At first, I was reluctant to aggregate Feed, but because many netizens proposed to aggregate, and because users submitted very few links, we began to do this attempt, aggregated a small number of feeds, found that many domestic feeds are just like the domestic website pages messy, add some other things in the Feed, For example, advertising, del.icio.us links, etc., I think, may indeed be for the convenience of users, but as the Feed itself is not standardized (the body is the body, there is no need to add non-body content), so it is still responsible for the user, for the user's consideration?
and the day before yesterday keso & have spent A few words, think about it, think he said is very reasonable, he said that the aggregation of excellent Feed is actually "I give you a circle, we try to dig from this", digg and Feed aggregation relationship "is a conflict, this conflict, just like the search engine algorithm ranking or fee ranking."
I think the root of these problems is how the site organizes user activities, how to attract users, retain them, and get them to have relationships with each other, so as to form a community that people are happy to participate in.
diglog should guide users to submit high-quality links, so that users feel that they are the editors of the site and are publishing information, rather than simply submitting a link to an article and a brief introduction to the original article, the former is creating information, the latter is copying information. Let users describe the submitted link in their own words (as original content), but also add their own opinions and doubts in the description, so that the link will be valuable, will attract other users to pay attention to, participate in discussions and questions.
Here, how diglog gets users to understand what we mean and get them to do what we want them to do becomes the key.