Techcrunch has the scoop on the new Netscape portal beta, which bears a striking resemblance to Digg. Mike thinks it's a "digg killer" and in terms of pure numbers it may well be. Netscape gets a surprising 811 million monthly page views, which digg is at around 200 M per month. But despite the Digg-ish features, the new Netscape portal is still trying to keep users onsite and also gives them less control over what content ranks highly.
The Tech frontpage. Note the top link - about the "hazards" of
online collectivism.
Some points to consider:
1) The headline link is to the comments page on the Netscape site, while the actual originator of the content gets the secondary links (the 'via' link and the 'Visit the site' link, which opens up in a new window). The editors also sometimes provide commentary on the articles ("Netscape Anchor Commentary"), which tends to deflect attention away from the article itself. These are subtle things, but it's obvious the objective is to keep Netscape users inside the Netscape site. This of course exposes users to the multitude of ads on Netscape, rather than send them away to the actual sources of the content. Seems a bit portal-ish to me.
2) While users votes count in determining what gets displayed, Netscape editors (aka "anchors") choose what gets to the top of the front pages. Will they favor mainstream publications? Will they not promote anti-AOL stories? Will they... etc etc. You can see how this might open up any number of claims of bias.
3) Generally speaking I'm not convinced about the relative merits of editors/anchors over the more democratic (but admittedly problematic at times) 'wisdom of the crowd'. I noticed this comment from Jason Calacanis on the 'Hazards' story:
"[...] what we're doing with Netscape is exactly what he's looking for: an editorial voice to balance the hive mind. Our Anchors are the balance to the limitations of the crowd--and vica versa!"
(emphasis mine)
While I've been as vocal as anyone about the mob mentality occasionally shown at digg - I wonder whether the opposite approach of using editors to determine ranking and lead discussions is really the answer for so-called community sites. It's inherently less democratic, even if it ends up being more effective. I guess time will tell, but at the very least it's an interesting experiment. I can't see any current Digg users defecting, but perhaps Digg should hurry up with those new features it's been promising!
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Netscape wears Digg's clothing - but underneath it's still a portal.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2689
The new digg-like Netscape has gone out of beta and is now on the main netscape.com domain. I've seen some great comments coming through on my initial post on the beta site. Seems like the existing Netscape user base is... Read More
TITLE: Don't Mess with Our Software URL: http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d0ec343a-5325-41c7-a718-862828f782ca IP: 24.22.218.177 BLOG NAME: Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life DATE: 07/03/2006 10:48:08 AM Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
We are not trying to keep anyone on the site for too long to be honest. We think that the anchor commentary is going to give folks a lot of value. We also thought the DIGG style of clicking on the headline and go to the orig. site was a little confusing and we made that nice clean icon that says "visit the site."
The top DL (dynamic lead) is stuff our Anchors pick from the hive mind, so although we pick it the audience put it in.
right below it is the "pure" ranking.
also, if you have any question about us covering anti-AOL stuff check out the #1 story right now (it's about that horrible AOL call... bad stuff).
Posted by: Jason | June 15, 2006 12:07 AMHate to break it: but Digg is a portal. I don't see how you can define it as not being one.
Also calling something a "portal" is as meaningless as calling someone "square" in 2006. The word has lost its meaning, and is purely anachronistic.
Posted by: Ethan Kaplan | June 15, 2006 1:04 AMJason, thanks for the additional info. I have to admit it is a nice touch making the number 1 tech story right now Digg's coverage of your launch :-)
Ethan, I disagree. I think of a portal as a gateway to a set of branded services (e.g. email, IM), search, news, info, etc. Netscape still offers all of that, altho these days perhaps more due to its tie-in with AOL - which is more of a portal really. Also Yahoo. Digg is a community news site... and that's about it. I don't see how you can define it as a portal.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 15, 2006 3:45 AMI'm really interested in how the "anchor" concept works out. I've long thought such a role might be useful for a future variant of one of my sites...
Posted by: Gabe | June 15, 2006 6:33 PMUnderstand - it's the content Digg is providing that's what is important, not Digg.
Digg's is fun, but how long do you suppose it can hold on without significant improvements? And I don't just mean the facelift planned for release in the next week ... I mean big, RADICAL changes to make things a LOT better. Not long. Longevity in this business is only possible with content, or a HUGE, paying group of members. Digg's far too easy to clone, and do a slightly better job of it after it's cloned.
BESIDES ... who the heck acutally spends any time on the Digg site??? Most of us just RSS it through something like Bloglines, don't they??? Content is what I'm looking for, not another portal.
I've got the Netscape Portal on my Bloglines, so it's doubtful I'll ever have to go to the site.
