What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
72 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57I've noticed it's been really slow for me. Then again I'm always rummaging through older stuff...
- msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51It has generally been noted that Digg will run faster if you are logged out. Because then it doesn't have to jump your prefs and other user details from page to page as you navigate the site.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32I find the commenting system and digging buttons to be really slow under firefox in linux!
I also hate how I don't have easy access to videos now when they have been moved out to their own section. I loved videos and now it feels like I don't want to go there because of some psychological restrictive reason for leaving the news! - gronne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Does anyone know when Digg Cloud will be back up?
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14the "speed" absolutely sucks for me. i hope something's being done about it, i'm not sure how much longer i can stand surfing the site like this ..
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Digg has been a dogg since the new update, and the search feature is simply unusable at times.
I just did a search and it took 24 seconds to tell me it was too busy to answer and I should try again later.
My guess is that digg is still trying to do realtime SQL in its search, which it has outgrown.
It needs to switch over to an indexed reverse keyword filesystem layout ala Google Yahoo! etc...
When you are more productive finding stuff on your own site via Google then your native search tool, its time to move on.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Omg less than a second load time difference *gasp* ! Maybe it'll force people to actually read the articles and summaries before clicking digg or bury.
It's a blessing in disguise. - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Probably inaccurate.
I'd expect you'd have to wait a few more days for the traffic to stabilize and for any bugs to get worked out. - lo0ol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The commenting system is where most of the bloat is coming from in the first place I believe."
I think you're right in some regard- the comments section can be bloated, but I don't think the correct answer is removing diggable comments entirely (that functionality is really helpful at times). The problem that I see is when you reach popular stories, the ones with 300-500+ comments on them. I load up one of those stories and I know that I need to sit back and wait until my browser can crunch the code and render it all. It gets really ugly the more comments you get. Although it might not be preferable, it might be time to either paginate some of the more commented-stories. There might be some additional optimization to be done in the comments, too; I haven't looked at the new code yet.
(apologies to antdude- you touched on some of my points while I was making my reply) - SHuisman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A graphical appearance of the testdata would be nicer...
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm having the exact same problem right now. I believe it's something to do with Firefox's implementation of Javascript, as I have the same trouble with other sites that make heavy use of interactive Javascript. The last version of Digg was doing much better, but this one's as bad as ever. It's beginning to seriously deter me from modding comments and/or posting replies.
- Fredx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You better clear your cache or something because i just loaded digg and it used 380k not 45 and i have removed advertising using my host file, so it would be even more data for most people.
- hollywoodone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It seems a little slower when I am looking at digg'd down comments or what not. Digg this down so people will click show comment and see the difference.
Did you see the difference? - MikeWeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Speed is very important when it comes to web surfing. Especially on a site like digg that is link intensive.
- KillerJ59J, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Digg has been significantly faster for me, but I'm using dial-up. Maybe the speed effects are intended for those with a slower connection... if so, they came through.
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Digg has always been slow for me even though I have a really fast cable connection...I can't even imagine visiting Digg on a regular basis with anything less.
In comparison to your average website I'd say it's 5-6 times slower which is really annoying because of how many pages I'll rifle through on Digg. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Agreed. It is the commenting system. Try stories that have no/littre comments, they are fast. Try with lots of comments (500+), time again. Also watch the memory peak and CPU usages.
Also, try opening multiple tabs (10+) with Digg stories with their comments. Watch the CPU and memory usage again. I have seen it go up to 400 MB!
I noticed some speed improvement if I disable graphics.
Digg needs to limit how many comments can show per page. This is based on SeaMonkey v1.0.6 in both Windows XP Pro. SP2 and Linux/Debian. IE6.0 SP2 has this problem, but not so bad. - SOAB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Still God Awful SLUG Slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....
Still can't remember to SHOW ALL !!!!!!!!! - luvkit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Did anyone else see this crazy comment below the story? Truly WTF.
"And folks, this is how Scrum works in real life:
The pig go. Go is to the office. Late. The pig look. Look at what? Empty office. The chicken shout. Shout something. The something at the pig. The pig confusing. But the pig follow. Follow with chicken. The chicken very angry. The pig browse. With Google. Chicken blame. Blame is to the White House. Shift blame. Blame is now to Google. The chicken now squawk. Squawk is "B-A-N-N-E-R'. Opera flash. Pig sigh. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle." - HanSolo69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4it's as slow as it is ugly.
- masscrazy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Digg has ALWAYS been slow. Extremely slow. Digg needs SERVER UPGRADES. Start spening some moneeeeey.
Digg is depressing. Slooow speeds, and always bad news on the front page.
