I don't understand the reasoning behind this move. Sure, I get that it's 'cool'- Digg just has Twitter/Facebook/etc envy.
Digg used to be a place for finding crowd sourced news (or, more recently, lolcats). Now, it will be merely yet another way to share links with your friends. I get that enough on other sites (Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Buzz, etc). In order to get any value, you will need to be following a large number of diverse and interesting people who post cool and relevant links. Prior to the changes, you merely had to type in digg.com in order to see what the "world" found interesting.
Digg had a brilliant concept- make the users the editors. When it started, it was great- it had relevant and timely tech and political news. As it grew, they found themselves victims of catering to the lowest common denominator (which equates to funny pictures, it seems). Rather than use v4 to figure out a way to change this (maybe similar to Reddits' subreddits?), they created a Digg-styled Facebook clone.
Yes, Top News is still there. However, it's been relegated to a tab.
I wish Digg the best, however I don't see myself using it if I need to follow and share in order to derive value from the site. It's unfortunately- Digg has always been a quality site (in terms of software and vision, if not content).
1. Digg is still a place for finding crowd sourced news. It simply is recognizing user demand seen across the web for social features and adding that into its product.
2. You say you get enough sharing on Facebook, etc. but what's funny is every time a new sharing/social site launches, over time, we've all grown to begin using it anyway. First we had Delicious (2003), then we added Facebook (2004), then we added Twitter (2006), then we added Google Buzz (2010). Clearly folks ARENT getting enough of it on any one of those sites, since each site has been able to build sufficient user bases. The Internet's a huge world, and different products will appeal to different groups; many can survive. Besides, if we only had one platform, all the privacy folks would be up in arms (as they get from time to time about Google or more recently Facebook) that X company controls too much of our information. Ultimately, competition/multiple platforms is a good thing. Digg entering this space only adds to that.
3. You can still type in Digg.com and see what the "world" finds interesting, however now you'll get to see what your friends/followers/"tastemakers" find interesting too. Think of it as a USA Today adding a "local" section.
4. At first, I agreed with your point that v4 does not appear to show a solution to Digg's lowest common denominator problem. However, upon further thought, it does. Digg has given the power to the user. During the "onboarding process" you select who you follow, friend, etc. and decide what your stream of "My News" will look like. Follow all brilliant people and you'll get interesting, valuable content. Follow idiots and you'll get great funny pictures of cats. Follow a mix and you'll get both.
5. Ultimately I can see myself using the new Digg, but it will take time to see how it fits into my arsenal of social websites. If it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself, it'll go by the wayside. However, as history has shown us, we seem to have no problem adding another site to the mix.
Re: 2. Two social sites are clear winners: Facebook and Twitter. Delicious initially had strong adoption, hence they were acquired, but it's been downhill since then. Google Buzz can be considered a failure; Google forced their social graph upon users and they weren't happy.
For the two successful sharing sites out there, hundreds are struggling (Digg included) or dead.
In regards to the rest of your points, there's no telling how the product will exactly play out until we have access to play with it for ourselves.
Digg used to be a place for finding crowd sourced news (or, more recently, lolcats). Now, it will be merely yet another way to share links with your friends. I get that enough on other sites (Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Buzz, etc). In order to get any value, you will need to be following a large number of diverse and interesting people who post cool and relevant links. Prior to the changes, you merely had to type in digg.com in order to see what the "world" found interesting.
Digg had a brilliant concept- make the users the editors. When it started, it was great- it had relevant and timely tech and political news. As it grew, they found themselves victims of catering to the lowest common denominator (which equates to funny pictures, it seems). Rather than use v4 to figure out a way to change this (maybe similar to Reddits' subreddits?), they created a Digg-styled Facebook clone.
Yes, Top News is still there. However, it's been relegated to a tab.
I wish Digg the best, however I don't see myself using it if I need to follow and share in order to derive value from the site. It's unfortunately- Digg has always been a quality site (in terms of software and vision, if not content).