Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new Digg

digg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 209 posts

Re: The new Digg

#71

Post by markkat »

welcomebrand wrote: post #39
ColinWright wrote: post #24

Personally, and I'm probably in a minority, I hate these huge, slabby, infinitely scrolling displays of photos/images with precious few items on the screen. It's a lot of work to try to find any sensible number of items of interest. I seriously prefer an interface like HN - spare, clean, and information rich. Added in edit: I my POV differs significantly from that of jgrahamc: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4321…

I don't like it either, I personally find it hard to establish any sort of importance or order.

That's what I dislike most. It doesn't have the feeling of flow that you expect from a community-content site.

Re: The new Digg

#72

Post by debacle »

There's far too much scrolling for far to little content.

This just wont be able to compete with reddit in its current format. People who used Digg before wont come back to Digg because this Digg isn't what they want.

Also, as I have the tab open, I have a notification at the bottom of the screen:

"We're hard at work on finding new stories for you... Try refreshing in a few minutes."

Extremely professional.

Re: The new Digg

#73

Post by AlexanderZ »

The team had to make drastic changes. They wanted people to forget about the old Digg and its fiasco. The best way to do it? Become completely different. They also needed to become different from their rivals.

That's why I don't understand why people here are complaining on the new format. I personally find it great and novel. The clean design and only six stories in sight allow you to focus and actually pay more attention to each of the stories.

When I see 30 stories clumped into one page, I run through their titles like a mad man, often reading just 50% of the words. Having just 6 stories eliminates the haste, it allows me to relax and slowly study all the stories before deciding if I want to read them further.

I like the new Digg. I think the team made a right move with the new format. Now all they need is really good content on the front page and users will come. I know I will check it again tomorrow.

Re: The new Digg

#74

Post by debacle »

ColinWright wrote: post #24

Personally, and I'm probably in a minority, I hate these huge, slabby, infinitely scrolling displays of photos/images with precious few items on the screen. It's a lot of work to try to find any sensible number of items of interest. I seriously prefer an interface like HN - spare, clean, and information rich. Added in edit: I my POV differs significantly from that of jgrahamc: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4321…

It's great for pictures. In fact, it's better than great for pictures - you can digest thumbnails dozens at a time, and decide what you really want to look at.

But for textual content, I agree with you. They're rubbish. Let me read the headlines, middle-click links, and leave it at that.

Re: The new Digg

#75

Post by betterth »

howells wrote: post #23
antihero wrote: post #18

Things I wanted to do but couldn't/couldn't immediately figure out: 1. Comment. What is the point of an aggregator without comments? 2. Go to a specific category. Are those things above the titles categories? Why aren't they clickable? WTF?

Their argument is that commentary on the original Digg was essentially the first of its kind, whereas commentary happens "everywhere" and they need to spend time aggregating commentary too. Not sure how they can do this effectively, but will appear over the next few releases.

Honestly, it's like releasing a car without wheels. Comments are the bread and butter of social news sites. I'm shocked and horrified that they omitted comments. It's a glorified Pinterest at the moment.

I'm really disappointed - I really hoped they had learned some lessons.

Comments are where community forms.

Without community, you have nothing but a shiny, editor-controlled front page. Congrats, CNN 2.0 (No wait, even CNN allows comments...)

Re: The new Digg

#76

Post by orangethirty »

freehunter wrote: post #68
blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #42

From 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…

The layout breaks without javascript on I see this bandied about on reviews of various sites, and I continue to believe it doesn't matter. If you have Javascript turned off and a page doesn't load, you should know why that page isn't loading. It's because you deliberately broke it for yourself.

I disagree. They broke it by not providing a fallback option. You always provide a fallback option, even if it is a simpler website.

Re: The new Digg

#77

Post by AlexanderZ »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #42

From 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…

Seriously, it's been what, a month since they started working? They wanted to ship, and ship fast. It's not ideal (no software is ever ideal) but it works. I'm happy they managed to release something after just a month of work. They will now get the feedback and see how users are welcoming the new version.

Re: The new Digg

#78

Post by blauwbilgorgel »

freehunter wrote: post #68
blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #42

From 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…

The layout breaks without javascript on I see this bandied about on reviews of various sites, and I continue to believe it doesn't matter. If you have Javascript turned off and a page doesn't load, you should know why that page isn't loading. It's because you deliberately broke it for yourself.

You are free to believe that. But let us say I want to cater both to you and to another user that browses the web with NoScript (assume it is my goal to cater to as many users as possible). I have two options: A) make the layout accessible without JavaScript B) break the layout without JavaScript. Only with option A do I cater to both of you -- Regardless of deliberate breaking or bandied opinions ("Thou shalt never mix style and script").

Re: The new Digg

#79

Post by dt7 »

freehunter wrote: post #68
blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #42

From 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…

The layout breaks without javascript on I see this bandied about on reviews of various sites, and I continue to believe it doesn't matter. If you have Javascript turned off and a page doesn't load, you should know why that page isn't loading. It's because you deliberately broke it for yourself.

A tag would suffice.

Re: The new Digg

#80

Post by [deleted] »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #42

From 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN