>I didn't see anything in that story that suggests he was responsible for capacity management.
I'm referring to this:
"The week before launch, the capacity planning project was shifted to Rich and I."
>His argument in favor of the changes was that Digg was at risk of going out of business and needed to take big swings to try and turn things around.
At the end, yeah. But this statement earlier was fairly uncritical:
"promised to move us from a monolithic community-driven news aggregator to an infinitely personalized aggregator driven by blending your social graph, top influencers, and the global zeitgeist of news"
It sounds like he thinks more that it was a failure to execute than that it was a complete bastardization of the core purpose of Digg that brought people to it. Digg v4 was doing algorithm slop far too early and crudely and overtly. It was enshittification without all the lubrication to get users to accept it like Facebook and others did.
