33 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Are you kidding? Just from what I see:

o You no longer can find your comments or the comments of anybody else - I spent a good deal of my time on digg making comments, then checking back five to ten minutes later to see the amount of digg ups/downs I got and the responses to my comments. I'd then respond to those responses. You know, almost like a community! Finding your comments on digg now (now that there's no consolidated comments page) is like spotting the Yeti. What the hell is the sense of commenting now?
o The content on the home page seems to be controlled more than ever by large news outlets - I get it, power users used to control the site anyway. Difference is, if I *really* wanted to get something on the home page, I could submit a story, then get 100 friends on facebook to digg it up. At that point, it would show up on the upcoming area of the front page. You at least had a chance. Now, the algorithm seems to cater to news outlets. Case in point, there was more than one story bashing the new digg. All of them had more than 800 diggs. One had 2000 f**king diggs. None made tops news. So there's obviously a change to the algorithm. If you're engadget, you can make it to the home page with 35 diggs and zero comments. If Kevin Rose doesn't like your content, forget about it!

To me, those are the big two. Content that seems to be even less out of the hands of the users. And a community that can no longer interact with each other. Others are:

o Errors - I'm a web developer and understand that if you have a 500 server farm, the s**t is not going to be easy to deal with. However, sites with much more traffic than digg function just fine. There's not a day that I come here now (which is less and less often) that I don't see that f**king broken axle s**t. It's cute the first time. Less so the 50th time.
o No more pagination - I guess not a game changer, but I can't stand the "load more stories" s**t. Again, not a deal breaker but I personally hate it. Why put the effort into doing this when it doesn't improve things?
o Reducing the amount of time a submission can be edited - As a programmer, I'm still trying to figure out if there's any logical reason why this change was made. I'm sure there has to be. Otherwise, why change it? Did a bunch of diggers complain about having *too* much time to edit posts?
o When a story makes the front page/top news/whatever you want to call it - Beforehand, when a story made the front page, you'd get the familiar, "Made popular 33 minutes ago", or something like that. That information seems to be lost now. I want that piece of information. It would be even more obvious then, that digg is suppressing stories. For example, if a story has 800 diggs, but no, "Made popular...", you know the story never made the front page. You can then start asking questions like, "Why"? The way things are now, you might just assume that it made the front page but you missed it. It's another head scratcher. Was their servers taking such a hit that they can no longer tell you when a story made the front page?

A lot of changes, none that the digg community wants, but they were made anyway. You say it's basically the same site. I'm not sure what you're looking at! Now I will copy this comment before submitting it because I've lost more than one due to digg errors!

• Reply