Google Master Plan 2.0 Revealed

Let’s see if this headline can get on Digg. Heheh. Yeah, it points to my interview with the Google Reader team. Yes, I linked to that in an earlier, less sensationalisticly-headlined post. Am I a traffic whore? Yes. Next question. ;-)

Or, should I just give into the dark side of the force and put lots of funky icons like these underneath my blog post in a deseparate attempt to get you to add my post to sites like Del.icio.us and Digg and BlueDot?

Hmmm, if I was a really good traffic beggar I’d even make the link to Digg prepopulate. Ahh, my evil plan for domination over Digg is almost complete.

Oh, damn, Digg just released a new algortihm to make it harder to get on the front page of Digg. Sigh.

24 thoughts on “Google Master Plan 2.0 Revealed

  1. I’ve always failed to understand the appeal of such sites like digg / shoutwire (disclosure: I was a shoutwire editor for a few weeks before I quit due to disagreement with their internal policies)

    Sure, they’re a great source of traffic but what’s in it for the user?

    I mean, what benefit do I get out of submitting sites that aren’t mine? Why on earth would I digg (pun intended) through the non front page posts and “digg” them? What’s in it for me? There’s no motivation for me to look through the entire site and rate news articles? Why do it?

    That’s part of the reason I quit shoutwire… unlike Digg, we had editorials… but they required so many “shouts” to get on the front page… but with the rapid amount of submissions, any new post was buried on page 4 or 5 of “find articles” within 20 minutes… so it never got enough “shouts”. Whatever shouts it did get were just me telling friends or other editors shouting them.

    Now, ordinarily I’d blame it on my writing sucking… but nobody was even seeing the new stuff submitted before it got buried on latter pages. (my articles that did make it to the front page set records for most comments).

    I predict that this same thing will happen to Digg eventually.

  2. I’ve always failed to understand the appeal of such sites like digg / shoutwire (disclosure: I was a shoutwire editor for a few weeks before I quit due to disagreement with their internal policies)

    Sure, they’re a great source of traffic but what’s in it for the user?

    I mean, what benefit do I get out of submitting sites that aren’t mine? Why on earth would I digg (pun intended) through the non front page posts and “digg” them? What’s in it for me? There’s no motivation for me to look through the entire site and rate news articles? Why do it?

    That’s part of the reason I quit shoutwire… unlike Digg, we had editorials… but they required so many “shouts” to get on the front page… but with the rapid amount of submissions, any new post was buried on page 4 or 5 of “find articles” within 20 minutes… so it never got enough “shouts”. Whatever shouts it did get were just me telling friends or other editors shouting them.

    Now, ordinarily I’d blame it on my writing sucking… but nobody was even seeing the new stuff submitted before it got buried on latter pages. (my articles that did make it to the front page set records for most comments).

    I predict that this same thing will happen to Digg eventually.

  3. Want to know Googles Master plan, listen to the Gilmor Gang. Steve and Jason aren’t that far behind, that’s my guess.

  4. Want to know Googles Master plan, listen to the Gilmor Gang. Steve and Jason aren’t that far behind, that’s my guess.

  5. I gotta say, one of the kewlest things about Digg for me is seeing the realtime “spy” display. Aside from that, I really didn’t get immersed into the site a whole lot.

    However, something I’d like to mention, Robert, is I was recently at Clipmarks:

    http://www.clipmarks.com/

    I’m new there, but I reckon they’ve done fantastically with their ease-of-use, accessibility (okay, some overlap there), and really being community-driven while highlighting gems. Generally uninteresting noise thus far seems kept down while you get all manner of eclectic, gemful stuff. I suppose their equivalent of being dugg is being “Popped”.

    I don’t know how well known they are in the Web 2.0 panopticon/pantheon, but I’d say it’s well worth a rowdy romp to visit and smile. :)

    Plus, how can you resist Google 2084?

    http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/16130653-AC64-4C4C-8F9B-51848A4C3F09/

  6. I gotta say, one of the kewlest things about Digg for me is seeing the realtime “spy” display. Aside from that, I really didn’t get immersed into the site a whole lot.

    However, something I’d like to mention, Robert, is I was recently at Clipmarks:

    http://www.clipmarks.com/

    I’m new there, but I reckon they’ve done fantastically with their ease-of-use, accessibility (okay, some overlap there), and really being community-driven while highlighting gems. Generally uninteresting noise thus far seems kept down while you get all manner of eclectic, gemful stuff. I suppose their equivalent of being dugg is being “Popped”.

    I don’t know how well known they are in the Web 2.0 panopticon/pantheon, but I’d say it’s well worth a rowdy romp to visit and smile. :)

    Plus, how can you resist Google 2084?

    http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/16130653-AC64-4C4C-8F9B-51848A4C3F09/

  7. Tate: if you don’t defend your trademarks you will lose them. Sorry, but Google is doing the right thing there — legally. Although it does make them look mean and motherly, doesn’t it?

  8. Tate: if you don’t defend your trademarks you will lose them. Sorry, but Google is doing the right thing there — legally. Although it does make them look mean and motherly, doesn’t it?

Comments are closed.