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

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: The new Digg

#151

Post by rjernigan »

Digg, Reddit, and Hacker News are easy to browse for a reason.

I like the redesign, but I don't think it fits with social news Digg-style. When I go to a site like reddit or Digg, I know I'm not going to like every article posted. Mostly, I want to find what is interesting to me as fast as possible. Sites with large images and scattered, newspaper-style layouts make it hard for me to find what I want. This layout would work on a focused blog where I know that I am interested in most of the articles, but not on a mass news aggregator.

Re: The new Digg

#152

Post by adavies42 »

misterS wrote: post #143
duck wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

i guess the new digg is the old reddit....

Re: The new Digg

#153

Post by dhyasama »

This thread makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a toothpick. The nitpicking is outrageous. Think about your last project with a tight deadline. OMG a bad meta tag made in! Should we delay the release? If you are running a business not a personal site the answer should ALWAYS be no. This is a website not shrink wrapped software. It can be updated a hundred times a day. Meta tags can be changed. It's ok to roll out a site that isn't 100% where you want it to be. I, for one, welcome the new Digg and look forward to them improving their meta tags.

Re: The new Digg

#155

Post by OriginalSyn »

rpearce wrote: post #51
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…

From what I've read, their turnaround was pretty fast, so I'm not surprised by this. I suppose this was a "hack it out, get it out, refactor later maybe" type of job. Unfortunately, that ends up being a standard, with the "refactor later maybe" staying as a maybe.

Seriously, the only time I've see the "refactor later maybe" style work is when there are devs brave enough to ignore deadlines and use the weakest of excuses to refactor a class or system.

Re: The new Digg

#156

Post by mirkules »

mistercow wrote: post #127
blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #78

Earlier 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…

I'm tired of having this argument over and over again, so let's approach this Javascript issue from a different angle:

It is bad practice to couple content (the "what") with functionality (the "how"). The content itself should not depend on how it is displayed. From an engineering standpoint, this makes your code unmanageable and unmaintainable in the long run. These stupid shortcuts of forcing users to have Javascript on just to display content only cause me minor inconvenience, but it will cause you much more harm when it's maintenance or upgrade time.

But you or everyone else on the JS bandwagon don't need to listen to me - I'll "temporarily allow" only the minimal amount of scripts on your page to see what I want to see and I will move on. You will need to live with this code during the next update cycle.

Re: The new Digg

#157

Post by at-fates-hands »

I would point to Best Buy as a prime example of this "release now, worry about the flaws later" philosophy. Their website has been a mess for years mostly because of this very approach.

It's an old adage, but you should really do it right the first time.

Re: The new Digg

#158

Post by eps »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #78
freehunter wrote: post #68

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…

Catering to NoScript users is dead simple - show them a broken website and they will whitelist it.

Seriously though, NoScript user base is - and let me really blunt about it - a vocal minority with a bloated sense of entitlement. Catering to them makes no practical sense. There are obviously edge cases, but the best option is to put up a note that JS is required. If Digg doesn't have it, they should add it, but beyond that it's money wasted.

Re: The new Digg

#159

Post by eps »

mirkules wrote: post #156
mistercow wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I'm tired of having this argument over and over again, so let's approach this Javascript issue from a different angle: It is bad practice to couple content (the "what") with functionality (the "how"). The content itself should not depend on how it is displayed. From an engineering standpoint, this makes your code unmanageable and unmaintainable in the long run. These stupid shortcuts of forcing users to have Javascri…

There are certain design elements that translate into a single line of JS, but require a couple of pages worth of CSS voodoo. Guess what's more maintainable.

Re: The new Digg

#160

Post by WiseWeasel »

jgrahamc wrote: post #2

This is great. The large scrolling format (similar to pinterest) is a good idea as the last thing that was needed was something that looked like reddit or HN. Sites like the Daily Mail have been very successful with this style. Good luck to the new Digg team!

I'm not a fan. To me, this looks like a magazine, not social news. It looks curated, like I'm not meant to interact with it, but merely consume. I closed the tab pretty quickly, and I guess I can put to rest any notion of ever returning to Digg.
Post reply on HN