What is Digg?89 Comments
- Zonkzor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Who cares if you post your own article? Where is the logic in this? What difference does it make if some other user posts it? None what-so-ever.
- ghelton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I think that those are some good websites but the title is way too strong, I wont digg it only because I dont want to support the fact that these are the best sites in history. Otherwise they are pretty good.
- richjwild, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Good read.
I don't see the fuss about it being the submitters own article. - rgranados, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Learn when to use "they're" and "their".
- themachina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Good sites? Yes. But best in history? Nooooooo way.
- SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I don't really care that it was posted by the author, but..
MY GOD, the grammar is just horrible! Not to mention this shouldn't be on the main page simply for it's uselessness. I mean, it would even be slightly more ok if he were to give valid reasons why these particular sites were good, but it seems to me like he hasn't visited many sites online and that he is new to this whole "Internet" thing everyone is talking about. I mean, a blog? And some tennesee site that he explains as "cluttered" and the xhtml doesn't validate? - Aztlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12It looks like Akinnunen just heard of digg 3 days ago and is just using it to get visitors to his site. (which is cool..)
http://digg.com/users/Akinnunen/submitted
But if he just heard of digg.com he hasn't been around the web that along to claim "The 5 best designed websites in history"
NO Digg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13From the article: "They%u2019re incredible web site have inspired designers world wide. They%u2019re the organisers and sponsors of @Media 2006. Vivabit%u2019s web site has the third best design ever. "
What a worthless list. Vivabit is listed as 2nd on this page, but the description says it's the third?? (Not to mention "They're incredible..." instead of "Their incredible..".)
-the mole - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Posting own links should only be repressed if the link has another link to the story, but if the post is about the story itself, no problem, even if the poster is the author of the story.
holy ***** that was confusing! - kitejumping, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12google is better... those sites dont have anything i need, to me they are useless.
- remcgregor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9See that little link that says "reply"? Yeah, ummm, click it next time. Thanks.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I wouldn't exactly say that these pages are the "best designed all time".
I think it's the best of modern design, but not all time. Some of these design aren't exactly nice either... They are pretty standard for some of the big blog/community sites.
But these are some really nice design's. Nice picks :D - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The fact that you validated your blog to the latest XHTML working draft with semantic XML is meaningless to me."
"Oh! My page validates! Big ***** deal"
For users who are blind (or close to) and have to use a screen-reader or oversize fonts, it *is* a "big ***** deal." For users browsing with mobile devices, it *is* a "big ***** deal." For browser developers, who have to spend far too much worrying about how to deal with broken HTML, it *is* a "big ***** deal." For anyone who wants the Web to get out of its self-perpetuated infancy, it *is* a "big ***** deal." - deadlift, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@jboi
The HP design is good in itself, but flawed. The width is not fluid and is fixed in Firefox, and 60% of the page is white.
Design is not just how looks, but how it works. A page can be designed and look like the gates of heaven, but if the gate is locked whats the point?
Meaning, functionality is a key in design. - debian_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My take on the author's personal choices for best designed websites:
1. A List Apart - Decent, if not a little pretencious, tieing into what Matt2k mentioned. ALA seems to give the user plenty of whitespace in which to comfortably read the content, but at times feels so drab like the stock section of the newspaper.
2. Vivabit - The vibrant touches of color keep the site alive and welcoming to view, while the light grey text on a darker background help keep the eyes from getting stressed. Good whitespace and segmentation of content areas, but theres alot of information to try and take in on the frontpage.
3. UX magazine - The font, the colors, the style, I all love. Other than that however, I find myself despising the actual layout and design of the site. Crammed content and narrow padding adds to the overall negativity of when I view it.
4. Tennessee Vacation - Horrible. I simply can't bring myself to like this choice. Cluttered and unorganized. Too many colors with too many font face variations.
5. Veerle’s blog - Love it. Nice soft colors on charcoals, good blend of images with text, nice spacing, friendly feel. The border at the top is a bit quirky, and the content towards the bottom seems a bit detatched, but other than that I really enjoy the look and feel of this. - erictastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6my personal favorite, that pretty much everyone violates, is when to use "your" and "you're"
for the uninitiated,
"your" is used to show ownership, such as "your car" "your never-opened english texbook"
"you're" is what is called a contraction, which means that two words were married into one. it is short for "you are" such as "you're cool!" or "you're ugly!" and is used to describe someone.
If you were to say, for example "your cool!" or "your right,..." that would be incorrect, as you're inferring a description with a word used to show ownership.
Please, discontinue incorrect usage of these two words. The fate of the world depends on it. - hater2win, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's not how you spell grammar.
- MrCodeDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A horribly written, subjective article. Why is this on the front page?
- greenbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i'm not comvinced these are the best designed out there. something tells me me there's a site that feels more like a well intergrated prgoam than a a website.
- bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6HP.com? Are you kidding? Yes, I agree that the page makes things accessible and the colours change while you're on the page. But do you notice that the layout doesn't change with the size of my browser? The whole thing just stays at the top left corner of the screen. Plus, the inconsistent vertical alignment of text elements just gives the whole page a messy feeling. Ugly.
- nostrich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Are these the best websites in history (in what history exactly? My browser history?) or just the best at the moment? Make your mind up.
And that's a horribly written blog post. How did this make it to front page. - davdav, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Apparently it made front page anyway.
