3 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  I'll admit that I often post in anger about digg and about the blogosphere. Why? Because I've never seen so much shit thrown around since the last time I went to the monkey cage at a zoo. Pretty well every fact about the early origins of digg has been misrepresented. I've somewhat gotten past the personal insult in that. Now I'm just insulted by the fact that the promise of "democratizing the news" has been hijacked. What we had before was, if more expensive, better. There was more integrity, more craftmanship, more creativity. Here's a classic example: http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/technology/2009/07/20/0720plugged.html http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/t.... I'm sure that Mike Maples isn't a complete moron, nor completely dishonest, but somebody give me an explanation for "When I invested in Digg, Kevin Rose had started the company for $1,500 over a weekend." I was there. None of that is in anyway accurate. Just the fact that Mike Maples, reporters and editors at that particular publication are willing to say it's true says a whole lot about corruption and dishonesty. How can they even call themselves "The Statesman?"

by kyro 17y ago

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.

ojbyrne 17y ago
I'll admit that I often post in anger about digg and about the blogosphere. Why? Because I've never seen so much shit thrown around since the last time I went to the monkey cage at a zoo. Pretty well every fact about the early origins of digg has been misrepresented. I've somewhat gotten past the personal insult in that. Now I'm just insulted by the fact that the promise of "democratizing the news" has been hijacked. What we had before was, if more expensive, better. There was more integrity, more craftmanship, more creativity. Here's a classic example: http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/technology/2009/07/20/0720plugged.html http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/t.... I'm sure that Mike Maples isn't a complete moron, nor completely dishonest, but somebody give me an explanation for "When I invested in Digg, Kevin Rose had started the company for $1,500 over a weekend." I was there. None of that is in anyway accurate. Just the fact that Mike Maples, reporters and editors at that particular publication are willing to say it's true says a whole lot about corruption and dishonesty. How can they even call themselves "The Statesman?"