5 ms·

Update: DiggBar will only be shown to logged-in Digg users

43 points by ryanwaggoner 18y ago

ojbyrne 18y ago
Told ya (mostly): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555649 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555649
- nickb 18y ago
  Good one! What boggles my mind is that they didn't care at all about the user experience when they introduced this monstrosity. Not seeing URLs when browsing Digg completely destroyed my user experience. I'm guessing more and more people will log out and browse it that way.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    Once you're logged in, it's simple to opt out.
  - trjordan 18y ago
    So, for the majority of users, I'm guessing this wasn't that big a deal. They even point out that 45% of Digging is happening through the DiggBar, meaning that there are a whole lot of people out there who actively enjoy using it. I understand and agree with all the anger, but most people only care about the experience. Seeing URLs is irrelevant to most people (or they wouldn't fall for phishing scams), and compared to an add-in toolbar, this is much easier to both install and uninstall. SEO, transparent URLs, framing, etc. aren't even on the radar, much less as something to get mad about. The point is, I don't think many people will log out or opt out to browse. It's just not that big a deal to them.
dcurtis 18y ago
When I see stories like this, I always wonder what happened internally at the company. When they launched the DiggBar, I'm sure most people at Digg thought it was a good idea. But they must have had some reservations. They must have acknowledged the mere possibility that the DiggBar would incite the kind of anger and hatred that it did. So, from a business perspective, why did they launch it? They forever tarnished their brand for something that doesn't really seem to be worth it. It'd be interesting to know what happened in the meetings where they discussed this stuff. Also, I wonder how long it took them to realize they were really upsetting a lot of people, and that they made a mistake. Were there phone calls? Yelling? Meetings? I had the same questions about Facebook Beacon (but, unlike the DiggBar, I thought that was a good idea).
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Most likely, there were Marketdroids. The same people who would clutter up Microsoft's packaging until it looked like a marketing/buzzword junkyard. http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/25957 http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/25957 It's much the same phenomenon as groups jockeying for under-hood space in GM cars of the 50's. The more your group gets, the bigger its prestige. You get the Tragedy of the Commons, and the needs of the customer are lost in the process. In the case of gadgets, it's the buzzwords on the package/cool to implement features.
  - Sawta 18y ago
    While your point is valid, doesn't digg only have something like 40 employee's? We're not exactly talking a Microsoft sized company structure here.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      40 is a large enough population for infection by marketdroids.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Facebook has had the same feature for a while, so it must have looked attractive and maybe even innocuous. But Facebook only has logged in users.
- lacker 18y ago
  I doubt Digg feels that they "forever tarnished their brand" or considers the DiggBar to have been a mistake. They're not even canceling the DiggBar! They're just restricting it to logged-in users. They probably think this is just a vocal minority who cares, the majority of users like it, and soon this fuss will blow over. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.
- ubernostrum 18y ago
  "They forever tarnished their brand for something that doesn't really seem to be worth it." Not to be unnecessarily snarky, but: I didn't know Digg had any brand left to tarnish.
JeremyBanks 18y ago
See, that's reasonable.
boundlessdreamz 18y ago
John Gruber is going to be a happy man today :)
- timdorr 18y ago
  Yep: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/15/diggbar-fix http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/15/diggbar-fix
mikeyur 18y ago
As much as I was against the DiggBar, I'm going to keep it enabled in my Digg account. I find it extremely useful - as I do the Reddit bar (which is essentially the same thing with a better implementation). I just believed it shouldn't be the default. If I send someone a link using the Reddit Bar and they're not logged in with the option turned on, they get redirected to the proper url. This is how it should've been from the start. Thank you Digg for listening to the community - even though it took some yelling.
- timdorr 18y ago
  That's the thing, it's useful if you're a Digg user and it's annoying as fuck if you're not. They should have realized that from the beginning. Sounds like someone at Digg tried to pick virality over usability. You've gotta look at the big picture.
qeorge 18y ago
Hats off to digg. That's a very fair solution that takes into account all the concerns raised by the community. If I'm digg, I see the DiggBar as a huge success, even despite the backlash from content producers and SEOs. I don't use digg often, but when I do the DiggBar improves my overall experience.
- jonknee 18y ago
  Hats off? They told everyone to fuck off and then apologized. That doesn't require accolades. This shouldn't have happened in the first place, it was quite obviously slimy.
  - mooted 18y ago
    Listening to users and taking actions is always a good thing. Translating what they did to "telling users to fuck off" just isn't right.John Gruber did tell Digg to fuck off btw.
  - qeorge 18y ago
    For starters, they didn't apologize. They also didn't "tell everyone to fuck off". I'm assuming from your statements you are of the camp who thinks digg was trying to "steal" content, hoping the DiggBar pages would outrank the original pieces in Google. I'm also guessing you don't like digg in general, and are quick to criticize anything the company does. Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't see the DiggBar as unethical, or even unusual. Google's image search also frames the source website in iFrames, so where are the pitchforks? Personally, I think the DiggBar is a smart feature, and it seems to be overwhelmingly popular with their users. I think we can all agree that the execution was initially botched from a technical standpoint, but I don't think it was intentional. Digg made a strong effort to keep the DiggBar pages out of Google - they used the no-index meta tag, and the brand new RelCan tag. This should have worked, but Google's algorithm ignored these tags, presumably because of the enormous authority of the digg.com domain. This is the first case I've ever seen where no-index tags were ignored en masse. Bottom line, digg pushed out a popular new feature in a rapidly developing space. It had nuanced technical issues which have been addressed, because the digg staff took the community's concerns seriously. I'm impressed when I see a company take positive steps in response to criticism, and if that puts me in the minority, so be it. A final thought for those who seem so quick to demonize digg: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
atog 18y ago
I've never really been a Digg user but this move makes sense considering the amount of negative reactions.

