Disqus - Be Careful What Is Thrown At You
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to sign up for email alerts.
Back in October of 2007 I wrote about a great little innovation called Disqus, a very refined comment/discussion tool for sites. Back then, and even now, I was convinced that Daniel Ha – the founder – struck hard at a point of pain on the Web – interactivity. The Internet is about communication and not much else. Regardless of how we view all the Web 2.0 hype and even true innovation, when we boil it all down we are talking about making better ways of communicating data, ideas, value and news.
My original post at Profy about Disqus applauded the innovation’s prospective ability to heighten the publisher to user to user discussion experience. Over the last several days I have had some problem in reconciling another aspect of the Web and startups – end user value. Now the question arises; “Which is more important, the means or the end?”
Ok Let’s Disqus It
Over the past few days I have ventured to several other blogs around the Web in an effort to establish a correct discourse about Disqus, and startups within this same niche (One of which I consult for), but more importantly end user value. As iterated before, Disqus is a very powerful tool if taken to its correct conclusive refinement. However, these latest little “comment wars” have sort of turned childish in tone out of the defensiveness of Daniel, and I must admit my own “logic” in regard to transparency and ultimately excellence.
In short, my name is on Disqus to a degree given my early support for the platform, which I take very seriously. The problem with Disqus is not the development of technology and ideas, but in the way the product is being moved and in what the end user is entitled to. This is of course in my opinion to a degree, but millions of people have had this discourse over 100 other platforms. People want to know what is in it for them and what will be derived from their participation. This is true whether we are talking about Google or the worst innovation on the Web. So, how come Daniel Ha will not just simply answer my valid questions?
Customer Directives
Intent is perhaps one of the most important and often underestimated aspects of the developer/end user relationship. Put bluntly, some startup innovation is designed to serve the end user and some is designed to be sold. You might say; “Ok, so what is wrong with that?” The answer is of course nothing, provided that the end customer – the important one – receives a true value for their contribution. The problem with Disqus, or any “for sale” startup, is that an entity that is designed to be sold to another entity is tailored or built to suit the buyer. In this case, if this is the case for Disqus, the actual people who will use the product are a secondary consideration. I know, you are asking; “What is he talking about?” Let me build a scenario for Disqus to illustrate the point I am trying to make.
Disqus Development Team In Action (Note Tin Man VC - Heart In Hand)
Success Scenario – Disqus (or any comment platform)
Said platform is designed to incorporate advanced comment and discussion tools with the intent of selling the platform to WordPress, TypePad and or Blogger. User to publisher interactive and otherwise “cool tools” are very refined and aimed at being attractive to users. An underlying SEO and content manipulation strategy is developed, centered on customer (3rd party entity) value via ads and traffic to a directed point of contact. This point of contact is a focal point for content aggregation via discussion and comments wherein the end product customer (WordPress for example) derives not only value for refined interactive comments, but perhaps millions of lines of content and data stored on their servers. You can easily see how a primary customer of John Doe the blogger would not derive any value at all in such a scenario.
Daniel might argue that he is working on a “two Way” API so that the publisher regains this data and its inherent SEO value (and he has), but this would be a fallacy. Even if the API worked and re-injected the content back into the HTML of the origin, it would slow the site load down and more importantly represent “duplicate content” – a real “no no” for search and SEO. Obviously there is a two-fold problem here in that publishers lose control of their valued content and cannot fully “opt out” of the Disqus platform once in.
Scenario Two – Dorothy Calling Kansas
A brilliant developer has a vision to create the most advanced interactive discussion system on the planet. This developer leaves no stone unturned and actually integrates very fine and useful features into a service. He and his team devise a system and philosophy from the very start where no publisher can derive SEO value, retain ownership of their content or even know if they will make any money from this affiliation.
The developer is so interested in designing a hugely successful platform to add value to the “end user” that his entire team, his investors and even the bloggers who write about it are blinded to the fact that the HUGE data portability and ownership issues even exist. Add to this “Wizard of Oz” scenario the fact that nearly everyone on the Web is paranoid that Google or anyone will steal their data and we have a true “Scarecrow” development. Somehow, this does not seem like something VC, a smart developer and their supporters would even believe let alone use.
