Did Digg link here?

I’m getting tons of abuse for comments I made about Jakob Nielsen. Now, usually I’d wonder if I really did something more lame than I usually do. But the comments are almost all from anonymous people who’ve never posted here before and the contain flames of the quality that usually come from Digg.

So, what’s up?

Well, Digg did link today. But that’s to the Google Reader thing and the comments are fairly erudite. For Digg’ers.

Coding Horror’s Jeff Atwood linked to me and told me off, but his readers are usually the kind that don’t get in the gutter with personal attacks.

So, not sure what’s up, but that post sure brought out the 14-year-old anonymous trolls in droves.

Anyway, because Jeff Atwood told me off, that tells me I went over the top with that post.

I’m sorry. Can someone pull off the 14-year-old attack dogs?

Maybe that’s what Jakob meant: write long, meaty posts, if you don’t want the trolls to come and visit you.

Oh, back to the Google Reader Shared Items Facebook application. It just got another major update. Now shows tags, and shows who linked to each post. It’s “Digg for the smart people.” About time.

UPDATE: that Digg link was worth about 21,000 views today. Interesting that Digg’s audience hasn’t grown much in the past year.

42 thoughts on “Did Digg link here?

  1. (can’t resist)

    > Coding Horror’s Jeff Atwood linked to me and told me
    > off, but his readers are usually the kind that don’t
    > get in the gutter with personal attacks.

    So, you wouldn’t class yourself as ‘one of his readers’ or at least the type who doesn’t resort to personal attacks?

    “He piles on with retaliatory personal attacks of his own, which was totally unnecessary.”

    Jeff Atwood does raise some points at the article, but also quotes some of the very good points raised.

    “malkovich, malkovich, malkovich.”

  2. (can’t resist)

    > Coding Horror’s Jeff Atwood linked to me and told me
    > off, but his readers are usually the kind that don’t
    > get in the gutter with personal attacks.

    So, you wouldn’t class yourself as ‘one of his readers’ or at least the type who doesn’t resort to personal attacks?

    “He piles on with retaliatory personal attacks of his own, which was totally unnecessary.”

    Jeff Atwood does raise some points at the article, but also quotes some of the very good points raised.

    “malkovich, malkovich, malkovich.”

  3. (yes, you’re / your) hey, it’s late in some timezones, and we can’t all switch languages that quickly.

    shutdown -h now for me I think.

  4. (yes, you’re / your) hey, it’s late in some timezones, and we can’t all switch languages that quickly.

    shutdown -h now for me I think.

  5. Robert, that is the point – Neilsen isn’t talking about your blog, or any other personal blog. He is talking about primary, in depth sites, to not be lured by the general concepts of ubiquitous software, and follow a knowledge pattern that reflects their wares.

    Your site is a personal blog. How does that even fit into the discussion? Especially since the clear point of the article is to ensure the reader understands the viewpoint as technologically agnostic.

    I fear you didn’t read it with a clear head, or at all, perhaps the new form of ‘mtv generation’ is twitter generation, and you just didn’t make it that far in. Now I am being tetchy.

    > print: I thought you said you were never coming
    > back here? By the way, lots of people disagree with
    > you about that post.

    Oh, your right, silly me, you win!
    Where did I say I wasn’t coming back? I came to see if you responded to my points I raised.

    Yes, you are right, there are many things you could have done better, here are 3:

    1) Not misunderstand the entire point of the article was specifically and intentionally focussed around primary, in-depth sources, and how to model this via ANY software platform.

    2) Not insult the author becase you didn’t agree with him (and given #1, not take it personally because you obviously didn’t comprehend what was quite an informative and simply laid out article)

    3) Given #1 and #2, not advertise the fact that you misread the whole article, insulted the author, then claim you were offended because it was a direct attack on you, even though the article clearly defines this as not the case.

    As a bonus, you shouldn’t post a follow up that you were attacked by 14 year old responses that don’t agree with you, when you did much the same thing to the article Nielsen wrote. In fact, you mock the fact that he doesn’t have comments, yet you take the first chance to bemoan your own lot.

    > Probably. Sue me. It’s my blog. It’s not always
    > going to be in depth, well thought out, or erudite.

