Digg (the original)

» see digg.com as it lived, on the wayback machine

~ the goodbye ~

digg launched on 5 december 2004. it was founded by kevin rose, who had been a host on a tech tv show called the screen savers. the product was simple. users submitted links. other users voted them up (called "digging") or down (called "burying"). the most-dugg links rose to the front page. the front page was the product.

this was a specific evolution past slashdot. slashdot had editors who picked which submissions ran. digg removed the editors. the community voted. it was supposed to be more democratic. for a while it was.

peak digg was around 2007-2008. about 30 million unique visitors per month. real cultural influence. getting on the digg front page would crash a small website's servers. the verb "to be dugg" briefly competed with "to be slashdotted" and won.

then in august 2010 digg shipped a major redesign called v4. the redesign destroyed the user base in two weeks. the migration to reddit, which had been growing in parallel, accelerated rapidly. by mid-2011 digg was a ghost site. it was sold in july 2012 for around 500,000 dollars. the modern digg.com is a different product run by betaworks. it has nothing to do with the original.

~ the chronicle ~

~ how it actually worked ~

the digg homepage was a list of stories. each story was a submission with a headline, a short summary, and a link to the original article. each story had a digg count (how many users had upvoted it). stories with higher counts ranked higher on the page.

to participate you needed an account. signed-in users could digg or bury stories. you could comment on each story. comments themselves had a voting system, so the highest-voted comments rose to the top of the comment thread. the comment culture mattered. digg comments had a specific flavor (irreverent, often jokey, sometimes mean) that became part of the brand.

there were also categories: technology, politics, world news, entertainment, sports. each had its own front page. but most users mostly visited the main front page, which was algorithmically derived from all categories.

~ the cultural peak ~

from about 2006 to 2009 digg was the most influential community site in english-speaking tech. getting a story to the digg front page meant guaranteed traffic. there was an entire ecosystem of "digg consultants" who would help companies craft submissions that the digg community would upvote. there were rumors of paid voting rings. there were discussions about whether power users (the top 100 active diggers) had too much influence on which stories rose.

the front page also had real cultural influence on what tech people read each day. articles about programming, linux, the iphone, social media trends, security incidents. if it was on the digg front page, you read it that day. if it was not, you probably did not see it. the curation by the community was usually decent.

this was when the comment threads were good. there was a discoverable hierarchy of well-known commenters. there was a community sense. it was small enough to feel like a place. by 2009 the audience had grown enough that the comment culture started feeling like a generic internet comment section, but the peak was real.

~ the v4 disaster ~

on 25 august 2010 digg launched v4, a major redesign. the redesign changed several things at once:

• removed the bury button (so users could not vote stories down)
• introduced "publisher accounts" that let major publications seed stories directly to the front page
• changed the front page algorithm to favor publisher content over community submissions
• removed the per-category front pages that had served niche audiences

the user response was severe. within days, organized digg users started a "quit digg day" where everyone would post reddit links instead of digg links. the quit-digg movement was loud enough that mainstream tech press covered it. user activity dropped about 30 percent in the first two weeks and kept dropping.

the redesign was reverted in stages over the next year, but the audience did not return. once they had moved to reddit, the network effect was on reddit's side. reddit's user count tripled in the year after digg v4 launched.

~ the postmortem ~

digg's leadership tried various recovery strategies through 2011 and early 2012. they hired new executives. they shut down the v4 publisher features. they tried to revive the community. it did not work. the audience had moved.

in july 2012 digg was sold to betaworks for around 500,000 dollars. linkedin separately bought some of the engineering team for 4 million. washington post bought the remaining staff for 12 million. the company that had been worth 200 million dollars a few years earlier was broken up for parts.

betaworks ran a different version of digg from 2012 onwards. it is more of a curated news site than a community vote site. the original digg as people remember it ended on 12 july 2012.

~ what remains ~

the case study in self-inflicted redesigns. v4 shows how a redesign that ignores user concerns can kill a thriving community in weeks. every product manager learning the trade in 2026 reads about digg v4. the lessons are: do not change the voting model without warning, do not give big publishers automatic placement, do not remove features power users care about. each of these lessons came from digg.

the audience that became reddit. a meaningful chunk of reddit's 2010-2012 growth was migrated digg users. the comment culture, the link-voting model, the front-page worship all came over. reddit absorbed the digg DNA along with the digg audience.

the sense of what a community news site can be. between 2006 and 2010, digg was a coherent community. there were named regulars. there was inside humor. the front page reflected the taste of a recognizable group. modern reddit is much bigger but feels less like a place. that smaller-and-cohered shape is what digg had and what we lost.

@}-->--

              )
             (_)
            .-'-.
            |   |
            |   |
            |   |
            |   |
          __|   |__   .-.
       .-'  |   |  `-:   :
      :     `---'     :-'
       `-._       _.-'
           '""""""

« previous  ·  random  ·  next »