OZ Regained
In my opinion Web3.0 (if it ever gets here) is about total transparency. No, Daniel we are not talking about me forgetting to mention that I work with one of your competitors, but rather that “questions” and their demanded “answers” are what is due to people. A CEO is the ultimate authority on their vision, and these answers should be only a breath away in a well defined business entity. To say that someone garnered hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in support without the slightest interest in ROI is not even “scarecrow” mentality exhibited.
Many may think that I am attacking Disqus out of vehement support for my friends and clients. This is an understandable assumption, but it is simply untrue. Anyone who reads my stuff or knows me in the least, knows I care and I just say what I think is right. In this case I admire what Daniel has accomplished and prefer that any win he may derive from his efforts be untarnished. Taking the 14 year old “digg hate brigade” approach to criticism is unworthy of Daniel’s intellect and in the end, just not good competition. Can’t people see that all anyone is asking is for them to “up their game”? The yellow brick road will be endless unless we can elevate our thinking. You can design yourself to death, but if the end user is not absolutely thrilled in these times, then somewhere down the road everyone loses.
Great WizardPress
I now have an image of Matt Mullenweg looking down on all these events like the great wizard, just waiting for something else to provide for users. WordPress is perhaps one of the paramount developments ever devised and even I am just beginning to realize the gravity of it. Thinking that Disqus or even one of my clients is going to break into the holy grail of the blogosphere without something fantastic and nearly perfect is wishful thinking. We can all learn a lot about patience, proper behavior and striving for excellence out of these conversations and competitions. Being childish and evading tough questions is lazy.
I encourage people to enter this discourse and also the pertinent developers to up their game. The result of this kind of completion can only be a better situation and Internet for everyone. It ain’t personal, it ain’t business, it is about being the best.
Update: Just found another informed blogger confused by the Disqus content dilemma. You are not alone!
Phil, this is a very long post where you expose everything you deem is wrong about Disqus. But if you support openness and transparency as much as you claim to, how comes you mentioned a few times working for one of their competitors and never actually bothered to give a full disclosure with the name of the company? Of course, I do know the name (and probably the majority of your readers know it as well) but don’t you feel it will be just fair to your readers to give all the names in such revelatory posts?
Thanks for the information.
Hi Svetlana,
I have not talked to you in some time. Thanks for taking the time to comment on this important issue.
As for my expression of concern about Disqus’ shortcomings, this is as much out of concern that a good startup (which I reviewed on Profy) does not go bad as it is about any other comment service. Sure I work for one of the competitors, but I do not want to interject undo scrutiny on them, when these Disqus issues are more at the forefront of my concern. This is not after all - a corporate blog.
I do not really understand the implication that I have something to hide or anything subversive in my makeup here however. I made it perfectly clear who is my client on any number of other posts dealing with these issues, and do not care to do more than illuminate the issues (not the entities)here. My client has no issues with data portability, user content value or any of the three mentioned.
It might be interesting for my readers to understand why after such a drought, you decided to take your valuable time to comment on this post? I took note of a sort of “frenzies ” of links in recent posts on Profy to Disqus. I do not know the significance of this other than that Disqus is being hyped a good deal lately, but it is interesting - it there something you are not disclosing? I know that Disqus has been hammering the back door of every blog editing entity on the planet and since Profy is the latest variant, well -you see my point.
Honestly Svetlana, being the owner of Profy, and privy to a great deal of information that most do not know, would it not be more appropriate to address the issues rather than try and overshadow an old colleague?
Disqus has great potential, the issues here are end user value and credibility in my view. I have always admired what you have done at Profy and have been proud to have contributed my part there. I still have not mentioned my client in all this, mostly because this issue is not really about them and secondly because I don’t like being prodded. Anyone who cares can read my posts or some of these others and figure it out easily enough. I have nothing to hide, just don’t try to force me.
Always,
Phil
Phil, I have had no intention of “overshadowing” you and your business. I just think and will continue to think forever that if a blogger wants his (or her) readers to believe any type of review or commentary related to any product, it is a real must to disclose absolutely ANY reasons that may influence your opinion about the service (like working for a competitor which could be a bad influence or being owned by your sister which could make the review more positive than it should be). There’s no need in trying to explain that you never wanted to talk about companies or entities in your post - you have chosen to talk about one and sounding so very negative about it can’t avoid bringing a thought to our minds: does the author has anything that could influence his opinion. And yes, the author does have it but tries to avoid real names, products, and people. You would have sounded much more reasonable if in the end of the post you simply added “Disclosure: I do consulting for the company X which is a direct competitor of the reviewed service”. It really is that simple and you would never have left any doubts.
