504 Gateway Time-out
nginx/1.1.19
Looks like they're trying to replicate Reddit's feel too closely! I like it!
The new Digg
141–150 of 209 posts
Re: The new Digg
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude... did you see how they built this in six weeks ?? This is a MVP, not a finished product. It's a first iteration, an experiment. Chill.
I would agree if the criticisms were super nitpicky and obscure, but honestly any site a front-end professional made in a day or a week would not include may of these errors. These are pretty strong signs pointing to the fact that at least one person coding this site is very much an amateur. Which is a pretty serious implication for the future.
Criticisms about not including microformats and schema.org is super nitpicky.
Re: The new Digg
#143From 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…
Another piece that is scary: I've seen two 504's out of the five times I have refreshed the page.
Only 3/5 for me - the other two times I got "502 Bad Gateway".
Re: The new Digg
#144"502 Bad Gateway". I see the HTTP standard has already captured everything you need to know about digg's relationship to the internet in one succinct phrase.
Re: The new Digg
#145From 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…
OT, but this seems like an appropriate place to ask.
I'm a competent computer programmer who hasn't done any front-end web development since 1999. Does anyone have a link to a good explanation of how to avoid these "obvious" mistakes?
Most of what I've found via google has been along the lines of "put interesting content above the fold" and "have consistent site navigation area," whereas I'm more interested in character encoding, where and how to specify CSS, when to use span vs div, and that sort of thing.
Thanks.
Re: The new Digg
#146The new digg == 504 Gateway timeout. Great job guys.
Re: The new Digg
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>assume it is my goal to cater to as many users as possible The thing is, it's not your goal to cater to as many users as possible. It's your goal to optimize your ROI on development time. The reason we have to have laws about accessibility is that your average fast food place knows that wheelchair-bound hamburger sales will never make back the cost of constructing a wheelchair ramp. The economics of the situation wo…
Indeed, I think your accessibility argument is spot-on. The same issues apply for making websites accessible. Thankfully, more often than not, it behooves a site to follow accessibility, because it falls in line with semantic web design, which in turn plays better with Google. Google search, in a way, is the regulatory body to keep sites semantic and accessible.
Re: The new Digg
#148From 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…
OT, but this seems like an appropriate place to ask. I'm a competent computer programmer who hasn't done any front-end web development since 1999. Does anyone have a link to a good explanation of how to avoid these "obvious" mistakes? Most of what I've found via google has been along the lines of "put interesting content above the fold" and "have consistent site navigation area," whereas I'm more interested in charac…
Use the HTML validator Firefox extension. It will give you quasi-sensorial awareness of how the pages you visit are doing.
Re: The new Digg
#149Earlier 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.
Was the data included in the purchase of the sale? I am looking at the login page and it seems to require Facebook authentication, and not even an option to use my old Digg.com account. In the FAQ it implies that eventually the old data will return. I'm starting to feel like they decided to release a work-in-progress to capitalize on the wave of press they've received due to the sale. Most people had high hopes for t…
The data was bundled with the domain sale, thankfully. It's a shitty move that they took it offline for an unspecified duration, and that they don't plan to handle existing urls.
Re: The new Digg
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree if the criticisms were super nitpicky and obscure, but honestly any site a front-end professional made in a day or a week would not include may of these errors. These are pretty strong signs pointing to the fact that at least one person coding this site is very much an amateur. Which is a pretty serious implication for the future.
Criticisms about not including microformats and schema.org is super nitpicky.
I was listing stuff that made me a bit scared, as I browsed the source, not stuff to criticize the website with. As for criticism: I think the design and social integration is fresh and well executed. I make websites that contain more errors and look worse than that. It is more of a web application, than a web site.
I listed MicroFormats, because: As a foundation for a modern website, it is a great idea. Digg has the traffic and authority to make rich mark-up work. And I think adding stuff like rel="me" to your social profile-links is kind of standard.
It was certainly not a prioritized list of what to work on next. That would likely be more like: Deploy descriptive 404 page, Get old content redirected to new location, Comment functionality, non-Facebook log-in option, categories, option for a non-masonry list view, work on page speed.