91–100 of 209 posts
I'll be honest, I'm surprised by how much I like it. For a quick "give me something - anything! - to read over lunch" it serves the purpose for me very well. Best of luck to the new team!
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 makes me think of the phrase 'go big or go home.' This is not a big enough departure from the last Digg to really warrant a whole rewrite and losing the original posts.
To be honest; it seems only a step away from traditional newspaper websites - which have the benefit of the zero-hour news feed. They need to inject yet more community back into this.
As someone who's spent a decent amount of time leading the redesign on a newspaper site - I remember putting far more innovation into a traditional newspaper site than this has.
I don't mind the whole facebook sign up process. They have a justification for it. But then when they ask can they start posting to my feed it makes me feel like they were fibbing to me the whole time! They just want free advertising via my social feed. Pft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from all the old pages being 404 (which is a huge mishap). Nitpicking on html is a fun and amusing pastime, but unless the page is deformed in some way, it falls into the "shit nobody cares about" category.
It falls into the "shit that will bite you in the ass one day" category. It's about engineering quality, and it goes all the way down to the stuff we don't see. Given Digg's history, it's a bit of a red flag. However, it all depends on how this technical debt is managed. If this is an alpha release under the heading "release early, release often" and the tech debt is known, there's nothing alarming about it. But if t…
Sure, they might become a problem eventually, but fixing them before launching "just because" is be premature.
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…
Start right, it's really no extra effort to use CSS over style anymore. It is in fact quicker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You're free to browse the web with parts of it turned off. But you should expect that parts of it might not work, and if they don't work it should be immediately obvious why. Could Digg make it fall back? Yes. Should they? Only if they really want to. It seems they don't really want to. No one wants to cater to IE6 users, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. They broke it by not providing a fallback option. You always provide a fallback option, even if it is a simpler website.
You dont always do anything, you compare the cost of the effort against the value added, if its not worth doing, then people wont do it
Like you said, "...you compare the cost of the effort against the value added". It does not add anything to the brand, but not having a fallback takes away from it. And given Diggs current reputation, they need all they can get.
As I see it, this is not just a redesign of the old Digg, but a whole new site with a diffrent concept. Much like "Dig is dead. Long live Digg!"