3 ms·

What the hell? It seems like someone just threw up an article that refers to HN at the beginning, then the entire rest of the article is about digg and how it f

by swang 13y ago

What the hell? It seems like someone just threw up an article that refers to HN at the beginning, then the entire rest of the article is about digg and how it failed. It offers no reasoning at all about how they are similar (they are not). It really reads like scraped content crap. Pure spam. Do not upvote.

drakaal 13y ago
Really? And the interviews with the guys from Digg you can find anywhere else on the internet? Did you read the article? I realize it is long and uses some big words, but I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thing for one sentence. "Users aren’t as powerful on the new Digg platform." That was what caused Digg to fail. It stopped being a democracy.
- swang 13y ago
  Great... If this article title was about Digg's history... we can judge it on those merits. But the title tries to somehow relate this to HNs new policy change when HN is barely mentioned. That is deceptive. If your summary is actually true, "Users aren't as powerful on the new Digg platform," what was the point of going through every tiny tidbit of Digg's history? Oh wait I know why. Because it'll help you generate more hits on SERPs. Is there any point in writing 4 paragraphs about Digg's change from MySQL to Cassandra if the article is about how the new Digg alienated their users? Digg's change in technology causing delays is relevant to write about. But writing about what Cassandra is for an entire paragraph is completely useless. Oh wait I know why. Because it'll help you generate more hits on SERPs. Again, useless article given it's title. Nothing at all to do with HN
  - drakaal 13y ago
    Because I ran the original article in its entirety you are complaining? And Yes, I'm desparate for SERPs on a site with no Ads. You totally outed me. Looking at your comment history it looks like about 2/3s of your comments are about how authors picked bad headlines, and how you would have picked better ones. So tell me again, who died and made you the headline police?

by swang 13y ago

drakaal 13y ago

Really? And the interviews with the guys from Digg you can find anywhere else on the internet? Did you read the article? I realize it is long and uses some big words, but I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thing for one sentence. "Users aren’t as powerful on the new Digg platform." That was what caused Digg to fail. It stopped being a democracy.

swang 13y ago
Great... If this article title was about Digg's history... we can judge it on those merits. But the title tries to somehow relate this to HNs new policy change when HN is barely mentioned. That is deceptive. If your summary is actually true, "Users aren't as powerful on the new Digg platform," what was the point of going through every tiny tidbit of Digg's history? Oh wait I know why. Because it'll help you generate more hits on SERPs. Is there any point in writing 4 paragraphs about Digg's change from MySQL to Cassandra if the article is about how the new Digg alienated their users? Digg's change in technology causing delays is relevant to write about. But writing about what Cassandra is for an entire paragraph is completely useless. Oh wait I know why. Because it'll help you generate more hits on SERPs. Again, useless article given it's title. Nothing at all to do with HN
- drakaal 13y ago
  Because I ran the original article in its entirety you are complaining? And Yes, I'm desparate for SERPs on a site with no Ads. You totally outed me. Looking at your comment history it looks like about 2/3s of your comments are about how authors picked bad headlines, and how you would have picked better ones. So tell me again, who died and made you the headline police?