43 points by ryanwaggoner 18y ago

ojbyrne 18y ago

Told ya (mostly): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555649 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555649

nickb 18y ago
Good one! What boggles my mind is that they didn't care at all about the user experience when they introduced this monstrosity. Not seeing URLs when browsing Digg completely destroyed my user experience. I'm guessing more and more people will log out and browse it that way.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Once you're logged in, it's simple to opt out.
- trjordan 18y ago
  So, for the majority of users, I'm guessing this wasn't that big a deal. They even point out that 45% of Digging is happening through the DiggBar, meaning that there are a whole lot of people out there who actively enjoy using it. I understand and agree with all the anger, but most people only care about the experience. Seeing URLs is irrelevant to most people (or they wouldn't fall for phishing scams), and compared to an add-in toolbar, this is much easier to both install and uninstall. SEO, transparent URLs, framing, etc. aren't even on the radar, much less as something to get mad about. The point is, I don't think many people will log out or opt out to browse. It's just not that big a deal to them.

dcurtis 18y ago

When I see stories like this, I always wonder what happened internally at the company. When they launched the DiggBar, I'm sure most people at Digg thought it was a good idea. But they must have had some reservations. They must have acknowledged the mere possibility that the DiggBar would incite the kind of anger and hatred that it did. So, from a business perspective, why did they launch it? They forever tarnished their brand for something that doesn't really seem to be worth it. It'd be interesting to know what happened in the meetings where they discussed this stuff. Also, I wonder how long it took them to realize they were really upsetting a lot of people, and that they made a mistake. Were there phone calls? Yelling? Meetings? I had the same questions about Facebook Beacon (but, unlike the DiggBar, I thought that was a good idea).

