“Digg practically invented social news”

if they only practically invented it, then you admit yourself that someone else invented it, so Digg too, is a clone.

;-)

The other thing to note is that the percentage of internet users even knowing what the heck a social news site is–its absurdly small. Digg’s usage has been fairly flat for the last 6 months. If they have captured all the audience they are going to, there is 80% (or more) of audience out there that doesn’t currently use social news sites still up for grabs.

I think Mixx provides a great alternative to Digg, Reddit, Propeller, etc. I think its just ridiculous that so many vacuous writers push off Reddit, Propeller, etc as a “Digg clone” without doing the same to other sites that started off as a second-mover. Its inconsistent and hypocritical. That’s not a “tired old argument” — its the truth, and dismissing something as a tired old argument actually allows you to avoid addressing the whole poing. Next time you write about Pownce, how about calling it a Twitter-clone? You wrote about the Netscape browser? Why not refer to that as a clone of what came before? I mean, why perpetuate the whole “everything is a digg clone” myth without being consistent across the web? Its just bad writing and shows a bias that you should wear openly (I’m a digg and kevin rose fanboy) instead of trying to say that you do real news and analysis and review.

1. It is possible for something to be a Digg clone and yet also have some distinguishing features; the are not mutually exclusive arguments. A few different features doesn’t obliviate the fact that it is what it is. Don’t take it personally, I regard almost every site that has come after Digg a Digg-clone.

2. So yes, it does still make it a clone. Let’s not have this tired argument. Its ok to innovate, but Digg practically invented social news, and is now the biggest one of them all. Everyone associates Digg with the category as it practically *is* the category of social news for geeks.

3. You’re right — Digg is the microsoft of the social news arena. Irrespective of its quality, and there’s little anyone else can really do about it

3. Engagement can be measured all kinds of ways. When I see that no one is commenting or that few people are voting, that means more than any one analytics site is going to tell me.

Finally –

Irrespective of how good you think Mixx is, or that its young, and that we should give it a chance — my argument is that in this category, I don’t see how it justifies another million dollar round of funding.

You’re right — just because Digg is the biggest doesn’t make it the best. On the other hand, I don’t foresee it being rocked from its perched in the near future.

Or Mixx challenging the MANY other competitors in this arena.

You might make the “if we can just grab a small part of the pie” argument, and if that’s what Mixx wants to be, that’s fine.

The question then remains is if Mixx’s VC backers are going to make their 10x investments (at least 3-5 million –> 30-50M)

But by the zealousness of your argument (and the fact that you’ve popped up more than once defending Mixx) my suspicion is that you think that Mixx can do much more than that.

But I haven’t seen anything that suggests otherwise.

Thanks for stopping by though.
Tony