I thought his letter was really distasteful and out of touch. I mean, does he know for sure that this was a VC motivated initiative?

Coincidentally enough, I'm working on a site (howl.com, check the ask HN section) that pretty much exactly the same as what Digg decided to evolve into: more personalized sharing. I don't know Alex, but maybe he just got a bit big headed in assuming what Digg was doing was simply a hack of popular features.

In my eyes, I already know the new features together make sense, its something I wanted, thats why I'm building it. It may feel like a bunch of hot functions thrown together, but that doesn't mean it wont be good or give value to users.

I don't know for sure - I said that in the very first sentence of my post. I'm out of touch by my own admission.

To me, the simplest explanation is: a company that's already raised a SeriesC with VCs impatient about getting that grand return they'd dreamed of. The CEO left bc of it and the burden is now on Kevin. FWIW, I think he's absolutely capable of filling the void between our 'real' facebook friend networks and the vast twitter network for an optimal signal to noise ratio with serendipity.

I just don't think VCs care about that so deep into their investment.

But I hope it does make digg even stronger - or that Howl crushes everyone with a killer execution - bc we'd all benefit.

Also, my name is Alexis.

Bottom line is that evaluating a startups product based on it's similarities to macro-level competitors is a bad idea. It's about what clicks with the companies own customers.

Digg will launch the product and find out quite quickly whether or not these social features works well with its users.

It's possible the development of these features was based off of significant data drawn from testing existing social features with its userbase.

Not only that...but basing your opinion on the 'proper direction' of the product on just a video shown of some of the features, will likely lead to a misjudgment.

Then further insinuating about the motives of creator of the product is, quite frankly, reckless.

If you have inside information, or have used it extensively, then feel free...but not just based off of one video.

Great post! Totally agree.

I dreamt up an idea for a site based on many of these concepts (with some slight variations) only a week or two back. I've been so excited that I've been furiously hacking together a prototype ever since. I think Kevin's really on to something here. Of course, as you said, execution will be key -- I'm confident that I can do it better...

bdevil1....well, given your enthusiasm, when you launch would you like to come on my podcast and talk about it?

I am doing a podcast about various ideas/projects/stuff that HN members are working on.

Or, you can even come on before and give a sneak peek too - if you would like. I think the community would love to hear more about your story.

I put up the first episode and am pivoting based on the feedback I got from the HN community: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379942

If you are interested, email me: marc {at} ideatin {dot} com

Thanks.

I'd be thrilled to. I'm not quite ready for show and tell yet, but I'll be in touch...

> RSS feed readers suck!

No. They dont. You'll pry Google Reader from my cold dead hands.

I would like to have seen Marc flesh out this argument.

I hear you....but I respectfully disagree.

I have not seen RSS feed readers gain momentum as the hype around them suggested they might.

Some people like them, some don't.

I guess you can tell which camp I am in ;)

You're acknowledging that RSS performs the same general function as Digg v4, that you can't identify any concrete differences between the two, and that RSS readers ultimately didn't "gain momentum". How does that square with an argument that Digg v4 is going to be "game-changing"?

Did you even READ the post, or are you just commenting on the comments?

I thought I laid out the argument pretty clearly.

Let me know if I am mistaken.

I agree that they haven't gained momentum or mainstream acceptance, and I think that they probably never will. My parents will certainly never subscribe to an RSS feed.

However, just because feed readers aren't widely used doesn't mean they aren't incredibly useful to certain people.

Alexis Ohanian's central complaint wasn't that Digg is copying features that exist elsewhere. Instead, he feels the design of Digg V4 is motivated by VC interests, rather than a desire to do what's right for Digg's users.

His complaint was that the direction of the product was not one of Kevin's, but rather of the VC interests.

That is the central tenet I disagreed with, and I highlighted why.

> Imagine…now, as a publisher, I have 200 ‘followers’ whose sole interest is in seeing the links/stories that I publish. ...So far, there is no other tool that ‘aggregates’ all your content and pushes it directly to an audience like digg v4 is suggested to do

I think Tumblr already does this well.

I will not take the Michael Arrington route and attack Reddit's co-founder for speaking what appears to be true. As it is, Techcrunch is never known for insights.

During the past 4 years, I have followed Digg and critized its functioning often on my Mediavidea blog.

In summary, two things that can make Digg good again:

1. Bring back the Top 100 users, but with better controls, tracking, something like Techmeme Leaderboard.

2. Give some top users power and incentives to be proper Topic Editors.

I don't use Digg. Do you guys use it, regularly? If you don't use it regularly, how can you judge?

I think Alexis is probably right because it's part of his business he looks at this everyday.

I like dmix's point. "It's about what clicks with the companies own customers." VC will always meddle, but if their meddling doesn't click with the customers, they just lose more money.