    There you go with winning arguments again. Did I at any point argue that you don’t have the right to be wrong on your own blog? No, I asked you questions and tried to discuss this. Implying that I might censor and restrict you is a cheap tactic that allows you to drop the argument, and not say anything else, yet I welcome any and all further discussions, perhaps one day you might post:

    > Oh, I just worked it out, and BTW that post was
    > nothing about me, must tp fast, only 140 crs kthxbi

    and a follow up (to explain your reason for having a grudge against him):

    > BTW, I caught a rash off Neilsen, its ok we wr bth
    > drnk kthxbi

    You see, you are not the only one who can be tongue-in-cheek. Unless your tongue was elsewhere. Damn, that isn’t an image I would wish on anyones mind, but its out there now. ;-)

  6. Robert, that is the point – Neilsen isn’t talking about your blog, or any other personal blog. He is talking about primary, in depth sites, to not be lured by the general concepts of ubiquitous software, and follow a knowledge pattern that reflects their wares.

    Your site is a personal blog. How does that even fit into the discussion? Especially since the clear point of the article is to ensure the reader understands the viewpoint as technologically agnostic.

    I fear you didn’t read it with a clear head, or at all, perhaps the new form of ‘mtv generation’ is twitter generation, and you just didn’t make it that far in. Now I am being tetchy.

    > print: I thought you said you were never coming
    > back here? By the way, lots of people disagree with
    > you about that post.

    Oh, your right, silly me, you win!
    Where did I say I wasn’t coming back? I came to see if you responded to my points I raised.

    Yes, you are right, there are many things you could have done better, here are 3:

    1) Not misunderstand the entire point of the article was specifically and intentionally focussed around primary, in-depth sources, and how to model this via ANY software platform.

    2) Not insult the author becase you didn’t agree with him (and given #1, not take it personally because you obviously didn’t comprehend what was quite an informative and simply laid out article)

    3) Given #1 and #2, not advertise the fact that you misread the whole article, insulted the author, then claim you were offended because it was a direct attack on you, even though the article clearly defines this as not the case.

    As a bonus, you shouldn’t post a follow up that you were attacked by 14 year old responses that don’t agree with you, when you did much the same thing to the article Nielsen wrote. In fact, you mock the fact that he doesn’t have comments, yet you take the first chance to bemoan your own lot.

    > Probably. Sue me. It’s my blog. It’s not always
    > going to be in depth, well thought out, or erudite.

    There you go with winning arguments again. Did I at any point argue that you don’t have the right to be wrong on your own blog? No, I asked you questions and tried to discuss this. Implying that I might censor and restrict you is a cheap tactic that allows you to drop the argument, and not say anything else, yet I welcome any and all further discussions, perhaps one day you might post:

    > Oh, I just worked it out, and BTW that post was
    > nothing about me, must tp fast, only 140 crs kthxbi

    and a follow up (to explain your reason for having a grudge against him):

    > BTW, I caught a rash off Neilsen, its ok we wr bth
    > drnk kthxbi

    You see, you are not the only one who can be tongue-in-cheek. Unless your tongue was elsewhere. Damn, that isn’t an image I would wish on anyones mind, but its out there now. ;-)

  7. > Shooter: and you fit totally into the
    > 14-year-old-style replies. When I don’t like
    > something I don’t say it’s “F**cking retarded.”
    > That kind of retort alone demonstrates EXACTLY what
    > I was trying to say here.
    > Comment by Robert Scoble — July 16, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

    The beauty of the interwebnet is we can find out exactly how you handle something you don’t like. This might be OT but:

    > Well, I wish I could tell you the truth about Jacob
    > (he worked for me back in the 1990s at one of our
    > conferences — we never hired him again) but Steve
    > Wozniak taught me to never say anything if I can’t
    > say something nice about someone.
    > [...] I will say this, it’s amazing that we’re
    > listening to a guy who has an uglier Web site than
    > I do.
    > [...] he doesn’t have comments, doesn’t have
    > trackbacks, and used about 2,000 words to say
    > something a better writer would say in about 300
    > words.
    > Post by Robert Scoble

    So, please scoble, teach us all how we can graciously respond to something we don’t like, just as you expertly did yourself.

    You knocked his site design, site features, his writing skills, and insulted him personally in the very worst way.

    Oh, but heaven forbid anyone call you out on it, and not be utterly courteous about it.

    – Also – all this ‘did digg link here?’ sounds like a toddler crying for his comfort blanket. “I ranted on my page, and instead of being comforted by my familiar and friendly regulars who would pat me on the back and echo snide remarks about Nielsen, digg users who apparently understood the story, decided not to stand by and let me bitch at this guy for no apparent reason.”

    Make up your mind, and don’t excuse this whole issue by drawing attention to your own qualitative observations of the comments you received, when your own actions that started this are no better.

  8. > Shooter: and you fit totally into the
    > 14-year-old-style replies. When I don’t like
    > something I don’t say it’s “F**cking retarded.”
    > That kind of retort alone demonstrates EXACTLY what
    > I was trying to say here.
    > Comment by Robert Scoble — July 16, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

    The beauty of the interwebnet is we can find out exactly how you handle something you don’t like. This might be OT but:

    > Well, I wish I could tell you the truth about Jacob
    > (he worked for me back in the 1990s at one of our
    > conferences — we never hired him again) but Steve
    > Wozniak taught me to never say anything if I can’t
    > say something nice about someone.
    > [...] I will say this, it’s amazing that we’re
    > listening to a guy who has an uglier Web site than
    > I do.
    > [...] he doesn’t have comments, doesn’t have
    > trackbacks, and used about 2,000 words to say
    > something a better writer would say in about 300
    > words.
    > Post by Robert Scoble

    So, please scoble, teach us all how we can graciously respond to something we don’t like, just as you expertly did yourself.

    You knocked his site design, site features, his writing skills, and insulted him personally in the very worst way.

    Oh, but heaven forbid anyone call you out on it, and not be utterly courteous about it.

    – Also – all this ‘did digg link here?’ sounds like a toddler crying for his comfort blanket. “I ranted on my page, and instead of being comforted by my familiar and friendly regulars who would pat me on the back and echo snide remarks about Nielsen, digg users who apparently understood the story, decided not to stand by and let me bitch at this guy for no apparent reason.”

    Make up your mind, and don’t excuse this whole issue by drawing attention to your own qualitative observations of the comments you received, when your own actions that started this are no better.

  9. print: I thought you said you were never coming back here? By the way, lots of people disagree with you about that post. My email is filled with people who thought it was a great post. The problem is you didn’t get the toungue-in-cheek nature of it. When I put in the headline “like Scoble” it means that he was asking executives to NOT BE “like Scoble” which absolutely is true, if you actually took the time to read Nielsen’s post.

    Would it be better if I had been just straightfoward and said “Nielsen says to avoid posting like most bloggers?” Probably. Sue me. It’s my blog. It’s not always going to be in depth, well thought out, or erudite.

  10. print: I thought you said you were never coming back here? By the way, lots of people disagree with you about that post. My email is filled with people who thought it was a great post. The problem is you didn’t get the toungue-in-cheek nature of it. When I put in the headline “like Scoble” it means that he was asking executives to NOT BE “like Scoble” which absolutely is true, if you actually took the time to read Nielsen’s post.

    Would it be better if I had been just straightfoward and said “Nielsen says to avoid posting like most bloggers?” Probably. Sue me. It’s my blog. It’s not always going to be in depth, well thought out, or erudite.

  11. So, defend your post by pointing at the inevitable 14-year-old style comments – what comments do you want on a post that itself seems to be written by a petulant child?

    Hold on, I didn’t agree with you, perhaps you can dismiss my post as yet-another-lame-digg-user.

    Incidentally, I didn’t see this linked off digg, I clicked a ‘blogroll’ entry on another site, and saw this under comments somewhere.

    What you are trying to say is, that you are right because some responses were flamebait.

    Your post can be ranked as one of the saddest symptoms of a downward spiral, with or without flamebait responses.

    The best part?

    > I’m sorry. Can someone pull off the 14-year-old
    > attack dogs?

    You post something, with comments, exactly what you deride Nielsen for *not* including on his ‘ugly, unusable’ site. And then you decide that if the comments get too harsh, you can blame those writing them, not your writing.

    The best part of you post:

    > UPDATE: that Digg link was worth about 21,000 views
    > today. Interesting that Digg’s audience hasn’t
    > grown much in the past year.

    Actually, Digg’s audience figured can be substantiated.

    What is sad is, that even with a significantly increased digg audience, your site has become so insignificant and irrelevant that even your own flamebait posts can no longer pull in hits from a site that will happily indulge 100-200 iPhone stories a week.

