What CMS did they use; the URLs look from something enterprisey like Vignette?
The new Digg
111–120 of 209 posts
Re: The new Digg
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Not worth keeping your brand looking right? This is not about code, this is about their brand and how they protray themselves. If people see a broken website (for any reason, be it cookies, JS, or whatever), they will think less of the brand. 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 Di…
If >1% see a broken website, and >99% see them reviving a dead platform extremely quickly
It is their tradeoff to make, personally I think they are making the right one.
Re: The new Digg
#113Earlier 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…
At no point has anyone said this was considered a final product.
Re: The new Digg
#114Feels like the New York times ?
Re: The new Digg
#115504 Gateway Time-out , that is a big improvement
Re: The new Digg
#116The 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 att…
No they absolutely didn't. All the team needed to do is put a fresh coat of paint on Digg, similar to it was in the beginning, and capitalize on the traffic before they wanted to make drastic changes. Digg's whole problem started with when they tried to become the Twitter of news. That's not original intent of the site. If you purchased all that data, all that SEO linking, you'd have to be absolutely crazy not to mig…
So, put a fresh coat of paint on a product that failed miserably? Why is that a good idea?
They didn't pay for the data and SEO linking, they paid for the name and buzz in the media. In my opinion they are not using the old data on purpose, they don't want to have anything in common with the v4 at all. It's not modified Digg, it's a completely new Digg. This is how I'm reading their message.
Re: The new Digg
#117This 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!
Looks like a sparse Huffington Post to me.
You have to be kiddding. HP is littered with useless social buttons and ridiculous drudge-style headlines. It is terrible.
Re: The new Digg
#118From 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…
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.
Re: The new Digg
#119Are there no comments? To me that's half the reason I go to a site like reddit of hacker news, maybe more.
Re: The new Digg
#120The new Digg took longer than 3 seconds to load so I didn't bother.