What is Digg?49 Comments
- jzillan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12looks good to me. they can trim some stuff down a bit...like using the gmail arrows instead. but overall i think this is a great improvement for google.
google going ajax on search results ; )
FWIW i think this could improve things like google bookmarking drastically...streamlining product stickiness is always better. less mouse movement and more compaction is always a good thing to me.
much kudos google
-jzillan - n0esc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Could have been "I've Seen" too. Damn grammar Nazis.
- Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I'll believe it when I see it. There have been so many speculative 'screenshots' of what Google Calendar/ GMail/ Search Results/ Plan to Destroy Neptune would look like that I just can't take any of these seriously.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6*snaps fingers*
Cookie hackers: Get to it! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This will be a very useful update, in my opinion. There are so many times where I would like to have a little more information in the description/body field. Expansion options are a great add-on to google. Dugg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I know this is the internet, but for the love of god, it's "saw" not "seen."
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4there's probably a way to trick google into showing you the new layout by editing a google cookie..
- Xplozive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Because it's Google, Google is better :p
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3a cooler idea would be the ability to tag your searches as "not interested in shopping"... and automatically filtering all the shopping and bargain crapola sites. Afterall, that's why they have froogle!
- jacko7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a very cool idea, i especially like the part about more information on what to find in the site
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The extra information could very well be retrieved on-the-fly, when the arrow is clicked, using XMLHTTPRequest, and I would guess it is the case, since it's the most effective way to do it, both bandwidth-wise and estetically.
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But when do we get alternating background colors?
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+2i'd like this design + the previous sidebar design together.
- dlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2nice change .........i like the search site feature. they should give the dictionary feature as well.
- shortcircuit13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like the "Additional Information" Javascript. Nifty, a bit bandwagon-y, but very functional.
But, and I think I'm gonna get flamed for this, seriously, people. AJAX = "Asynchronous Javascript And XML"
I don't see any evidence of XML, notably XMLHttpRequest, in what's displayed in the screenshots.
Stop hopping on the trendy-buzzword bandwagon and learn what AJAX really means.
That being said, Google's new layout is much more functional. I like it. I even like the arrows, though I think that they're not consistent with the rest of the Google design. Then again, Google's not known for elegant, beautiful design. THey're known for being a kickass search engine, and this only makes it better. - NJerseyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, I think they are refering to the fact that the page isn't static. Is there a name for dynamic content that doesnt specifically mention the method (e.g AJAX) used? The term "dynamic content" is a little vague, since it could concievably cover viedo and the like. "Interactive content" maybe? People associate the word AJAX with the functionality, and I think its the only word to use here.
- mvprj84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am sure there is, we just have to find someone that already has the layout so that we can get their cookie information.
- mvprj84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That cookie is for the old layout that everyone already knows about
- monsieurgrand02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know what I like about Google. It's constantly updating itself and trying new things. Keeping it fresh seeing as how the internet is constantly changing.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yes, you're right. The arrows in the screenshot look ghastly. Apart from that, I don't see anything of notable interest.
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When I said it's better aesthetically, I meant as opposed to reloading the whole page when the arrow is clicked.
The other alternative you presented, bringing the whole information in the first rendering, is obviously a no-no for Google. They are VERY strict regarding how big are their pages (KB-wise), they wouldn't make it suddenly 10x worst, just imagine how much that would affect their bandwidth, we're probably talking about terabytes per hour here... - MikeMania, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yea kind of. But when you maximize one entry at a time, it won't be as cluttered as it is in the screenshots.
So it's a new look only when you want it to be, which is fine by me. - GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm already using Greasemonkey to add this, that, and the other to Google!
- CubiX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And I wondered how our favorite search engine could get better :)
- jzillan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ajax was available years ago too...doesn't mean that it was the right time to debut it. the majority of users out there weren't ready for ajax. they weren't educated-- it hadn't reached its "tipping point". (yet another overused buzzword))
IMO google sets trends...it does not follow them. this is why they continue to dominate search.