    Now, that is redundant. What you have to look at now is – you original post and comments are forever a reflection of yourself, as is the post you have just made. Your wikipedia entry now reads:

    Scoble: jumped shark sometime late ’06 [1]

    [1] see http://scobleizer.com/2007/07/16/did-digg-link-here/ for the bottom of the barrel.

    I was rather interested to actually discuss your views on the last post, and I don’t know if you responded finally, but given this post, I can see that you haven’t grown from your original stance of mud slinging.

  12. So, defend your post by pointing at the inevitable 14-year-old style comments – what comments do you want on a post that itself seems to be written by a petulant child?

    Hold on, I didn’t agree with you, perhaps you can dismiss my post as yet-another-lame-digg-user.

    Incidentally, I didn’t see this linked off digg, I clicked a ‘blogroll’ entry on another site, and saw this under comments somewhere.

    What you are trying to say is, that you are right because some responses were flamebait.

    Your post can be ranked as one of the saddest symptoms of a downward spiral, with or without flamebait responses.

    The best part?

    > I’m sorry. Can someone pull off the 14-year-old
    > attack dogs?

    You post something, with comments, exactly what you deride Nielsen for *not* including on his ‘ugly, unusable’ site. And then you decide that if the comments get too harsh, you can blame those writing them, not your writing.

    The best part of you post:

    > UPDATE: that Digg link was worth about 21,000 views
    > today. Interesting that Digg’s audience hasn’t
    > grown much in the past year.

    Actually, Digg’s audience figured can be substantiated.

    What is sad is, that even with a significantly increased digg audience, your site has become so insignificant and irrelevant that even your own flamebait posts can no longer pull in hits from a site that will happily indulge 100-200 iPhone stories a week.

    Now, that is redundant. What you have to look at now is – you original post and comments are forever a reflection of yourself, as is the post you have just made. Your wikipedia entry now reads:

    Scoble: jumped shark sometime late ’06 [1]

    [1] see http://scobleizer.com/2007/07/16/did-digg-link-here/ for the bottom of the barrel.

    I was rather interested to actually discuss your views on the last post, and I don’t know if you responded finally, but given this post, I can see that you haven’t grown from your original stance of mud slinging.

  13. You got flamed because your comments on Nielsen were stupid and juvenile and resorted to personal attacks, while his article was well thought out, made good points, and didn’t mention you once. The general message of many of the comments was, “Grow up Scoble. Nielsen is right on this one.”

    I don’t know much about Jakob Nielsen, but I know that I had to stop reading blogs, because the whole blogosphere has become a stream of endless BS that is not worth my time. I think we should fix that.

  14. You got flamed because your comments on Nielsen were stupid and juvenile and resorted to personal attacks, while his article was well thought out, made good points, and didn’t mention you once. The general message of many of the comments was, “Grow up Scoble. Nielsen is right on this one.”

    I don’t know much about Jakob Nielsen, but I know that I had to stop reading blogs, because the whole blogosphere has become a stream of endless BS that is not worth my time. I think we should fix that.

  15. I think it’s about time someone took Neilsen down a peg or two. A lot of what he says has a good starting point, but he always takes it to absurd levels. (PS. I came via Attwood)

  16. I think it’s about time someone took Neilsen down a peg or two. A lot of what he says has a good starting point, but he always takes it to absurd levels. (PS. I came via Attwood)

  17. That is why I prefaced my 14-year-old-style reply with ‘for the lack of better words’ – these types of retorts were brought about by your ‘Nielsen’ rant – That is the the point I was trying, but failed, to insinuate

    To keep inline with the 14-year-old-style theme, ‘chill out fat ass’ ;-)

  18. That is why I prefaced my 14-year-old-style reply with ‘for the lack of better words’ – these types of retorts were brought about by your ‘Nielsen’ rant – That is the the point I was trying, but failed, to insinuate

    To keep inline with the 14-year-old-style theme, ‘chill out fat ass’ ;-)

  19. Shooter: and you fit totally into the 14-year-old-style replies. When I don’t like something I don’t say it’s “F**cking retarded.” That kind of retort alone demonstrates EXACTLY what I was trying to say here.

