

Update: DiggBar will only be shown to logged-in Digg users - ryanwaggoner
http://blog.digg.com/?p=664

======
dcurtis
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
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.

~~~
Sawta
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
40 is a large enough population for infection by marketdroids.

------
mikeyur
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
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.

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

~~~
nickb
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.

~~~
trjordan
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.

------
qeorge
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
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.

~~~
qeorge
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."

~~~
jonknee
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.

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

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

~~~
timdorr
Yep: <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/04/15/diggbar-fix>

------
JeremyBanks
See, that's reasonable.

