upvote
What happened to Slashdot wasn't a "consolidation", though, it was a suicide. I was a heavy reader of the site up until they had an infamous redesign that made the site literally unusable for me, so I left.

That's very different from the scenario discussed in the article.

reply
I don't think that was it. Slashdot would only run stories from their 'content partners' like ZDNet and the Register, so they were always 2 days behind Reddit/HN/Twitter/etc.

(When RMS was 'cancelled', that would have been a huge deal there in the old days, they had one post days later.)

Also Digg wasn't just a graphical redesign, they changed how the site worked. I don't think Slashdot ever did that.

reply
IIRC I was done with Slashdot before those other sites were even created (or at least widely popular).
reply
It is an interesting case study. Most designers would not think that they can tank a site.
reply
One of the smartest things reddit ever did was ensure old.reddit.com remains fully functional. I imagine one day they'll EOL it, and when they do I'll no longer be a reddit user (probably not really a bad thing).
reply
Even if Old Reddit still exists, the vast majority of users are on New Reddit or the app on their phones. Those are designed to keep people endlessly scrolling, not sticking around in any one place and building community. Also, the phone as default device has reduced comments to 140-character quips, and one looks like a real weirdo now if one writes a solid paragraph or two like in the old days.
reply
they're gonna start making you log in on old to combat scrapers.
reply
I’m good with that. Wanting usable design is not related to avoid logging in.
reply
Wow following the Digg playbook
reply
Well, it's kinda surprising that Digg actually followed the Slashdot playbook (Slashdot fucked up first) - Digg should have at least learned something from Slashdot's mistake.

Both stories are pretty fascinating examples of how corporate dynamics can ruin a product. In Slashdot's case it was a clear example of "well, we hired a bunch of designers, so obviously we need to do a UI redesign!", but the designers had no idea how users actually used the site. They added a ton of whitespace and IIRC collapsible content to make the site more "modern", but in doing so it made it impossible to quickly scan the comments for high value/insightful responses. In Digg's case it had all the hallmarks of VC meddling ("we've got to monetize!") While people often comment about how buggy Digg V4 was when it released, the bigger issue was the content was just laughably bad - it was changed to like page after page of the dumbest corporate spam. Anyone using the site for 5 minutes would have known it was fucked, so I'm guessing there was just so much internal pressure to "get shit out the door" that they just wanted to release something rather than admit what they built was a turd.

reply
I can’t believe how long ago that was.
reply
I had the same blog post get on HN and on Slashdot. HN link didn't get to the front page, got about 25 human visits. The link on Slashdot got the blog post 2500 visits, plus the Slashdot IP addresses visited tons of other posts and content on my web site. Maybe places don't get "slashdotted" any more, but a link on Slashdot seemingly gets you a ton more visits than a link on HN.

Also, Slashdot visitors use more MacOS and Linux than Windows. The reverse is true of the small number of HN visitors.

reply