-jzillan - bedheadben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice!
- MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whow, that way we won't even need to go to actual site to read the contents ... I bet this is not such a good news for website editors, but it's a good way for google to keep users on his site longer.
- Create, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i happened to be at work the other day... and the standard msn homepage you get after a fresh install of windows xp was bouncing to http://beta.msn.com (doesn't appear properly in firefox)... looks like m$ is working on more than their live.com
- duniyadnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting idea... however, I wonder how much the webmasters or owners of the property would enjoy having that much information shown on another page which could result in lower traffic for them. If I get the information in that one paragraph, why bother going into the website which Google didn't ask for permission to use the information outside. New rules in Robots.txt coming up?
- ForbesBingley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Realistically they should have done this years ago.
I've been doing this stuff for years, so how the hell Google should take so long, I've no idea... - chandler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hah, at first I thought it was going to look like dogpile search results... Good riddance
- Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This takes away from the simplicity of Google
- NGliam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1THere was an article on here a while ago telling you how to get that screen when you searched, I did it and it's pretty cool. Better than the current one at least.
- MrGeneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wooopeee! It's is the back-end that needs work, their word-stemming sux. All the search engines are equally bad in that area. Hmmm funny about that....
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I still think this thing about the arrows will be an advanced, optional setting.
They won't mess with their homepage, they're not crazy, they have too much to lose if people decide Google is too cluttered and decide going somewhere else.
Regarding GMail and the calendar, Google is not so worried about those IMO, it's not their cash-cow, so they have a bit more creative liberty there. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yep, I do...and could be confusing for some less technical users (yeah it sounds ridiculous, but it's hard to step out of our geek-mindset...)
- prlewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting choice of example to show on the screenshot, especially when you consider this...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/25/0830202&from=rss
Nice additions to the search page though, now it looks like i won't need dozens of tabs open all using up bandwidth downloading ads, just for me to close them again when I realise that they're not relevant after all. - ubicity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3why are people calling this user interface addition an innovation when ask.com and live.com have been doing this for some time
- neotek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How would that change the aesthetic feel of the site? Whether it's retrieved automatically or retrieved as the page is rendered is invisible to the user in either case!
- mutant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Digg = Google marketing website
- banjokazooie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0kewl. much more polished and the right mix of new good looks and same old google goodness.
- therernospoons, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I prefer the usual way. If they're really changing to that, I'll just greasemonkey it.
- dude3609, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I SEEN THAT LAYOUT on google. IT IS --NOT-- FAKE
i noticed the little arrows and things when i searched google.. theyre targetting certain people to beta test.. a limited crowd.. before they fully launch it i guess.
i dont see it anymore there.. so i dont know.. but i do remember seeing those arrows before a few days ago on google. - sekicho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Honestly, Google should never have abandoned their old philosophy that "simplicity is the best policy." This and that silly calendar... if they keep going down this road, GMail will be more cluttered than Microsoft Word, and half of the motivation to use Google (the fact that it's no-nonsense, just works) will go out the window.
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Does anyone else think that it's a little cluttered?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2sex
- jeznav, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0The inline site search is similar to http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=[query]&btnG=Search&domains=[urlofsite]&sitesearch=[urlofsite]
I personally use the above method to search posts on the forum of a site, but I like how they are going to add that feature soon.
BTW. Don't just click on it, replace [query] with your search and [urlofsite] with the actual web url. aka www.site.com etc. then post it in the address bar. - pufuwozu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Go to Google and paste this in the address bar:
javascript:alert(document.cookie="PREF=ID=fb7740f107311e46:TM=1142683332:LM=1142683332:S=fNSw6ljXTzvL3dWu;path=/;domain=.google.com")
Change "google.com" to whatever locale you're using. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1*presents zweben with a cookie made from tuna fish heads and chocolate chips*
I call it the tuna chip cookie.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.com
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