ago in favor of what's best for themselves. That also needs to be reversed.

rwmj 16y ago

If you've only got 30 users and you're aiming to get millions, then you might consider "standing your ground" (although even this situation is dubious -- it seems almost always better to build). But as Digg has millions of users already, what your users want is the same thing as what is best for the company. You say sorry and revert back to the old site, then have a long hard think about what you did wrong and how to avoid making that mistake ever again.

quinndupont 16y ago
I don't think there is any coherent point that the users want. Some want V3 because they don't like change, others want unicorns, others want to have fun burning Digg to the ground. I'd love to see it succeed, but I seriously doubt it will.
webwright 16y ago
I disagree. They have millions of users and their growth is flat-- but they've raised enough money that they really can't afford to be flat. They need to see if they're being attacked my a vocal minority or a true majority. If it's the latter, a revert should happen. If the former, they should consider standing their ground. See every major change Facebook has ever done. When people exploded about the privacy implications of having a news feed (Oh no!), should Facebook have punted?
- Lewisham 16y ago
  I think there's a very strong difference between Facebook's changes and Digg's. The changes to Facebook were most definitely what the company thought was best for the user. Lots of people don't like change, but Facebook stood their ground and said "we did this for you, you will like it in time." Which the users did. Can you imagine Facebook without the News Feed? The changes to Digg are very questionably for the benefit of the end-user. I'm not sure what Kevin and Digg hoped to achieve by having publishers directly spamming the Digg front page with content. It's a very rudimentary, very poor, RSS reader, and the anti-thesis of what Digg was about, user-selected stories from all over the web. I can only think Digg are getting an affiliate kickback from the larger publishers. I'm not a disgruntled Digg user; I abandoned it for Reddit about 3 months ago, and I haven't looked back. It seems to me the small Reddit team know their users pretty well (see the way they handled Prop 14 without the need for a user revolt). I honestly wonder exactly who Digg think they are serving with v4.
  - enjo 16y ago
    Isn't it just a matter of time until Digg is in the same monetization conundrum? They're limping along right now, but at some point you have to think Conde Nast is going to say "alright.. make some damn money already." Reddit gold isn't going to do that on a large scale. I fully expect to see a similar scenario play out on Reddit at some point.
  - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
    I disagree on two points. First,the Facebook changes were IMO made in the best interest of Facebook/shareholders first, users second. Also, I can easily imagine Facebook without the News Feed, in fact it's my least favorite part of it and most of my friends's least favorite part. And to answer your question: Digg thinks they are serving Digg/their shareholders. They think the changes are in their best interest, which they may soon reconsider.

nandemo 16y ago

I'm not a startup founder (yet). If I start a company it will have paying customers, not "users", so I wouldn't have that dilemma.

frognibble 16y ago

Facebook stood their ground for a few changes that users didn't like. For example, users hated the newsfeed when it was introduced. The newsfeed is now one of the most important features on Facebook. The only big feature that I can think of where Facebook backed down is Beacon. It's important to listen to users, but Facebook has shown that it's also important to ignore them at times.