3 ms·

> Has there been a better example than Digg of how detrimental it is to alienate your users on the social web? Facebook. It changed the day anybody (ie. parent

by ROFISH 16y ago

> Has there been a better example than Digg of how detrimental it is to alienate your users on the social web? Facebook. It changed the day anybody (ie. parents) was allowed on. Now most people I know either refuse to use the service due to employer paranoia or just play Farmville all day, but it's not the same. At least Facebook rolls with it, I suspect their new features (new Groups, new Photos) seem to cater towards their current audience instead of "getting the old spark back".

siglesias 16y ago
Unlike Digg, Facebook lacks a viable alternative and is deeply reliant on the network effect, meaning you need critical mass to migrate for the alternative to be useful. Because of this Facebook's growth, in the face of customer dissatisfaction in some cases, has been a hockey stick.
- meric 16y ago
  Facebook is a good tool. I can put my photos on it, and all my friends, my aunt, my uncle, my cousins, will all be able to see it. (Not my grandparents, they don't have computer. :( ) Facebook "implicitly" notifies all those people so I don't have to send a lame spam email "Hey I've posted some photos, check it out". It is similarly good for organizing outings. Just create an event and invite people, no need to send an email with 20 recipients; An forum-like thing in the event lets people asks questions, which stays up and acts like an FAQ.
jfarmer 16y ago
Uhm, the key difference being that between that time and now Facebook has grown 5-6x. By what metric was that a bad decision, exactly?
ceejayoz 16y ago
I think you missed the "alienate your users" bit. People whined when Facebook opened to non-students. People whined for each of the dozen or so major redesigns. Essentially zero of those users left the site as a result.
venturebros 16y ago
Facebook always remained a social network of sorts though. Digg changed the functionality of their site.

by ROFISH 16y ago

siglesias 16y ago

Unlike Digg, Facebook lacks a viable alternative and is deeply reliant on the network effect, meaning you need critical mass to migrate for the alternative to be useful. Because of this Facebook's growth, in the face of customer dissatisfaction in some cases, has been a hockey stick.

meric 16y ago
Facebook is a good tool. I can put my photos on it, and all my friends, my aunt, my uncle, my cousins, will all be able to see it. (Not my grandparents, they don't have computer. :( ) Facebook "implicitly" notifies all those people so I don't have to send a lame spam email "Hey I've posted some photos, check it out". It is similarly good for organizing outings. Just create an event and invite people, no need to send an email with 20 recipients; An forum-like thing in the event lets people asks questions, which stays up and acts like an FAQ.

jfarmer 16y ago

Uhm, the key difference being that between that time and now Facebook has grown 5-6x. By what metric was that a bad decision, exactly?

ceejayoz 16y ago

I think you missed the "alienate your users" bit. People whined when Facebook opened to non-students. People whined for each of the dozen or so major redesigns. Essentially zero of those users left the site as a result.

venturebros 16y ago

Facebook always remained a social network of sorts though. Digg changed the functionality of their site.