digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Slashdot CSS Redesign Winner Announced

slashdot.org — After oodles of entries, most of which were featured on digg, the Slashdot redesign winner has been announced.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -19/+126It looks really nice. Pleasant, readable. Now they just need some content.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -47/+4Let's hope they don't screw it up when they implement it.
    • Yarnage, on 10/12/2007, -12/+86It doesn't look bad but I honestly think the runner-up has a much better design. It's unfortunate Slashdot didn't let users vote on the design.

      Runner-up: http://www.proximalabs.com/slashdot/redesign_big.html
    • uptown, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35Agreed about the runner-up. Much easier on the eyes.
    • modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20The runner up doesn't have big sloppy fonts used in the sidebars, which definitely makes it better looking.
    • meatbites, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28They are both quite well laid-out and feature intuitive design, but I do agree -- the runner up is much easier to look at. I daresay it's less distractive on the main content.

      The majority of the challenge was in matching the demand, as Taco didn't provide much in the way of flexibility -- wouldn't you agree? The serious contenders weren't given the option of truly wandering around with their creative juices. I must say, though, some rather clever designs came out of it.

      Seeing as my design was one of the many unseen, belated entries, some hearty Digg critique would be warmly welcomed: http://zim.dreamhosters.com/slashdot/
    • firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Interesting implementation. The sides kinda seems cut off, though...
    • dhp1080, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I agree Yarnage. http://www.proximalabs.com/slashdot/redesign_big.html seems like a lot better of a design to me. I like the new one though, it's at least a change from the dull 1990 design of slashdot.
    • koick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35No wonder it won, it looks VERY similar to the current layout... Blah.
    • Chozabu, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3haha, kinda silly having a slashdot story on digg XD
      if slashdot had a story "digg has story linking to slashdot" it would really make my day

      could get some intresting kinda bandwidth wars too
    • jkaiser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24@meatbites
      "Seeing as my design was one of the many unseen, belated entries, some hearty Digg critique would be warmly welcomed: http://zim.dreamhosters.com/slashdot/"

      I actually like it better than the winner.
    • bonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"They are both quite well laid-out and feature intuitive design, but I do agree -- the runner up is much easier to look at. I daresay it's less distractive on the main content."

      Slashdot is annoying like that. You get your hopes up that the site is finally going to stop sucking, and they pick the less preferred design to the one everyone wanted. I was rooting for the runner-up as well.
    • Fentekreel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Though other than some rounded off buttons and the floaties....i'm not really seeing a Major difference that i thought they were looking for the runner up is pretty nice


      maby they could rotate and vote :)
    • anchorman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I like both layouts. However, the runner-up seems a bit more polished and usable. Its a shame they didn't let the users decide for themselves.
    • junkpop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"DAMN BIG AD" -- love it! Good job, meatbites. : )

      They probably didn't like it since the menu isn't static. It's a bit too alerting onMouseOver. Still cool though.
    • jab3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I guess I'm gonna have to go against the apparently common consensus both here and at Slashdot, but the runner-up in my opinion is much worse on the eyes than the winner. The runner-up screams green and is compressed together with a tiny unreadable font. Whitespace is nil. I don't know if the winner is the best, but it sure is easier to look at for me than the runner-up. I don't understand why everyone thinks the runner-up is more pleasing.
    • meatbites, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3jab3 -- no one is right or wrong provided the subjective nature of choice. That said, it could just be the case that those who prefer the runner-up are a more vocal bunch. Statistics are often skewed like that.

      It's not my intention to hijack this conversation, but thanks for the comments (on my redesign attempt). They're greatly appreciated!
    • transeunte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Both the winner and the runner-up look better than the current layout, but they should really be thankful for finding designers willing to deal with all the restrictions made by Slashdot.
    • memerot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@meatbites
      "Seeing as my design was one of the many unseen, belated entries, some hearty Digg critique would be warmly welcomed: http://zim.dreamhosters.com/slashdot/"

      Only two things I didn't like. One was the search area, it wasn't labeled and had no button. The second was the gradient fade from black to green - just wasn't my taste. I don't know about the collapseable menu, the more static version seems more likely to appear on a high-profile page.
    • dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@meatbites

      I don't like the disappearing menu at all. I can see a lot of people not even noticing that it is there.
    • DoctorEvil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I definately prefer the runner up. Even on a large widescreen display at hi-res I found the winning design to have too much white space or large fonts spreading the content out too much to my liking, or perhaps even emphasizing the lack of content on the front page.
    • Dan100, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The runner up doesn't have big sloppy fonts used in the sidebars, which definitely makes it better looking."