As for me bothering to comment on your blog, it is only because of trying to express the opinion everyone is talking about your “consulting” strategies being too shy to actually hint some things could be done in a less aggressive tone and could only help your client better instead of blackening their competitors. And remember one thing Phil: what I told you when you wrote your first post on web 2.0 for Profy - you should express your opinion but if the opinion could be biased, disclose it to your readers for them to know what to expect from reading.
And instead of fighting back at me, I think it would have been wiser for you to think my comment over and try to realize why an old friend actually decided to give you this hint. I am not in the very least offended by your implication there’s something hidden between Profy and Disqus (although many bloggers have already linked our names, we have not even discussed it with Daniel Ha (though I’m pretty sure they would not refuse integration once we have time for that) - and I myself disclose everything and everywhere, even in the blog comments. So full disclosure here:
1. I have not talked to Daniel for months directly after we first refused to use their widget on Profy - I decided to wait to see how it will work on other blogs and I’m still pondering over adding the widget now.
2. I am a registered user of Disqus and I actually enjoy the way it helps me easily comment on the many blogs that have already installed it.
3. We only mentioned Disqus a few times on Profy briefly and the only post that actually gave it some focus was this one http://www.profy.com/2008/05/17/function-before-features-and-fame/ - and it was negative enough for you not to say we have some secret deals with Disqus that we don’t disclose. We do disclose everything - period. If we did have a secret deal, it would not have been wise to publish such posts.
Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy comment and I hope you will not fight back again at me as I’m not going to continue arguing here - I definitely have better things to do: like promoting Profy by mentioning what good it has to offer instead of arguing how bad other blog platforms were.
Hello again Lana,
Wow! I must have truck a nerve! Did you actually read this post, or did you do the “digg one paragraph thingy?” I think I applaud Disqus at least 3 times for their innovation, and only attempt to focus on what I (and others) see as their biggest stumbling blocks.
On the disclosure thing, I clearly (parenthetically even) establish that I do have a vested interest in this discussion:
“Over the past few days I have ventured to several other blogs around the Web in an effort to establish a correct discourse about Disqus, and startups within this same niche (One of which I consult for), but more importantly end user value.”
I do not mind telling anyone the company name, as I am very proud to be helping them, I just refuse to interject them in this way because the discussion is not really about them in the end. I encourage anyone to test out my opinions or views on Disqus to see if they carry water. I got into a fencing match with Daniel over this issue and it ended up sounding like a chicken fight - now I find my old friend clucking and scratching in the same ring over the same corn. How come?
As for posts on Profy about Disqus, you are half right in that mine earlier and the one you mentioned are the only two predominant ones, but there are at least 4 others where links to Disqus are prevalent. Granted these are immersed in a covey of other links to prominent or popular sites - likely out of “linking for love” for Profy I guess. Here those are for anyone’s scrutiny:
http://www.profy.com/2008/05/30/adsenserss/
http://www.profy.com/2008/05/19/facegoogport/
http://www.profy.com/2008/05/01/ben-golub-rssmeme-interview/
http://www.profy.com/2008/04/02/the-importance-of-customer-service/
What compelled me to “guess” at your motivation is the fact that you would never (as you suggested) simply drop by to help old Phil out with his Web 2.0 ethics lesson - not simply that, unless you felt specifically attacked. The only other logical explanations in my mind (given all the apparent variables) is that you have some agenda unseen by all, or you just miss me. Sorry, but that is the way it looks.
Svetlana, I rely on the intelligence of the people who actually read. I don’t really expect anyone to consider what I write about as the gospel truth, but merely express honest concerns and hope people will investigate for themselves. In my honest opinion (though I often write disclaimers in posts) people who follow my thinking know by now that if I say something - is is out of honesty even if it is about friends or clients.
