It had a great start[1], but died off quickly[2]. If that strong launch and big influx of users fell off (almost entirely it seems), what chance does it have of slowly reversing itself?
Momentum is vital for stuff like this. No one wants to contribute to an echo chamber. It's not very realistic that it'd regain momentum without major changes or a big sustained push from somewhere.
That said, it's not impossible that it could revive, but it's really unlikely. And once such a drop off has occurred, it's hard to stay motivated.
Darn, that looks awesome. I suspect it died from the usual "launching a small online community" problems of hitting critical mass, etc. Maybe this - or something like it - could take off given the right amount of care by a group of dedicated folks..
The site was successful, but it doesn't look like it had a whole lot of potential for growth; more likely than not it already peaked and was losing steam due to an ever decreasing quality in submissions.
The first years after it started, probably. The last five years or so? No.
Not because there's any change to the site, but because technology has become a ghost town. There are no interesting startups; there's no interesting, burgeoning software technology. It's all tumbleweeds and boarded-up store fronts.
"I remember people not joining it (after its glory days) "
That's just the obverse of leaving isn't it? The site loses any momentum, becomes stagnant, and peters out, or in the case of Friendfeed, became ripe for acqui-hiring, then effectively spun down.
Orkut actually kept growing for a while, but in secondary markets (not just Brazil, but that was its biggest geo), until started to stagnate then decline.
Sure. But to suggest that the site might be dying at the (so far) height of its popularity seems odd, which is why I was asking for clarification. Would you describe Twitter as dying? Or YouTube? Or any other sites that have been infamously unprofitable for years and years before eventually turning it around?
Of course it did; there was a big hullabaloo that led to some people migrating to it. That's not really a sign that they did anything right, or that they'll have similar momentum in the future.
It was a microblogging platform; it had a chance to become a worthy competitor to tumblr from Europe but sadly, instead of gaining funding, it got spambots. Over the last 10 years a devoted community managed to grow around the site - it's hard to say how large in numbers but now it seems it wasn't enough to keep service running.
Exactly what I was thinking. They were in the press early on, and had a huge boost in users. Looks like things have been slowly dying since then, down more then 80% since peak. All the coverage should boost them right back, even if they are forced to change their name.
It's alive, but I don't know about 'doing well'. It survives among some special interest communities, but the usage is tiny compared to any of the major platforms now. You won't find your uncle on it.
Possible. Its also part of the trough of sorrow. Its hard to remain motivated when nobody is paying attention to you.
A lot of websites I liked using that launched at the same time I did on HN are now dead despite my asking to pay to use them. slowcop.com is one that springs to mind. I used that damn near every day and still miss it.
I wonder just how much success (small and large) can be attributed to just continuing for years till it actually works.
Maybe people just underestimate how long it takes to actually get traction.
It won't die like myspace but it is long past it's peak. To me, dead means it is no longer a platform where advertising on it has good ROI. I can't imagine it being in the less than 10M in the US or 100M global daily use count in the next decade, even with a decline I think it can keep up much more addicts coming back to it.
Eventually, yes, I'd say so. GeoCities had a good 10+ year run. USENET lasted 20 years or so until it was overrun. Perhaps Facebook and Twitter can beat these, but they will certainly be killed off at some point, considering the rapid changes happening these days.
The key is that it's not a sudden shutdown -- it's the result of a painful decline over the span of a few years. The same thing will probably happen with FB and Twitter, as they lose users to the new thing.
It's certainly not dead, but the relation maybe has changed a little. It started off as a public diary service and place for discussions and now it's more of a traffic driver for marketing purposes.
Depends how much time it will take them to be back up again : if it takes too long, most of their potential users will have moved on, for instance to Gab.
Yep, plenty of flotsam and detritus amid failures to launch. Look at sites like Friendster. Why did friendster ?die?
Failure to scale infrastructure in a cost effective way that matched it's growth curve. Also, Friendster failed to adapt and develop features that resonated with emergent user activity. Within a year or two, other players emerged to eat its lunch.
? ...and when I say "die," I mean decay into near total disuse and irrelevance by the end of 2004.
Momentum is vital for stuff like this. No one wants to contribute to an echo chamber. It's not very realistic that it'd regain momentum without major changes or a big sustained push from somewhere.
That said, it's not impossible that it could revive, but it's really unlikely. And once such a drop off has occurred, it's hard to stay motivated.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10759879
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10934465
reply