      But harder to read.
  • emannigol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+97Meh. An improvement, but I was hoping for a more radical departure from the old design.
    • zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Yeah it just seems so "bleh I wanted to redesign but got lazy designing"
    • jervana, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57Ya, looks like they just re-polished the site, not redesigned it.
    • Pokelicious, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32It does look much better and has a more modern feel, but I agree its not exactly a re-design.
    • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33CmdrTaco said he wasn't going to change anything radically when he started the contest. He was just looking for a bit more modern feel to the site while keeping a lot of the current theme.
    • lobuzz311, on 10/12/2007, -25/+16eh... it still looks like crap
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19IANAD(eveloper), but from what I understand the underlying code (CSS) is much cleaner than what's currently in use. So, while it may not look like a big redesign on the surface, it's a great change beneath.
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12Interesting. So it's a redesign that's not really a redesign? Kind of like painting a garbage can platinum...it's still just a garbage can.
    • quinnk, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Same shade of green... it reminds me of bad furniture from 1992. And the typeface they use for the logo... it's like an apparition from an ad for a plumber in the Yellow Pages.
    • TheSoupNazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15While it might have been nice to go with something that had a different "feel" than the current Slashdot design, I think that this new design does a great job maintaining the same "look and feel" of the Slashdot that we've grown accustomed to for years while smoothing out the rough edges to make it look a bit more modernized.

      Overall, great concept brought to fruition. I like it.
    • pinsomniac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Give the guy credit. It's not all that bad considering the strange criteria Taco imposed on the contest. He required entries to utilize the same shade of green, same font for the header, same type of layout, etc.; I worked on a quick mock-up as well, but quickly found that you really can't do much without altering the current three-column layout. (Personally, I would've preferred that the cells in which the story excerpts were had some type of shading to distinguish it from the background.)

      Congrats to the winner.
    • regeya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I'll be contrary and say that not only do I like it, but I admire that the redesign *isn't* a radical departure. There's no doubting when looking at that that it's Slashdot, but it's much cleaner.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Nougat,

      > from what I understand the underlying code (CSS) is much cleaner than what's currently in use.

      This isn't the case. They already switched to HTML 4.01+CSS last year. This is purely a superficial redesign.
    • bstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, I think it should have been called the 'Slashdot Touch-Up'.
  • norbiu, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5the bastard got my laptop!
  • ogrerocks, on 10/12/2007, -25/+15That's a redesign? Looks like they just squared the corners to me.
  • OutsideofDreams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I like it, updates the current feel while retaining the most predominant elements.
  • norbiu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Link to the article: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/05/30/1531251.shtml
  • ziggystardust, on 10/12/2007, -35/+12LOL...I was looking for the link to the redesign! Thats it!? Wow that looks great for a site from 1995. They shouldve went with something worth their while. I dont ever visit /. anyways.
    • FCon4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21'...I dont ever visit /. anyways. (sic)...'

      Then why do you care how it's designed?
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17That design makes Slashdot look even more bland than before. I didn't know that was even possible. :)
  • Anorhc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29I like Peter's better. Too bad he got 2nd.
  • canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Since nobody really saw my entry. Here it is in all its incomplete and incompatible glory
    http://jiggit.com/slashdot/newSlashdot.htm
    • BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I'm so sorry for your loss.
    • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It looks decent, not sure about the READ MORE link though.
    • zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3groovy
    • greywren, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I like it. Kinda busy, kinda cluttered, maybe that's why I like it. (Also I'm a sucker for gradients.)
    • canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Thanks for commenting. I did that design the night the competition ended so I didn't get any feedback on it which kind of sucked. :(

      Here's another incomplete one that cmdrtaco didn't like. I'll admit it's kind of a hog. http://jiggit.com/slashdotsite/Slashdot.htm
    • signal15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, I like this one. The one they chose just looks like the current site with some rounded edges. There are browser plugins that will allow you to load your own CSS for a particular site, so shouldn't it be possible to take a modified CSS file and get this look, as opposed to the one they chose?
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Man, yours looks WAY cooler.
    • saralk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Canadianguy - The icons on yours broke the rules, they said they weren't going to rebuild all the icons and most of them had white backgrounds + no transparency.
    • jinushaun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's prettier/more colourful, although I wouldn't necessary say better.
    • jinushaun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0- saralk:
      "The icons on yours broke the rules, they said they weren't going to rebuild all the icons and most of them had white backgrounds + no transparency."


