Diigo Community

Description: "Diigo is two services in one -- it is a research and collaborative research tool on the one hand, and a knowledge-sharing community and social content site on the other.... Diigo provides a browser add-on that can really improve your research productivity. As you read on the web, instead of just bookmarking, you can highlight portions of web pages that are of particular interest to you. You can also attach sticky notes to specific parts of web pages.... You can easily share your findings, complete with your highlights and sticky notes, with friends and colleagues."

Post about the data loss incident at Ma.gnolia and what users of other services can do to reduce their risk

Larry Halff of Ma.gnolia (where I and many other users were before we came to Diigo) is interviewed, following the collapse of that service, and explains what he did wrong, without evasion. Many of us wish him well, and hope that both he manages to rebuild his company after this regrettable incident.

See: "Bookmarks insist on being private, against my will" http://groups.diigo.com/Diigo_HQ/forum/topic/bookmarks-insist-on-being-private-against-my-will-48320 A number of users, myself included, have found their bookmarks being changed from public to private, keeping others from being able to see them, this change occuring without explanation or justification. We wrote to the forum about this problem, and Diigo did not respond until after the thread had been running for several months. This link and my comments on it (which follow) provide a good example of just how silly this has become. Who could possibly be offended by this: "This, regrettably, is no joke. An official barged in as the cyclist was making arrangements for his son's funeral. Somebody needs to be fired, not reprimanded or suspended." Being offended by the official's actions is reasonable. Being offended by somebody objecting to them is not.

Another post from my bookmark page that I find keeps getting censored on Diigo, by being switched from public to private over my objections. Once again, notice that there is no justification for this. No porn or other content unsuitable for general audiences appears on the page linked to, or in my comments about it, which follow: "Men in Black gone wild. Employees of a county department of Homeland Security decide to make their own laws about the viewing of porn." That's it. That's all that I had written.

Chris Crum (the author) writes about a rumored upcoming Digg toolbar incorporating random search, and asks if this is bad news for Stumbleupon, as that is the service's key feature. Perhaps, but Crum hasn't given us reason enough to think so. Randomness, by itself, isn't a big deal. Webrings had incorporated it into their code long before there was a Stumbleupon. Carefully weightened randomness is what Stumbleupon does. Stumbleupon offers a blogging platform, albeit a seriously flawed one. Digg does not. Those who submit content to Digg risk loss of membership if the content proves to be unpopular enough; so far as I know, Stumbleupon users don't have the same worry, outside of a little political whackiness in the fora. I'm left with the impression that Crum repeats somebody who has read too much into too little, having little familiarity with the capabilities of the SU system, and with the policy differences between the two sites.

WARNING: Mild profanity at the other end of this link, too. Unavoidable, as it is found in the quoted material. Brief report of the incident, along with a much longer taped interview with the banned user, marred by prejudgement from the interviewer, who can't seem to let go of a fixation on the idea both sides in this absurd incident must have a point, or that at least Digg must. Quoting the post: "We get the feeling that there is more to this story than we have managed to unearth ... Clearly Digg feels that Zaibatsu has violated their terms multiple times and it appears they've simply had enough." In other words, corporate spin should be taken naively, at face value. Zaibatsu does himself no favors in his response, by choosing to be conciliatory in his response. In a civilized society, there's nothing wrong with that, but we're not living in one of those. We're living in one that still bears imprint of the same fun loving culture that brought us the concept of "trial by combat" and it shows. When you are wronged and you are speaking, keep it short, keep it sweet, and let your anger show. Do not offer to turn the other cheek, and do not express concern for those who have wronged you, for these civilized acts will never be understood by the uncivilized men with whom you deal to be anything other than a confession of guilt.

Not only allegations that a small group of hyperaggressive users (50 in total) are burying posts on Digg, but with a little unexplained hacking being alluded to, the members of that local cabal are allegedly named. The question this raises being how much faith we should put in strangers who don't explain their methods - but then, if they did, we wouldn't be allowed to link to this article, would we? The fact that a search turned up 16900 hits for "Digg" and "bury brigade" does make this a little easier to believe, though, and a little more of a source of worry for the Stumbleupon user when he hears a suggestion that Digg take over that other service.

The article points us toward a reason why the business model alluded to in the link above (paid for stumbles) is ultimately unsustainable - those visiting bounce through without doing much more than briefly glancing at the pages they visit, very often. This is plausible. People get enthusiastic about their new toy, they get a rhythm going, and they don't want to stop.