For crying out loud, the most influential friend I have is Jimmy Wales and I criticized him for there being porn on Wikipedia (though it was not utterly his fault). Give me a break! Every day our PR firm criticizes our client’s wares to a degree you cannot imagine - though you should be aware of this - my having directed opinion at you on 1000 occasions. Yet here you are trying to appear as the “all seeing guru of Web 2.0″ chastising me? I did not initiate anything toward you or Profy! You took time out of your super-powered schedule to come here and find fault on a personal blog? Why? You are trying to discredit me aren’t you?
This is “Unplugged” for this very reason. I will say whatever I damn well please - I may be wrong like anyone else - but there will never be any intentional misleading. If I am wrong - prove it please. The reason I don’t need a disclaimer is because people will find out the truth.
All of this is really about one thing Svetlana - Money still talks on the Web. I do not have to shame or disgrace Disqus or anyone else. They are doing that by selling a pig in a poke (however useful) that has some major user issues - without an obvious intent to fix them. Secondly, they are not willing to address these issues outside a twitter like “nah nah nah nah nah…” spitting contest. Finally, the money end of things - Fred Wilson, some VC funding entities, and other people with “much” more vested interests are pushing the Web around.
Our beloved Web 2.0 is falling victim to the same illness that befell prior versions - hype is killing true worth. We all need money to live and grow, but how we make it is the important part to me. Disqus (as I said liberally) is a great platform…it has these problems…someone address them please.
As for “Mrs. Wizard” advice on writing posts for Profy, my Web 2.0 existence has been a simple function of time, place, luck and 70 hours a week testing every beta known to man. We all learned together the stock in blogging trade, so let’s not be misleading in that regard either.
I am not going to mention my client in this post or its comments. The reason being is that whether or not I work for or am the CEO of a competing company - the facts still remain true. Disqus has issues here that have been pointed out by others. I want them to address them not withstanding any pressure from other companies - but for the art and the people who receive it. This is what Web 2.0 was supposed to be about - the art and the people.
Anyone who comes here can assume I have a vested interest in everything I write about. In my mind this interest is of a higher order than what my clients pay me - it is the interest of caring - truly. If it is here, I believe in it.
Always,
Phil
Phil, I’m not going to continue with this. You have offended me deeper in the past and I’m not even slightly offended by all the implications in your comment of my personal reasons other than feeling you are doing one thing wrong - not disclosing everything you ARE supposed to (remember, you were all for the blogger code of ethics some time back?). So I am just not going to do it any more - if you chose not to listen, it’s your right. If you did not get my point and my reason to comment here after 2 comments, you won’t get it after the 3rd or 23rd. So I am not going to continue with this discussion - I failed and I should not have commented at first place, obviously, I should have known you would not want to listen anyway.
After all, you are right - it is your blog and you have all the rights to behave in whatever way you please here. And your personal blogger’s code of ethics may be whatever you choose to so I am definitely not going to say what looks ethical (and what - not) to me personally.
P.S. For the future: fighting back and claiming everyone has hidden money reasons everywhere is not as good as actually focusing on the conversation and at least trying to think over what people try to share with you.
Does this mean Svet will be Selling yer Dirty Profy Underwear on eBay Phil??
;))
I thought U owned Profy + Read Write Web + FacePOOP??
btw it’s Dona Nobis Pacem today - Blog Blast for PEACE!!
So Oh Behave U 2 as Austin Powers would say!!
;))
Lana, If I have offended you I am deeply sorry really. I have a deep respect for you and what you have accomplished. I of course forgive you for the 100 times you offended me too.
If you look at the sequence of your comments and their content you will notice that you have called to question my ethics among other things in a rather calculating way (or at least on the face of it). Anyone reading this and looking at it from a purely objective point of view may indeed ask: “Why does he not just announce who this company is?”
I anyone reading deeper may question exactly why you chose to use the post rather than the 2 or 3 IM’s we share to illustrate the point too. You wanted to make a public statement for whatever reason. All I am trying to do is figure out exactly why.
I will not get into all the reason any more, but it is fairly clear you had one obviously outside the realm of friendship. I have not had a decent chat on IM with you in months. And now I get a comment that calls to question everything Phil Butler? Just my observation.
The issue at hand is users and what they get for their contribution. Can anyone out there address this while Svetlana attacks and then plays the damsel in distress now?
PS - I will address the issues at hand if someone will talk about them rather than worry if I am working for someone else (which I admitted).
Always,
Phil