      Taco allowed submitters to change the icons, but he strongly advised against it. His rationale: Who'd want to redesign 150 icons? IMO, no one except Taco liked the icons so *everyone* would want to redesign them.
    • ZenKai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Props CanadianGuy! I got my degree in Human Interface and Product Design. I like the second one a lot, just not for Slashdot. Slashdot's market is a pretty tech savvy group, meaning that the soft friendliness of your design is going to be viewed as overhead, nothing more. For a site with a less professional user base (something like craigslist or recycler) I think this would be a runaway winner.

      Super soft, easily read, but with a techie feel. I digg. I'm not a huge fan of the top nav, too techie, but I can see why you'd take that approach with Slashdot. I also think the squares (the default LI image) on the left nav are discontinuous, maybe just the same green (You also can't read the currently selected item)? Finally, an interface no-no is to make the link text "jump" (yo do so on mouseover). Humans learn interface automatically, and when it changes state on them by position, it serves to confuse.

      Other than that, beautiful, well done!
    • canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thanks for the well thought out comments Zenkai. I can see your point about the link movement; I was decorating I guess? :) As for the menu, I didn't spend a lot of time on it (or a lot of other details) and I regret it. I'm sure all the people that entered can testify to the fact that going through the slashdot css could be very time consuming and in the end I just wasn't into doing the CSS as much as the design. I could go on and on about what I could've, should've and wanted to do but I'd probably bore the digg community to the point that they'll switch to slashdot. :)

      ++ 1 friend because you seem to know your stuff
  • tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Them headlines is hard to read. Needs more spacing between letters.
    • compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Them words is hard to understand. Needs better grammar.
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7It's still a ***** ugly site. Digg is so much easier to read.
  • thedove, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1did anybody notice the similarity to digg's rounded/straight corners for their stories? i doubt they're biting digg's style but interesting nonetheless
  • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Eh, still the same ugly teal color.
  • pbvinge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Looks like just a color change to me, but not it is easyer to read
  • allanpat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13not really a redeisgn, more like 'lets add some bevels & gradients here and there'
  • arto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Here are the direct links to Alex's website and blog post about the win:
    http://www.macbert.com/
    http://summit.makalumedia.com/2006/05/30/the-slashdot-redux/
  • leeky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's really great. Not too different so that you don't realise it's Slashdot, but oh so nice and clean!
  • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Digg has a better interface, not because of how it looks, but how it functions. The use of AJAX for submitting comments, and even editing them after submitting them is great. Not to mention the simple thumbs up or down you can give without reloading the page. Slashdot should be trying to implement more stuff like that then worrying about CSS.
    • adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I believe That slashdot's strong points are its comments architecture and its moderation system.

      Digg's comments are awful. It allows for just one level reply. For example, if somebody wanted to reply to my comment they would have to reply to yours instead. It becomes cluttered and confusing.

      I think that slashdot's moderation system is superior than digg's. In digg everybody can vote all of the time. In slashdot everybody gets to vote sometimes. Because you get limited moderation points in slashdot you try to vote purposely. For example, this comment is not a troll, but diggers will mod it down because it might not be popular. In slashdot you mod something down because it is either offtopic or a troll. In digg, moderation is more like a popularity contest.