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're entitled to your opinion.
No digg, though, because I think you really ought to set aside about 30 minutes each day to learn English grammar.
If you hadn't asked the entire digg world to look I might cut you some slack, but my right eye is twitching uncontrollably. "Their" is possessive. "They're" is a contraction indicating state of being. Adjectives should agree in number with the nouns they modify. - Aztlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7How about digg.com
And next time you what to reply to someone click "reply" - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the only one that is actually designed well enough to recieve recognition is http://veerle.duoh.com/ (#5).
also, the person who wrote the review has the journalistic ability of a 10 year old. - ozroy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Fixed width designs really annoy me, and they seem to be becoming more common. It seems to me that designers are stuck in a print media frame of mind. As they move from print media to the internet they just bring what they know. Unfortunatly the internet is a different environment. It's flexable and dynamic, so use that please!
I do like the Vivabit website. It's flexable and readable at all window sizes, the way a website should be. The UX design is also a clever idea, but I'm not convinved by how well it works. - Ares, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4those are all horrible. Best ever? Not even close. Best ever is one that everyone seems to want to use... digg.com comes to mind.
Google.com
amazon.com
http://www.l2orphus.com/
http://www.craigslist.org/
these sites are megapopular for a reason - functionality, not web20buzzwordwannabe sites - tekmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This article is ridiculous. You can't state that a website uses invalid code and is "cluttered as hell" and then call it the 4th best web design in history.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Personally, I think that this blog (previously listed on digg) is just the coolest - http://www.ifizzle.com/ifizzle.html - but overall, the sites the articles mentions are really pretty.
- Xinex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Somewhat poorly written, but the ideas are all there. Those are great designs. I think Veerle's is the best I've ever seen, but Doug Bowman's stopdesign.com is also very well-done.
Also: "The only question that need be asked when speaking of Veerle's Pieters gorgeous redesign: Who wasn't floored when they first saw it?" Me. I was kind of like, meh, ok. Then I revisisted and took a stroll through, and damn. The sheer attention to detail is just incredible. - retral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I've seen better, but the vivabit site is pretty spiffy. No digg for having a gross overstatement >.
- Ares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah that was just off the top of my head. the point was what Matt2k said.
Ok, now on the positive side, good for you to promote your site and what you like, but the "all time" tag opened you up as a target.
Copies site designs that seem to set standards for usability was what I was trying to get across.
How many sites do you see that took Amazon.com's "tabbed" interface look. It's a simple idea that works.
Thats what should win all time awards. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A Very Biased Title, but it was worth reading. I would only consider one of these being in the top five.
- jboi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8The best designed (single) page i have ever seen is this one:
http://www.hp.com/
The first page of the HP website. Everything u would ever need from the HP website is on that page.
Its powerfull, yet pritty simple in design. Its Pure brilliance. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is getting almost as bad as "the best movie of the year" i wonder how many "best website designs" have been posted on digg since it started?
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right... there are seriously better site designs out there. One that springs to mind (and one I always use as an example) is news.bbc.co.uk. Not too cramped but plenty of information, good use of whitespace, all the links where you would expect them to be, a search function at the top, and a low-graphics version. Most notably, though, is the use of the 'information tree' layout, i.e. most graphics and least info at top, with fewer graphics and more info below. Most good site designs will have a similar structure, as you get a very quick overview, then can drill down. This way you're not overwhelmed as you are with each of the five examples in the post.
It's called usability. Read Jacob Nielsen. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well.. can't blame anyone for having an opinion. But I certainly don't agree with the submitter. :)
- CompACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like the idea for your blog - I hope you get some success with this - letting people submit their own list is great - With that note I totally disagree with your list - I agree with ares I rather have usabilty and functionality over the trendy web2.0 stuff anyday.
- greenbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well i think your right about functionally but those other two sites you linked are ugly as hell. anyway digg should've been on the list anyway.
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because it's flash and launched a pop-up window that nobody asked for. Good thing for FlashBlock.
- kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No kidding! Very distracting when the author doesn't know the proper use of they're, there, and their...
- 3vil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't know if your just really interested in the content of these sites, but to be truth full they just aren't that spectacular at all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Apple website is very well-designed, and so is Google. The web pages reviewed are very good, but overall, their content is too crowded. I think with a little simplification, they would be much better.
The Apple, Digg, and Google homepages are all good examples of simple design. Sometimes, less is more. - jaxshores, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, csszengarden has many designs that blow these out of the water. This article seems to be praising new designs that are in vogue at the moment, while claiming that they are the best designs in history. This is a gross overstatement.
- sarith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3uhm, every single one of those site designs suck a nut
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'... "taste of design is in the eye of the beholder, and this is only my top five. Feel free to submit yours!"'
No digg for the self-quote. Annoys me on advertising signs, too. - Dom02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2best designed sites? no way. They may look nice but that doesn't mean they are the best design. When I first went to any of those sites I had no idea what those sites where about. Not until I looked around for a few secs. Yea a few secs isn't long but a well designed site will tell you immediately what the site is about.
- Ninjamonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.csszengarden.com/
- xiongchiamiov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ah, but the fact is, it isn't really news. I didn't even bother to read it because it's a highly subjective topic anyway. Digg needs a "not news" option. [no digg, btw]
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah, these aren't the best sites of all time. Although most of them are decent sites.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is