stcredzero 18y ago
Most likely, there were Marketdroids. The same people who would clutter up Microsoft's packaging until it looked like a marketing/buzzword junkyard. http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/25957 http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/25957 It's much the same phenomenon as groups jockeying for under-hood space in GM cars of the 50's. The more your group gets, the bigger its prestige. You get the Tragedy of the Commons, and the needs of the customer are lost in the process. In the case of gadgets, it's the buzzwords on the package/cool to implement features.
- Sawta 18y ago
  While your point is valid, doesn't digg only have something like 40 employee's? We're not exactly talking a Microsoft sized company structure here.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    40 is a large enough population for infection by marketdroids.
ojbyrne 18y ago
Facebook has had the same feature for a while, so it must have looked attractive and maybe even innocuous. But Facebook only has logged in users.
lacker 18y ago
I doubt Digg feels that they "forever tarnished their brand" or considers the DiggBar to have been a mistake. They're not even canceling the DiggBar! They're just restricting it to logged-in users. They probably think this is just a vocal minority who cares, the majority of users like it, and soon this fuss will blow over. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.
ubernostrum 18y ago
"They forever tarnished their brand for something that doesn't really seem to be worth it." Not to be unnecessarily snarky, but: I didn't know Digg had any brand left to tarnish.

JeremyBanks 18y ago

See, that's reasonable.

boundlessdreamz 18y ago

John Gruber is going to be a happy man today :)

timdorr 18y ago
Yep: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/15/diggbar-fix http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/15/diggbar-fix

mikeyur 18y ago

As much as I was against the DiggBar, I'm going to keep it enabled in my Digg account. I find it extremely useful - as I do the Reddit bar (which is essentially the same thing with a better implementation). I just believed it shouldn't be the default. If I send someone a link using the Reddit Bar and they're not logged in with the option turned on, they get redirected to the proper url. This is how it should've been from the start. Thank you Digg for listening to the community - even though it took some yelling.

timdorr 18y ago
That's the thing, it's useful if you're a Digg user and it's annoying as fuck if you're not. They should have realized that from the beginning. Sounds like someone at Digg tried to pick virality over usability. You've gotta look at the big picture.

qeorge 18y ago

Hats off to digg. That's a very fair solution that takes into account all the concerns raised by the community. If I'm digg, I see the DiggBar as a huge success, even despite the backlash from content producers and SEOs. I don't use digg often, but when I do the DiggBar improves my overall experience.

jonknee 18y ago
Hats off? They told everyone to fuck off and then apologized. That doesn't require accolades. This shouldn't have happened in the first place, it was quite obviously slimy.
- mooted 18y ago
  Listening to users and taking actions is always a good thing. Translating what they did to "telling users to fuck off" just isn't right.John Gruber did tell Digg to fuck off btw.
- qeorge 18y ago
  For starters, they didn't apologize. They also didn't "tell everyone to fuck off". I'm assuming from your statements you are of the camp who thinks digg was trying to "steal" content, hoping the DiggBar pages would outrank the original pieces in Google. I'm also guessing you don't like digg in general, and are quick to criticize anything the company does. Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't see the DiggBar as unethical, or even unusual. Google's image search also frames the source website in iFrames, so where are the pitchforks? Personally, I think the DiggBar is a smart feature, and it seems to be overwhelmingly popular with their users. I think we can all agree that the execution was initially botched from a technical standpoint, but I don't think it was intentional. Digg made a strong effort to keep the DiggBar pages out of Google - they used the no-index meta tag, and the brand new RelCan tag. This should have worked, but Google's algorithm ignored these tags, presumably because of the enormous authority of the digg.com domain. This is the first case I've ever seen where no-index tags were ignored en masse. Bottom line, digg pushed out a popular new feature in a rapidly developing space. It had nuanced technical issues which have been addressed, because the digg staff took the community's concerns seriously. I'm impressed when I see a company take positive steps in response to criticism, and if that puts me in the minority, so be it. A final thought for those who seem so quick to demonize digg: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

atog 18y ago

I've never really been a Digg user but this move makes sense considering the amount of negative reactions.