4 ms·

Digg’s Kevin Rose Not Pleased With DiggBar Change

8 points by vaksel 17y ago

dc2k08 17y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=713694 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=713694
ojbyrne 17y ago
Ok, I wasn't going to comment on the first story because I've been accused of being persistently negative about digg. But this is just dumb. At this point Kevin has little, if any, influence over the features implemented at digg, and if Michael Arrington doesn't know that, then he's a moron. In fact I think he's just playing up the controversy to gain some traffic himself. "otherwise he wouldn’t disagree with a new policy publicly" is just laughable, because Kevin doesn't actually say that he disagrees with the policy. The whole thing about "making publishers unhappy" is just a giant wankfest among the bloggers who've replaced the actual press in Norcal. It's just one bullshit site screwing over a bunch of other bullshit sites. Don't read digg, techcrunch, mashable, etc, etc. and you'll more informed and a better person.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - sachinag 17y ago
    I don't think you know who the OP is. I don't think you know the standing he has in this particular community.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Regardless of my stance on the subject it should not matter who posts an article. Your standing in a community is precisely because of what you contribute, not the other way around.
      - sjs382 17y ago
        He's contributed plenty to digg. ;)
      - kyro 17y ago
        Ojbyrne worked side by side with Kevin Rose in building Digg.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        Yes, obviously. But that should not change your response to whatever he writes. You should look at the writings as though you do not know who wrote it and respond accordingly. Case in point, I think it's funny that PG had to remove himself from the leaderboard here because everything he says - no matter how trivial - gets voted up quite high.
        kyro 17y ago
        No, his status validates his comment. He's been on the inside of Digg, more than anyone else really, so I'd trust his assessment. I doubt you'd really respond the same way if someone who created their account a week ago with 10 karma made the same comment.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        Ok, that's a good point, but you have to admit that that post does not come across very balanced and should be judged on its merits rather than being accorded automatic credit based on the history of the poster with the company, or in this community. Note that the OP himself already builds in a disclaimer: "I wasn't going to comment on the first story because I've been accused of being persistently negative about digg" and then ends with: "Don't read digg, techcrunch, mashable, etc, etc. and you'll more informed and a better person." That's not very classy, standing or not shouldn't factor in to it. There has to be a more professional way to handle this whether you've been taken advantage or not is not an issue though I very much understand (having been in the same boat at some point) how hard it is to let go of that. It clouds the view of the OP and that is a pity because I think that if the comment were in a more moderate tone it would get much more traction.
ccc3 17y ago
Where exactly did he say he was unhappy with the change? All he said was that he didn't know about it and would ask when he gets to the office.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
jm4 17y ago
This story is bullshit. The whole premise for it is a Twitter message. It wasn't even a complete sentence let alone a statement worthy of a story. Then, Arrington goes on to infer that Rose is not happy about the situation when all he said was that he was just hearing about it and would check when he gets back to work. just now reading the digg short url discussion, I was not aware this changed and will check in on it tomorrow (was on vacation for 2 weeks). How does one draw the conclusion that Rose isn't happy about it? What it says to me is that he wants to find out more before saying anything. Translation: He’s not happy (otherwise he wouldn’t disagree with a new policy publicly). Look for a reversal on this policy sometime soon. Oh, please. If Rose had the authority to reverse this it wouldn't have been done without his knowledge while on vacation. This is a pretty big change. They had to have known it would be at least a little bit controversial, and there had to have been some sort of discussion before its implementation.
- dangoldin 17y ago
  Not to mention that he should have checked on it as soon as he found out about it.
boundlessdreamz 17y ago
Please Hacker News users, don't vote up a pure made up story like this (think twice before voting up TechCrunch stories) When I read the headline i thought TC had some additional news related to the change from kevin rose. They are basing it on a single tweet and fabricating a full story around it. Please don't vote up crap like this. The headline completely tricked me

8 points by vaksel 17y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=713694 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=713694

Ok, I wasn't going to comment on the first story because I've been accused of being persistently negative about digg. But this is just dumb. At this point Kevin has little, if any, influence over the features implemented at digg, and if Michael Arrington doesn't know that, then he's a moron. In fact I think he's just playing up the controversy to gain some traffic himself. "otherwise he wouldn’t disagree with a new policy publicly" is just laughable, because Kevin doesn't actually say that he disagrees with the policy. The whole thing about "making publishers unhappy" is just a giant wankfest among the bloggers who've replaced the actual press in Norcal. It's just one bullshit site screwing over a bunch of other bullshit sites. Don't read digg, techcrunch, mashable, etc, etc. and you'll more informed and a better person.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- sachinag 17y ago
  I don't think you know who the OP is. I don't think you know the standing he has in this particular community.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Regardless of my stance on the subject it should not matter who posts an article. Your standing in a community is precisely because of what you contribute, not the other way around.
    - sjs382 17y ago
      He's contributed plenty to digg. ;)
    - kyro 17y ago
      Ojbyrne worked side by side with Kevin Rose in building Digg.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Yes, obviously. But that should not change your response to whatever he writes. You should look at the writings as though you do not know who wrote it and respond accordingly. Case in point, I think it's funny that PG had to remove himself from the leaderboard here because everything he says - no matter how trivial - gets voted up quite high.
        kyro 17y ago
        No, his status validates his comment. He's been on the inside of Digg, more than anyone else really, so I'd trust his assessment. I doubt you'd really respond the same way if someone who created their account a week ago with 10 karma made the same comment.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        Ok, that's a good point, but you have to admit that that post does not come across very balanced and should be judged on its merits rather than being accorded automatic credit based on the history of the poster with the company, or in this community. Note that the OP himself already builds in a disclaimer: "I wasn't going to comment on the first story because I've been accused of being persistently negative about digg" and then ends with: "Don't read digg, techcrunch, mashable, etc, etc. and you'll more informed and a better person." That's not very classy, standing or not shouldn't factor in to it. There has to be a more professional way to handle this whether you've been taken advantage or not is not an issue though I very much understand (having been in the same boat at some point) how hard it is to let go of that. It clouds the view of the OP and that is a pity because I think that if the comment were in a more moderate tone it would get much more traction.

ccc3 17y ago

Where exactly did he say he was unhappy with the change? All he said was that he didn't know about it and would ask when he gets to the office.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

jm4 17y ago

This story is bullshit. The whole premise for it is a Twitter message. It wasn't even a complete sentence let alone a statement worthy of a story. Then, Arrington goes on to infer that Rose is not happy about the situation when all he said was that he was just hearing about it and would check when he gets back to work. just now reading the digg short url discussion, I was not aware this changed and will check in on it tomorrow (was on vacation for 2 weeks). How does one draw the conclusion that Rose isn't happy about it? What it says to me is that he wants to find out more before saying anything. Translation: He’s not happy (otherwise he wouldn’t disagree with a new policy publicly). Look for a reversal on this policy sometime soon. Oh, please. If Rose had the authority to reverse this it wouldn't have been done without his knowledge while on vacation. This is a pretty big change. They had to have known it would be at least a little bit controversial, and there had to have been some sort of discussion before its implementation.

dangoldin 17y ago
Not to mention that he should have checked on it as soon as he found out about it.

boundlessdreamz 17y ago

Please Hacker News users, don't vote up a pure made up story like this (think twice before voting up TechCrunch stories) When I read the headline i thought TC had some additional news related to the change from kevin rose. They are basing it on a single tweet and fabricating a full story around it. Please don't vote up crap like this. The headline completely tricked me