      Of course, I agree with your point that slashdot could be improved with a little ajax, but, I believe that they are trying to be as cross browser compatible as possible.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@adolfojp

      I agree with you to some degree, but Digg's comment system also helps keep comments on-subject whereas /.'s tends to wander as comments become embedded. Pretty soon a great story about the cure for cancer turns into a bitch-fest about how Bush is ruining the earth.
    • thedove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4most definitely...the 1-level commenting is intentional to stop back-and-forth flaming, to stay on topic, etc. it's not hard to implement as slashdot style commenting system, this is just a different way of doing comments
    • bairy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To add to the multi-level-is-bad points, indented comments suck when they're even 10 levels in. Either they're crammed into the right hand side or you have to load another page. (You could use ajax of course, but digg is already too full of javascript so no thanks).
  • got80s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They are both easy to read. I just use both sites b/c they both have good content and discussions. This whole competition thing of who's better, or who got the story first is so high school.
  • CanuckMakem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Looks great
  • weaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Cleaner, anyway.
  • alecks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i dunno... the article descriptions give me the impression that the html is broken.. like it should be a gray box.. but it's offset somehow...

    meh..
    • Bradl3y, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If you want to have a debate, email each other, most people do not care about others debates, and should not have to sift through them just to read actual comments. Single level commenting does keep things on track, it's half the reason I do not visit slashdot much anymore, so I guess I reverted back to high school.
  • jagg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3They didn't change their commenting system? The comment system they have is a usability nightmare.

    Can somebody explain to me, for example, what the hell the little "61 of 77 comments" link under the story means? 61 "of" 77 comments? WTF does that mean? You can click on either 61, 77, or "read more" and they all take you to the same place - a horriblly laid out commenting system that jumps around like crazy when you click on anyhting.

    Horrible. I'm glad I stopped going to slashdot a few months ago.
    • alecks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8i think that has something to do with the Threshhold level in your preferences... like.. if you want to see only 3 comments.. then 61 of them meet the criteria out of a possible 77.

      But i've seen a lot of instances where that didn't match perfectly..
    • Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It means only X of Y Comments meet the requirements you have set up in your profile to filter out useless posts. Part of their moderation system.
    • vermin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Actually, the comment system is the best part of the site, as long as you know how it works. Superior to the digg comment system that's for sure.
    • lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yea, /.'s comment system is siginificantly better if for nothing else then the fact the it has more than one level of nesting. Having an on going debate/conversation in digg is a pain in the ass. Also, checking if someone has responded to any of your comments is a pain in the ass when using digg. It requires way too much work on behalf of the user. In /. you just view your profile and it tells you everything about your comment, from replies to rating.
  • sencha5, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Ha. Every so often, all the posts in this thread will get modded down -1, regardless of content. Are those pesky slashdot zealots trying to hit Digg again, like they so cleverly handled the Wiki entry of Digg?
  • rusdude, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2For some reason, I'm reminded of Digg. I think it's the gradients and similar bars. I also hope they do something to the comment system.
    • adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How is slashdot's comment system flawed? I like its multi level comments much better than digg's one level comments.
  • weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Congratulations. It's gone from ghastly to bland 2.0.
  • jamesacres, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It still makes me feel confused and too bored at the site to read what it has to say. This is terrible... yes an improvement, but what's the point in running that competition if they don't even bother to change things like the colour scheme.
  • mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Those icons to the right of each story are hideous-looking and totally incongruous with good design. At least they got rid of the ones at the top.
  • McNamron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm not sure I can agree with their choice of Tahoma as the typeface for story text, set at that particular size. Especially when the left and right navigation links are almost identical to it. The line spacing is nice, however. The tracking on the story headlines is also just a bit too tight. The text just looks too "gray" when it is set as they have it now. Overall, it is an improvement over the current version. Also, what's the deal with the anti-aliasing on the "News for Nerds" tagline? Is it just my display, or it is horribly multi-colored? Sorry to nitpick. Again, overall it is better.
  • SentOne, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Um, Just looks like every other site with gradients and rounded corners.
  • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Wow. Still boring, still non current looking. Blahdot.
  • EvilTesdall, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1now slashdot just looks like....digg (don't tell me the ninjas leaked secrets again!!!)
    • EvilTesdall, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0if i saw someone else posted what i did, i would have digged it.
    • saralk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well obviously, since you posted it, you obviously think its diggworthy. You're obviously not going to post something that you think should be modded down are you?

  • samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6MUCH better. Still a little on the busy side, but a significant improvement over the old /..
  • azenone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's looks like someone ticked the "adjust for best appearance" button, under "Performance Options".
  • jflint, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Yeah, the commenting system over at Slashdot has never made sense to me.
  • UnclePunk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"After oodles of entries, most of which were featured on digg, the Slashdot redesign winner has been announced"

    ...Kevin Rose?
  • dustinhoffman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I cannot believe how original and exciting the new design is! I was getting really sick of the old design... This is the greatest thing since changing from a button to that little hook thing on Mens dress pants!

    It's amazing how dominant the left brain is... I'm betting some people walk in circles always turning left....
  • shortyzgotpop, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Definitely cleaned up compared to the old one, but still the nastiest thing I've ever seen. I find myself never wanting to go to the site because it's so ugly! instead I just subscribe to the feed.
  • alecks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11The runner up is SOOO much better...
    http://www.proximalabs.com/slashdot/redesign_big.html
    • canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I agree but the thing I didn't like about his design was the font size. Also, with design it's a good rule of thumb to make things that are different look different and his design just kind of meshed all the buttons and stuff together too well, if that makes any sense.
    • ThomW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm with you. I thought that guy had it in the bag.
    • dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The menu on the left is what killed that design. The dynamic drop down thing is confusing to a lot of people because it isn't very intuitive. If he/she had made it static, perhaps it would have won.
  • simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2slashdot users are about as ignorant as people can get. they're worse than jocks. nerds are supposed to be in the know, stay up to date, and know the tech world trends.

    they aren't nerds, they are geeks. geeks only read, geeks don't know how to actually -do- anything. geeks carry linux manuals around in high school. while the nerds study electronics and physics and actually build stuff, write code, and get somewhere.

    slashdot is just a bunch of geeks.

    digg is better because nerds rule it. we know what's better and impliment.

    slashdot couldn't impliment butter on toast. they're losers. and nerds arn't losers. :)
    • jaked409, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13But I bet geeks know how to spell implement!
    • dustinhoffman, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Have you ever read Slashdots tagline? "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters"

      I think that you have the whole nerd-geek thing bass ackwards...

      Geeks get things done... nerds play with their Star Wars toys in their parents basements...
    • Sartori, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Everyone who makes a sweeping generalisation is an idiot ;)
    • chickenselects, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5because this site is so much better. Good job bettering the community


      /sarcasm
  • TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Not the best it could be, but for a site like Slashdot, it's just perfect!
  • manumitx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5the more content(text/links) you have the more boring a site will be. Unless you want to make people click random areas to pull up small amounts of information and go on a easter egg hunt. Graphic abstract designs are cute for someone trying to sell ***** music. However, print has been around a long time, you can try to make it dance all you want but don't kid yourself.
  • SpookyET, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2It stinks. It's not a redesign, it's a facelift, or a modern feel. Digg is the new Slashdot.
  • XharMoondi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Using IE, the left menu items are kinda laggy when you go to hover over them; and why can't it be made so that the whole box is the link, not just the text?

    Edit: hmm...seems to work a lot more fluid in FF than IE
    • Hobbeswidget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Does that need explanation? It's IE...
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In my IE, the arrows to the right of the text don't show up either when you hover over them, and yeah, they do seem a bit "laggy" too. In Opera however, they work GREAT.
  • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Meh. It looks OK, probably as good as it could. The original rules were (IMHO) too restrictive, in the constraints placed upon the design. Basically, Cdr Taco didn't want his (fairly nasty) design messed with too much, so the colors, icons, and templates couldn't change much.

    So, I guess its OK. I'd call it a somewhat less fugly version of /.
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The world needs more non-designers to tell you how to design something. The site is ugly... period. The colors leave no real room for improvement.
  • djdole, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Now Slashdotters can get in flame-wars, 30 nested arguments, and anal-retentive semantics bitch-fests and LOOK GOOD at the same time!

    I personally gave up on /. a long time ago. (Not a hard habit to kick at all)
    My belief; no matter how you wrap it, ***** under a pretty bow is still *****.
  • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8If I wanted pointless javascript and stlye that wastes space, I'd visit Digg a lot more.

    Bring back the old design.
  • shadekeiko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think they needed a new colour; the teal really isn't working for me at least. = Nevertheless, a nice improvement.
  • manumitx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Once something is printed its over anyway. Websites are coffins.

    PS - Information is ugly
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.