What the hell? It seems like someone just threw up an article that refers to HN at the beginning, then the entire rest of the article is about digg and how it failed. It offers no reasoning at all about how they are similar (they are not).
It really reads like scraped content crap. Pure spam. Do not upvote.
Great... If this article title was about Digg's history... we can judge it on those merits. But the title tries to somehow relate this to HNs new policy change when HN is barely mentioned. That is deceptive.
If your summary is actually true, "Users aren't as powerful on the new Digg platform," what was the point of going through every tiny tidbit of Digg's history?
Oh wait I know why. Because it'll help you generate more hits on SERPs.
Is there any point in writing 4 paragraphs about Digg's change from MySQL to Cassandra if the article is about how the new Digg alienated their users? Digg's change in technology causing delays is relevant to write about. But writing about what Cassandra is for an entire paragraph is completely useless.
Oh wait I know why. Because it'll help you generate more hits on SERPs.
Again, useless article given it's title. Nothing at all to do with HN
Because I ran the original article in its entirety you are complaining?
And Yes, I'm desparate for SERPs on a site with no Ads.
You totally outed me.
Looking at your comment history it looks like about 2/3s of your comments are about how authors picked bad headlines, and how you would have picked better ones. So tell me again, who died and made you the headline police?
Digg changed the way Noobs and Power Users interacted. It created a tiered system that split the community, and then reduced the appeal to new users. It would be like if World of Warcraft only had zones optimized for level 20 and above, and all the Noobs died over and over their first year of playing.
It really reads like scraped content crap. Pure spam. Do not upvote.