10 dead here and there, US government fu*king up the world again, No more net neutraility, MPAA sue again. But im always back to read more depressing and dumb and useless news. - curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6when signed in it causes not only your personal preferences to be loaded, but the biggest problem that has caused slow downs in digg load times in the past and present has been the feature that displays friends when you hover over a digg count/digg it button on the page.....because of the time it takes to query the database for the friends of yours who have dugg the given story...they improved this before the update very well, by what appeared to be not displaying friends who dugg a story in the order they dugg it, and rather just randomly displaying the friends who dugg it, based on which ones were quickest to be returned by querying the database. the more friends you have the slower it is in general. Kind of unfortunate that a social aspect of the site, should be causing it to slow down in many occasions. I would simply like the ability to turn off that feature in a profile setting, that way I could have quicker page load times when logged in to digg.
last night digg did go down for a minute or 2 and the page load times decrease significantly from 15+ second loads, to 3-5 second load times which is much closer to the norm for me (before yesterdays feature update, I had no slower than 3 second load times on any digg page, back when I was on a 3 Mbps download line, whereas now I am on a 10 Mbps download line). - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BTW I just saved this page to disk and it consisted of 81 files totalling 300k and took about the same time to load off disk 3-4 seconds.
Its not the server in that case its the bloated pages.
For example might want to make personal icons an option next to comments. - borb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah that .5 seconds is really gonna kill us all.....get over it.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought it felt a bit slower.
Not much mind. - ajxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34 seconds? WTF?
Here it is 24 seconds of blank page before the header appear, and then more 8 seconds to download all images.
Not just home, I tried it at the university and it's slow as hell.
That's one of the reasons why I preffer slashdot. (yes, I just come here when I'm with a lot of patience) - gluckman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg needs to get over it self
- Four20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3that is the key, optimization
- LastExile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It took a good 2 mins to post a story. but that was my first so i have nothing to judge it on.
- hattrick35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I must say I really don't care if digg takes an extra 0.00000002 seconds to load.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not useless... It's what's screwed in the world and upsets people today. If other news would be writing about it. They would probably sell more!
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ive got a fx extension that highlites (in diff cols)
my comments............................................................................... (Digg me upp Digg me up)
+ my chosen no. Diggs (i chose 8 - default is20).................................(to find top comments)
+ above averg. Diggs.........................................................................(to follow thread Quicker!)
makes long threads Bearable.....TF ....but if a comment goes below the +averg i probably wont even read it - tough on the strugglin comment(er) -i know ive been there.....:-)
only had it a day or two
any comments
no personal connect - its free anyway...like all fx stuff - madeingermany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing that was very slow for me yesterday was posting comments - I waited like a minute until the comment appeared.In the mean time somebody had already dugg the comment down :p
Edit: Today it's fast again, maybe that was my isp. - Ishtumba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to agree. I don't see what the big deal is, we're talking about portions of a second slower. I would gladly exchange slower page loads to enhanced UI and variable widths.
- JSchwage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's odd. I would have thought it'd load faster now since there's less images on the new design. But there's also another thing I think could add to slower speeds. There could have been more text in both titles and descriptions of articles on digg when the test was done for the new design.
- Bigcat151, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I know I'll get blasted for this but I find that digg (and almost all other sites) loads faster on IE7 than Firefox 2.0
edit...not much faster but it is noticeable. - bberg07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2For some reason, v4 seems to be faster for me. I haven't cleared my cache, reset my browser or anything. I'm actually quite surprised, as I have been seeding torrents for the past week at almost a constant rate.
- joblessjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And of course the SEARCH is just BLAZINGLY FAST....
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not is it slower than before, but IE7 will peg the CPU at 100% for 10, 15, 20 seconds or more when loading articles with many posts to them. Must be all that Javascript bunging up the page. Seriously needs a rethink and redo from scratch.
- Shultzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kevin also mentioned as a comment in another post that they will be implementing faster "search servers" and software. It would appear that in addition to optimization, they are also investing in additional hardware to further improve response time and manage growth.
- BalsamLane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+114.4 K, who still has that.... oops, that must have been Ted Stevens. No wonder his internet download was so slow.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its a big difference to some.. it needs to be talked up so it can get fixed sooner.
- KeiichiMorisato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The new design looks much better (and cleaner) than the old version.
However, you guys have not given thought to those of us who browse on our Blackberry devices. The old site was actually better; this one is just poorly done for mobile devices. - Lazybones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Unless the load time of the site was tested with the EXACT SAME ARTICLES on the front page in a test environment the results are meaningless.
Diggs front page varies in size every few minutes depending on the length of the description for each article, some being 1 line others being full paragraphs. If anything they should of compared the size in KB for all of the elements that are always on the page in both versions to see if there are more or less.
Marked inaccurate because it can't be anything else but maybe lame. - cyborgver666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I switch between dial up and high speed everyday. High speed at work, and dial up at home (I know, I know, I'm stuck in the country, nothing but expensive satellite can reach me). The old digg would take FOREVER to load on my dial up at home. The new Digg? It loads soooo much faster. At first I was totally against the redesign. But seeing as how the time is cut in half now at home, I'm happy as hell.
- amarsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have actually found the site to be a little faster on my connection, however, i was hoping in this update, there would be more AJAX used around the site, especially when moving pages as that is what is fairly slow for me. I know they use it for hidden comments/digging/digspy at the moment, but I'm sure they have a good reason for not expanding it further.
- trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New layout, new bugs. Just give it time. And those time are pretty damn close.
- yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg is so bloated.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You still can double digg by clicking 4 times
- idiggeverything, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who cares.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is