4 ms·
Sorry, but I disagree. The death of digg is squarely at the hands of the trolls, spammers, and morons that flocked to the site like locusts.
by calambrac 18y ago
Sorry, but I disagree. The death of digg is squarely at the hands of the trolls, spammers, and morons that flocked to the site like locusts.
- ojbyrne 18y agoOk, I stand corrected. The meta-discussions were the _start_ of the death of digg.
- RiderOfGiraffes 18y agoNo, you're confusing cause and effect. The arrival of the spammers and trolls led to the discussion of the long(er) timers over how to prevent it. The meta-discussion was the symptom, not the cause.
- ojbyrne 18y agoI don't think I am. There were meta-discussions very early on.
- calambrac 18y agoKevin Rose was famous and pitched the site hard. The community started going downhill very early on.
- ojbyrne 18y agoExcept that he didn't pitch the site hard at all for the first nine months (in fact he repeatedly denied being involved with it). And he wasn't all that famous (host of a dying show on a dying network). It was only after the VC money arrived that that started.
- calambrac 18y agoI'm obviously not going to argue with you over the history of digg, of course you're intimately familiar with that, but I felt like I got there pretty early, and I only personally got a couple of month's worth out of it before I felt it was overrun. And I didn't mean to imply that he was actually famous, but he was certainly well-enough known among the target audience that having his name attached made a significant difference.
- ojbyrne 18y agoActually I'd love to argue with you - my memory is not perfect, and I'd love to hear other people's perceptions. What point in time were those couple of months?