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2006 6:58 PMI guess we should give Jason Calacanis some credit. At least this time he's admiting hes ripping someone else off.
Posted by: Your Flesh | June 15, 2006 7:16 PMI can't help but think there is, or could be, a hidden advertising agenda to top stories. Anchors, like on TV, could easily be seen as a spokesman for products, views, and other personal interest. This is just the uneasy feeling I get since hearing about the launch.
Still going to use the site for my "homepage" for a few days before I pass my ultimate judgement.
Jason, you deserve prop's for a very impressive beginning to a "Netscape Come Back".
Posted by: adam | June 15, 2006 8:37 PMI disagree with Chris' post. I, for one, have spent many hours a day on digg and not only just to see what's new on the main page. Although, that brings up a point. I don't use the RSS feed because I like to go there and digg a story which I like. If I used the RSS feed, I'd have to make extra clicks to digg a certain story.
There are other parts of digg that keep people there. The comments are probably the biggest thing. They also have the digg spy feature which I've found very useful.
In reguards to the Netscape/AOL digg "killer" I don't see anything appealing about it whatsoever. Mainly because the top stories I saw on the frong page were stuff that people on digg don't want to see, such as celebrity gossip and political stories. People can already find that stuff on Yahoo! news and plenty of other places, so places like this and especialy digg (when they upgrade to version 3) are no place for it.
Personally, I'd leave digg the way it is now, but I understand the need for it to upgrade and branch out. I just hope it doesn't affect us in a big way where I go to it less than I already do.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 15, 2006 8:52 PMIt's not a digg killer. There is just too much crap. The reason I love digg is the simplicity. Isn't that the reason everybody loves google?
Posted by: curtis | June 15, 2006 9:05 PMI am looking at this Netscape Beta thing in Linux/Firefox 1.5.3 - most of the text alignment is off. Someone has to look into browsers compatibilities...
Posted by: Mortum | June 15, 2006 10:23 PMI happen to think this will be closer than a lot of people wish to think. With Digg's inexperience in anything other than Tech related news (and a lesser user-base for such topics), they will not be the shoe-ins many think will. Digg will remain the authority on Tech news, but Netscape might just have the edge over those user's who are scared off by the labcoat crowd that currently resides on Digg.
Posted by: Darren McKee | June 16, 2006 12:50 AMNetscape has a long ways to go. Although I think it is a step in the right direction. It's almost worthy of being my start page. Add a few more portal-like features and I could be talked into it. A few things need to be fixed too.
1) The frame that appears when you go to the story site is just too damn big.
2) The comments are a mess - malfunction most of the time and ads in the middle of them.
3) Speaking of ads. Ugh! Could they have any more?
4) Try to type in a comment that contains the letter "C". Everytime I hit the C key, my cursor gets knocked out of the comment field. They have a shortcut key setup, but not implemented very well.
5) Usage is very limited in most of the Channels/Categories.
I like forward to seeing how the anchoring system works out, and definitely look forward to the seeing the updated digg.
Posted by: digifad | June 16, 2006 10:19 AMThanks for the feedback everyone -- we've been in beta for less than two days. There are plenty of quirks left to sort out.
As far as the upset digg users -- we aren't trying to be a "digg killer." We're simply trying to create a social news site on a large, mainstream, scale. We're all fans of digg. Just like we are of slashdot and delicious and youtube and all the other sites we took inspiration from.
Keep the feedback coming, we're listening.
Posted by: Alex Rudloff | June 16, 2006 10:51 AMRemember the Digg fiasco of several months ago?
Posted by: rickdog | June 17, 2006 11:46 AMThey've done nothing to rectify the problem, it's still not democratic as far as what get's on the front page, contrary to your belief. At least the promoters on netscape are from the user community and not from a politboro from within digg. Netscape's news navigation blows away anything that digg has to offer, you can cleanly navigate and view the various news items without having to leave the app. On top of that it offers everything that digg has in a better interface. Digg = old technology, and i hope it just fades away...
tons of great feedback above... couple of updates:
1. We got rid of the graphic ads in the content column.
2. We made the "Navigator Frame" an optional feature... you can turn it off now with one click. We also made the Navigator frame 50% smaller so it's kind of nice now.
3. Login and signup is much more stable (we had some server issues at start.. if you still have problems clear your cache and cookies).
4. We optimized the velocity formula so things dont stay on the home page too long (or run off too fast).
best j
Posted by: Jason | June 19, 2006 5:32 PM811 million monthly page views! This beautiful world is indeed full of surprises. Or is it just full of bad stats?
