Update: DiggBar will only be shown to logged-in Digg users | Hacker News Reader

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

blog.digg.com

43 pointsryanwaggoner22 comments

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).

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

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.

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.

40 is a large enough population for infection by marketdroids.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Once you're logged in, it's simple to opt out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Do you work for Digg or do you just like the taste in your mouth? I have been a member for over four years (check it out, same username) and have no problem with them other than it seems the investors have started calling the shots. I think Digg would make an excellent four or five person company, but it makes a terrible 80+ person company with lots of investors to make happy. That's how horrible ideas like the Diggbar get started.

Google Images you say? Well it's blocked from all search engines by robots.txt so there is no chance of search engine tomfoolery (not to mention that frames make sense in image search since you are looking for only a tiny bit of what could be a huge page). Digg said they hired a consultant and checked with Google how to do things right... They lied. If they had done either they would have heard exactly what the mob told them the minute they launched Diggbar. Just say you fucked up, don't try and bullshit that you did your very best to be on the up and up.

Sure, it's a handy feature... For SIGNED IN Digg users who want it. It's a ridiculous "feature" for the internet public. To try and pass it off as a URL shortener was an even more terrible idea. Have your land grab, but don't try and call it a service for John Q Surfer.

Bottom line, Digg pushed out a feature made instantly popular because they opted everyone in, that made many people question the integrity of a company previously given the benefit of the doubt. Because they now let don't opt-in non members is not so great, it unquestionably should have been that way to start. reddit has a similar feature but you have to opt-in. That's great and if they really wanted this to be a feature and not a land grab that's what they would have done.

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

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

Yep: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/15/diggbar-fix

See, that's reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com