hey what gives? I'm getting "under construction". Is it because I'm in Yurop?
The new Digg
41–50 of 209 posts
Re: The new Digg
#42From a technical point of view this "redesign" scares me a bit:
All the old stories and user accounts 404 now. That is a major loss to their SEO. 14 million pages just thrown away and not passing any juice.
They don't employ canonical or robots.txt.
They have character encoding issues. ("'Superbird' Discovered")
They use a meta keywords tag, and it contains "celebrity news", which doesn't appear anywhere on their site.
They hardcode CSS with styles on div's. They don't use text-transform but type headers in all-caps.
They use the HTML5 doctype, but none of the new tags or practices (like ditching the obsolete 'type="text/javascript"' on script tags).
The layout breaks without javascript on, and the "upcoming stories" section doesn't get loaded. They provide no warning as to why the site's functionality stops working.
They don't combine or compress resources like CSS and Javascript.
They left debugging and TODO's statements in their javascript.
$(".story-image-marquee-standard").empty().html("");
A lot of empty placeholder divs to js-load content into. TPL's are also stored inside the page contents.
URL's are not properly encoded (space instead of %20).
Links to the same article are both with 'target="_blank"' and without.
They don't use microformats or schema.org.
Re: The new Digg
#43The new Digg doesn't look terrible, by any stretch. But - the developers' insistence on an arbitrary six week push deadline when there clearly remain unsolved problems is fairly amateurish and reeks of self-indulgence. Users /with existing expectations/ (which Digg invariably presents) do not care about "release early, release often." They want something that kicks ass and gets it right on the first try.
They said the old Digg has very high operating costs. That may have been a factor in the rush to release the new site.
Oh, fair enough.
I am curious, though... what sort of operating costs might go into that?
Moderators, curating content?
Re: The new Digg
#44From a technical point of view this "redesign" scares me a bit: All the old stories and user accounts 404 now. That is a major loss to their SEO. 14 million pages just thrown away and not passing any juice. They don't employ canonical or robots.txt. They have character encoding issues. ("'Superbird' Discovered") They use a meta keywords tag, and it contains "celebrity news", which doesn't appear anywhere on their sit…
Very detailed analysis there. Nice!
Re: The new Digg
#45What it looks like to me:
Pinterest on top Weird section in the middle Hacker News type thing on the bottom.
Re: The new Digg
#46The new Digg doesn't look terrible, by any stretch. But - the developers' insistence on an arbitrary six week push deadline when there clearly remain unsolved problems is fairly amateurish and reeks of self-indulgence. Users /with existing expectations/ (which Digg invariably presents) do not care about "release early, release often." They want something that kicks ass and gets it right on the first try.
Kind of disagree, if users are still on the site to voice opinions that means they are pretty resilient. They aren't going to give up right away because the first release doesn't have everything.
Re: The new Digg
#47Read their blog comments http://blog.digg.com/post/28441399381/welcome-to-digg-v1 It is impressive how much hate and negativity the comments include. Sometimes we forget that while traffic keeps up community quality can easily degenerate. They will have to put also a lot of effort into community-re-building. This shows again shows to me how hard and impressive the task is they picked. It's social software. It's not o…
These comments are potentially made by people who have been using Digg for many years and have continued to be loyal in spite of v4. Imagine yourself in their position when one day you visit your favourite site and everything is gone.
I understand both sides.
This is why i meant it is a huge challenge. :)
Re: The new Digg
#48The design is quite ok for me, but what about the provided value?
I skimmed through the links, and I saw many of them already, on other social sites I visit, I mean HN, Techmeme and reddit. What would draw me to digg could be a community of great commenters, like one on slashdot, which would add value by providing insightful/funny commentary. Without that, it's a bit redundant to me.
Re: The new Digg
#49The new Digg doesn't look terrible, by any stretch. But - the developers' insistence on an arbitrary six week push deadline when there clearly remain unsolved problems is fairly amateurish and reeks of self-indulgence. Users /with existing expectations/ (which Digg invariably presents) do not care about "release early, release often." They want something that kicks ass and gets it right on the first try.
Kind of disagree, if users are still on the site to voice opinions that means they are pretty resilient. They aren't going to give up right away because the first release doesn't have everything.
Maybe. On the other hand, it seems like a fair amount of these opinions are "fuck this noise, I'm going to Reddit/etc."
Don't get me wrong - I would absolutely love to see the new Digg rocket into popularity again... but I'm just not certain that's going to be the case.
Re: The new Digg
#50From a technical point of view this "redesign" scares me a bit: All the old stories and user accounts 404 now. That is a major loss to their SEO. 14 million pages just thrown away and not passing any juice. They don't employ canonical or robots.txt. They have character encoding issues. ("'Superbird' Discovered") They use a meta keywords tag, and it contains "celebrity news", which doesn't appear anywhere on their sit…
It's almost like it isn't a finished product.