Posted by: Per Esmann Jensen | June 21, 2006 8:42 AMthis new netscape sucks
Posted by: dan yotts | June 30, 2006 4:46 AMNETSCAPE. THE NEW FORMAT STINKS. WHEN I TRY TO "VISIT" A SITE, I GET NOWHERE. WHY WEREN'T WE NOTIFIED THE NETSCAPE WAS BEING CHANGED. I WAS ON LINE FOR AT LEAST AN HOUR WITH VERIZON, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM. THEY ALSO WERE NOT AWARE NETSCAPE HAD BEEN CHANGED.
Posted by: WALTER CORONEL | June 30, 2006 6:15 AMPut it back the way it was!!!!!!! This new format is too loud. Always like netscape for its simplicity and ease of navigation. Whoever came up with this format is a dweeb!!
Posted by: Denny William | June 30, 2006 6:32 AMI don't care who might be ripping off who, but I've been a loyal Netscape News reader for over 4 years. It's the first part of my day with my coffee and the one time I get to have alone. I can't tell you how dissappointing this has been with the new change. It looks amateurish and convoluted. At this point, I could care less if they go back to the old version, link to it or whatever they want to do. They've already lost me out of utter frustration at having to try and find my way around this hodgepodge of crap.
Posted by: Susan | June 30, 2006 8:23 AMDarn... decisions, decisions, decisions. Do I want to read about Pamela Anderson taking off her clothes or do I want to read about the US Soldiers being charged with the alleged rape of an Iraqi girl, then burning her body and killing her entire family to cover up the murder. No doubt what my decision should be... that quirky little Pam Anderson story has my vote! Giggles...
Get real, Netscape. Oh and to the guy that was on the phone with his cable/phone company because he thought something was wrong with his ISP when he saw the new Netscape beta site? How slow are you? I thought I was bad - that one cracked me up!
Posted by: Susan Winter | June 30, 2006 8:28 AMI've been a loyal Netscape member for years. Lately my patience has been seriously tried. First I went three weeks without access to my mail because the "servers were down" and no one could say if or when they would be up and running or if my mail would still be on file.
Now this change to Digg! It's absolute garbage. Even if I wanted to give it a try, I've gone in on three occasions now, changing my password using their update password link and each time it comes back saying the system does not recognize my password. I couldn't use this new format if I tried due to the poor technical management behind the scenes. It's time for a change. And I strongly reccomend it to the many of you out there who are unhappy with this change because you know damn well this kids running the show don't give a crap about what the public wants.
Posted by: Susan Kramss | June 30, 2006 10:11 AMthe new netscape sucks its no good put it back the way it was
Posted by: andrew kehn | July 1, 2006 5:14 AMI agree, what apiece of junk. You just get things the way you want them and then Netscape screws it up.
Posted by: Harold A Climer | July 1, 2006 8:28 AMI hate the new stuff. I read my news... everyday and went to the stories that I wanted to read. It was my choice and EASY to get around in. I don't know anything about Digg... and have no interest in it. If I did I would of been there and not here. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. I guess check back every so often, and not for very long, to see if it's put back the way it was. If not I will have to find another homepage for me. And I had Netscapes for years. I don't like any others but surely I can find something better than this new crap.
Posted by: Sheila Wymer | July 1, 2006 11:47 AMWhat were you guys thinking?
This new format has no style and will lose me as a user all together.
A stubborn retention of this new make over just cause will not only not make you right, but will make you wrong and gone.
I have come back to the page a few times just to see if you had gone back to the old style, or something very close...IF NOT SOON...I WON'T BE VISITING AT ALL.
I WILL BE PART OF THE MASS EXODUS!
Allen J. Knight
PS You had been my favorite for over 7 years.
Posted by: allenjknight | July 10, 2006 1:47 PMNetscape will be soon forgotten
Posted by: Alex Smith | July 18, 2006 1:09 AMSomeone once said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". You once had, without a doubt the best thing going. What was the reason for "fixin' it"? AOL Jealosy? They are two different fish in a big pond folks. Having worked for one of this nation's larger newspapers I can understand the desire for change but, if the powers that be would do a little research they would find that many who tried to0 change format ended up in the trash can. Tue, those who complain in this column do make up a small portion of your users but what about those who just throw up their hands in disgust? I have watched companies with "minor" products drop those lines only to learn that they were the only provider of a viable product and lose a strong market position.
To make a long story short - I have had to lookfor other sources as have the rest of my family. So multiply your current list of complainers by 10 or more realistically 15, triple that for those who just walked away and get a better idea of what you are doing to your browser and in the long run - to Netscape. Perhaps you are trying to kill off the company. Too bad.
Posted by: Erwin Roberts | July 18, 2006 10:08 PM