  20. Shooter: and you fit totally into the 14-year-old-style replies. When I don’t like something I don’t say it’s “F**cking retarded.” That kind of retort alone demonstrates EXACTLY what I was trying to say here.

  21. Scoble, I read your blog on a regular basis and thought your rant on Nielsen was, for the lack of a better words, F**cking retarded – It was one of those moments where I questioned why I read your blog at all – Anyhoo, that is an honest reaction from a reader that valued your posts – As Atwood mentioned, the rant came across as narcissist

    Anyhoo…

  22. Scoble, I read your blog on a regular basis and thought your rant on Nielsen was, for the lack of a better words, F**cking retarded – It was one of those moments where I questioned why I read your blog at all – Anyhoo, that is an honest reaction from a reader that valued your posts – As Atwood mentioned, the rant came across as narcissist

    Anyhoo…

  23. I wasn’t nice to Jakob either in my post about his post, er… article. I guess my non-satirical approach got me better comments. But also fewer comments and less traffic too.

    I still don’t understand how most people came to the conclusion you thought it was all about you. I guess brains don’t have to be connected to finger muscles for them to work.

    I did go with a completely satirical title though…

  24. I wasn’t nice to Jakob either in my post about his post, er… article. I guess my non-satirical approach got me better comments. But also fewer comments and less traffic too.

    I still don’t understand how most people came to the conclusion you thought it was all about you. I guess brains don’t have to be connected to finger muscles for them to work.

    I did go with a completely satirical title though…

  25. I’ve been visiting Digg less and less over the past few months, primarily due to the low level of maturity that appears all over the site. It’s unfortunate – good product, bad userbase.

  26. I’ve been visiting Digg less and less over the past few months, primarily due to the low level of maturity that appears all over the site. It’s unfortunate – good product, bad userbase.

  27. The surprise is that the 14-year-olds:

    1) Heard of Jakob Nielsen;

    2) Would harbor any kind of positive feeling toward him, much less Apple-fanboy-type ardor.

    Maybe it’s because they don’t know any better. Maybe because Nielsen’s site is so behind-the-times and relatively unusable that it’s now MySpace-like (without the photos). But mildly confusing.

  28. The surprise is that the 14-year-olds:

    1) Heard of Jakob Nielsen;

    2) Would harbor any kind of positive feeling toward him, much less Apple-fanboy-type ardor.

    Maybe it’s because they don’t know any better. Maybe because Nielsen’s site is so behind-the-times and relatively unusable that it’s now MySpace-like (without the photos). But mildly confusing.

  29. Don’t know how relevant this is, but I posted a negative comment about Mr Neilsen on the e-consultancy poll results page and 24 hours later it has been removed. Obviously we are not allowed to criticize such an exalted human being…

    Or maybe they’d all rather keep Web 1.0 while pretending to be 2.0!

  30. Don’t know how relevant this is, but I posted a negative comment about Mr Neilsen on the e-consultancy poll results page and 24 hours later it has been removed. Obviously we are not allowed to criticize such an exalted human being…

    Or maybe they’d all rather keep Web 1.0 while pretending to be 2.0!

  31. A paltry 21,000 from Digg, huh? Let’s see here, that would be roughly three months of traffic for me…

    So, if I look at the ratio of trolls & 14yr old comments to my hits per post and compare them with your numbers I think we’re about even, perhaps the myspace crowd is growing up….

  32. A paltry 21,000 from Digg, huh? Let’s see here, that would be roughly three months of traffic for me…

    So, if I look at the ratio of trolls & 14yr old comments to my hits per post and compare them with your numbers I think we’re about even, perhaps the myspace crowd is growing up….

  33. One of the not expected things Kevin Rose miscalculated is that there were a inmidiat transference of ideal userbase when he reinvented slashdot.. he brought the slashdot crowd(nerds) and the geek crowd together, and he gave them power to vote.. the core of Digg is geek/nerd power users…so i am not surprised….

    And i don´t mean that as a insult at all, i am also a geek..

  34. One of the not expected things Kevin Rose miscalculated is that there were a inmidiat transference of ideal userbase when he reinvented slashdot.. he brought the slashdot crowd(nerds) and the geek crowd together, and he gave them power to vote.. the core of Digg is geek/nerd power users…so i am not surprised….

    And i don´t mean that as a insult at all, i am also a geek..

Comments are closed.