What is Digg?
124 Comments
- AndyVenus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+53I hope they update amazon.co.uk (aswell as other countries sites). It hasn't been updated design-wise for years. Looks horrible.
- ChrisRo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+52Wow! I like the new look...was never really crazy about the old one.
- jaems, on 10/10/2007, -2/+41Who says they don't have a decent designer? The designer could be amongst the best in the world, but if the client already has something in mind or if there a lot of stakeholders involved, it seriously influences the outcome.
- Fixthemedia, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Sites don't have to look flashy to make sense.
- yensed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Because not everyone can see it yet.. I can't.
- akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Yeah Amazon UK hasn't got half the features of the US store, ***** piece of ***** cheap bastards, I don't understand why they're not all uniform in design, have you noticed that on any product page you can change the .co.uk in the URL to .com and see the exact same product on the US store, if it's available there.
- Utopian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Yeah, and design isn't just about making things look pretty. As Dolly Parton said - "It takes a lot of money to look this cheap."
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12it looks more organized and well refined. i think i like it!
- mab0111, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12he didn't link to amazon because it hasn't been put into effect yet. he could have linked to the page he linked to on flickr though
- bambala, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15That's their corporate colour scheme. Why do they need to consult colourlovers for that?
- Jareth86, on 10/10/2007, -23/+33Wow, the color scheme is... terrible. They need to check out colourlovers or something.
- jsd8cc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Now if they would just redesign IMDB...
- dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The design isn't that bad, and the colour schemes is Amazon's colour-scheme: if they changed it completely no-one would recognize the site.
I imagine if they changed the colour scheme, the same people complaining about the colours would complain about them breaking their important corporate image!.. - goodcow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Eye candy slows load times, which is what an eCommerce site doesn't want. Log on, serve page quickly, sell item.
- viserov, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The correct term is "*****."
The layout was too chaotic and confusing. - andywirtanen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I tried to link to the Amazon page explaining the new design, but Digg said it was an invalid URL. Why do I care about driving traffic to my Flickr account? I would rather drive traffic to my blog to generate a little ad revenue!
- TWiThead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'd be much happier if Amazon would improve its search functionality. I typically have better luck performing a Google search (with site:amazon.com tacked on) than I do using Amazon's own search interface. Sure, the same is true of Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia websites), but a successful commercial retailer should be able to do much better. It's amazing to see how many items turn up via Google that I otherwise wouldn't find. Many potential customers won't think of this (or won't bother to do it), so the company must lose business as a result.
Also, I often seek items that Amazon sells directly (most with free shipping and handling for orders over $25 and Amazon Prime subscribers) and compare the prices to those of Amazon's affiliates (listed on the right-hand side of the page). Under the current setup, if I search for something, I then must select the appropriate product category, and _then_ I can filter the search results by seller. This is annoying, both because it takes extra time and because I'm not always certain of the correct category (and there can be more than one). So I often find myself performing the aforementioned Google search and tacking on "ships from and sold by Amazon.com." This works well, but why can't Amazon simply allow users to filter by seller without first specifying a category? (I realize that including a "search for items sold by Amazon.com" checkbox would upset the affiliates, so I don't hold out much hope for that feature's addition.) - Alchemeron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Maybe if you didn't use Amazon to shop for bras and Maxim, the site wouldn't display them as items relevant to you.
- dougle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Spoiler Alert!
- dunkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Woah, one of the pioneers of tabbed navigation has dropped them.
- tidu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7see: MySpace
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes, but that is the idea of sites like ebay/amazon - they try not to appear flashy & expensive, they want you to think they are budget shops.
- jaxxxk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's about time... A visit to amazon was like going back to the 1990's
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5RTFA, moron.
- steffinb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4lol you fully purchased and paid for an item accidentally
What a n00b. - ryllharu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've had this version of the site, or at least the beta of it, for over a week. It's *much* harder to navigate through. Finding sub-departments, for instance only travel books, was a lot easier to find in the old design. Each department on the sidebar only gives you 3-7 options.
- N3wtR0ckn13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4digg won't can't accept direct link http://amazon.com/gp/events/gno/
- popothebright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Optimized for 1024x768?... Anyone still using 800x600 needs to throw that hunk o junk out.
- pezholio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In this case though, Amazon desperately needed a rebuild from the ground up. Just looking at the source code made me want to weep like a baby...
- simmux, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9They serve millions of pages a day in a very fast manner. That's the priority. Not design.
- andywirtanen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, Amazon's biggest priority is the information architecture. That must have taken forever to sort out with all the user studies they claim to have done. In terms of design, I think it looks fine (call me crazy). People need to get to Amazon, find what they want, and check out or add it to a wishlist. They can't be distracted (unless by other items for sale).
- rossnyc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ehh, the secretary's nephew could of done it for free...who needs web designers?
- epohs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's nice. Better than the bubbly tabs in the old version.
FWIW, I deleted my amazon.com cookies and Ctrl+F5'ed and I got the new design. - dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How is it spam? If there were adverts all over the place, then yes, bury away. But there's no adverts on that page, and flickr image-views are useless (Even more so on a screenshot of a webpage)
Flickr is a good host for being Digg'd, as there is no bandwidth limits like ImageShack/Photobucket, and it's pretty stable. - cheifchuck0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3rounded corners!
- mrjeffery, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately it makes me want to buy more stuff
- madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://amazon.com/gp/events/gno/ see here, as posted a couple of times above.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2*I* get confused by their not having an alphabetical sort option... I wonder when they'll fix that one ;P
- jinushaun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think more than anything, the code behind the presentation layer had to rebuilt from the ground up. You can only add updates for so long before it becomes a messy hodgepodge of add-ons. It probably wasn't going to be very cost-effective or efficient in the long run to just keep updating the current code base. That's just my guess.
- forteller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just FYI: The next time you want to se an ad you can just temporarily disable Adblock by right clicking on it's icon in the lower right corner of Firefox and choose "disable".
- andywirtanen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not everyone sees it yet, and Digg would not accept the URL to the Amazon tour page. I figured Flickr was the next best thing.
- madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What I'd like to know is, how does not caring about this story matter enough for you to leave a comment?!?
- madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I tried to submit an amazon link recently and got the same error.... Just tried a handful of links, even amazon.co.uk and all of them were rejected... weird.
- sintaxi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2design != graphics
design is how something functions as much (or more) as how it looks. before you say its poorly designed you should use it. - Stryker336, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1I like the design, amazon is great.
Hot real-time shopping deals and discounts.
http://RewardsLink.info - Jareth86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its a different blue and orange. Blue and orange only work well together with the right hues and brightnesses. they got it dead wrong with this new design, and it looks god awful.
- mastercko, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1yeah, the old scheme was alright when they had 5 types of things that they sold, but it didn't scale AT ALL. The flow through the site is much better now. Also, the new color scheme is pleasant (nothing to write home about, though). I'm glad to see the changes and hope that they roll it out faster already.
- mastercko, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1parax, you've never programmed a large-scale project before, have you? Jinushaun's response essentially explains why they did it "big overhaul" like and not "incremental" as you suggest. That phenomenon happens all the time with large-scale projects.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I cant for the life of me figure out why you are being dugg down? Your link is MORE helpful than just a pic of the site.
- Alchemeron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I like the new design a lot. Much better than the patch-job they were doing with the tabs.
Actually, the old tabs were fine. If you look at amazon.co.uk, it has the older design. The US Amazon had a strange three tab system that was barely functional. -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is