What is Digg?74 Comments
- BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Why not keep both and allow the user to choose?
- vekron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The people that would be able to choose - Wikipedia members that have an account and are signed in - make up only a small portion of Wikipedia's users. The redesign of the front page is mainly to help its usability for the "average" user.
- cybernetic798, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Honestly, the changes are so trivial it doesn't matter. Both look nice, both present the same information, and both have nearly the same general layout. If anything though, the swapping of the 'anniversary' section to the right will (and the right-hand section to the left) will be a slight annoyance to users who already visit Wikipedia.
- Opelious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I was expecting a new design, not a few changes to the front page which I never read anyways.
I prefer the new design if anything, though. It's a bit cleaner. - monkeyman1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12It doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me. Just more colors.
- mikeyaj86, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I think they can do much better than both designs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I prefer the new theme. It makes it easier to differentiate from items on the main page.
- theantidote, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I like this one better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft_L
- jiub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't like the current, but the new one isn't an improvement either. I think the whole site needs a redesign.
As someone in the opposition said "change for the sake of change if you ask me" - TWiThead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This posting has resulted in numerous miscast votes. If you wish to take part:
1. Register an account or log in. Votes cast via visible IP addresses will not be counted.
2. Place your vote at the _bottom_ of the appropriate section.
3. Sign/timestamp your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Thank you! - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only the Monobook skin partially uses elements from Plone; MediaWiki is unrelated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/style/monobook/main.css - Nesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Does anybody know if MediaWiki is built from Plone? We've started messing with Plone at work and it really resembles Wikipedia (MediaWiki). Plone is a great app, BTW.
- Greg-J, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm stunned this 'design change' warranted a vote -and- equally as stunned this vote warranted the front page.
Democracy interests the hell out of me though. Digg. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know that wikipedia needs a redesign, although the new design is much the same. Basically it adds a new header, and space for the "on this day", "did you know?" and the featured picture. I think usually there was enough space for 2 out of 3 of those. If the majority of users like the new design, it's fine with me. The colors should be changed, they don't seem to serve any real purpose.
Other than those things, it looks as good as it ever has, which is a good thing. - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've just discovered that there were Arts | Biography | Geography | History | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology sections, thanks to the new design proposition.
- kourge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It looks more organized.
- Mental64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are some changes, not much that I noticed. I like a clean interface.
- superfly210, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i hardly ever use the front page anyway. I usually just jump to the article from a google results page or the simple wikipedia front page.
- TWiThead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This has been in development since October. If you actually take the time to compare, you'll see that it contains substantial differences (such as the featured picture and "Did you know..." section every day, some helpful new links and page descriptions for newcomers, a more logical column structure, and a header that contains prominent portal links in a configuration that doesn't wrap at 800x600 and enables future expansion).
With all of the hard work that's gone into this, it's very frustrating to see our efforts dismissed by someone who probably spent all of ten seconds examining the page. - anorris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As it is, there are already several themes available for Wikipedia. You can change your theme in the "My Preferences" page under the "Skin" tab. You must be logged in for this option to be available.
- Junto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Buss. Please can you not add links to your own website in your comments. It is distracting, because users think that it is related to the Digg post. Personally I bury every lame personal advertising attempt.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's still an improvement. I think it looks better, but besides that it makes the page stand out as different from actual articles. The header makes it look more polished and less "here's a page we happen to call the main page".
- BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ vekron
I've seen plenty of sites that allow you to change the layout regardless if you are a member.
You don't have to register to a site to be able to use cookies from it.
@freelance
Yeah, allowing users to change layouts and such make it more interative and personalised. Maybe wikipedia should take a google homepage stance on it and allow users to decide for them selves what is displayed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is improvement over the default skin. Not many people really knows about changing the skin anyway..
- Kwekubo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a volunteer-run website. If you think you can do better, feel free to submit a redesign yourself.
- Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The color should be based on the content or something. When something is the news about a winter storm, a light blue, or when a volcano is erupting, orange... etc...
Just an idea. - nacho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That one is definitely better, but when i read this post i thought it implied a structural redesign, not just some different colors. We have a corporate Wiki (internal) as a systems knowledgebase, and one of the things that has been a pain has been branding the layout to make management happy.
http://wetpaint.com/ is a really cool idea, but still has alot of bugs. It would be cool to see a mashup/hack/whatever you want to call it of the Wiki templates. - TWiThead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's because Uncyclopedia copied our proposed layout as a joke. If it becomes our new main page, they intend to issue a satirical announcement that we imitated their design.
- vekron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I agree, the colors are out of place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks TWiThead! I just created a Digg account so I could make a comment like that, but you beat me to it.
In response to Pyroxene's comment below: We definately do not view links from high traffic sites as a bad thing. Generally such links are positive - articles get improved, new viewpoints are introduced, and perhaps we even gain new contributors. - dragulaaeop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To be honest, I have never seen the main page. I usually go to the first page "http://wikipedia.org/", search, and then go straight to the results... Never even knew that main page existed... learn something new everyday.
- sublimethinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think if you go back and forth between the proposed and actual main page, you will like the proposed better. The older one seems crude compared to it.
- Nesh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, Thanks!
- MiamiGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doesn't look that different to me...*looks again*...Well either way I like it.
- mojaam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, I like the portal categories, not a major facelift, so it wouldn't bother me either way.
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good to see usability being discussed, but how many of you regularly even use Wikipedia's home page?
My Wikipedia access is almost exclusively through the Firefox searchbar or Wikipedia Dashboard widget. I haven't seen the home page in months. - tawker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just be noted that we have an IP filter on it and a bot will revert any IP votes..
- Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1wow that looks almost identical to the current one.
I figured this was a total revamp that was proposed. Meh - agnoster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@nesh: No, it is not. MediaWiki is PHP, Plone is Python (I think on top of Zope). Completely different. (ittptaarbtcfasteuatebiccwign)
- freelance24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Deffinatly a great idea I use severial website that will let me choose the theme that I want. It make users feel like they have a part of the site. many more people have returned to my site with this option enabled.
- blueigloo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Looks basically the same to me, they just made some of the boxes have a different background color.... why is this significant in any fashion ?
- DalekoProvidek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like it.
- esteban, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe I am missing something but to me it does not really look much different to the current main page so I am indifferent. If they want to revise the look a little I am down with that, but I would like to see some more radical ideas. Either way I like Wikipedia how it is for now, it does the trick.
- Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I like the new header too, but I agree with the blue boxes just wasting space.
- kourge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The proposed Main Page design looks a lot like Uncyclopedia's Main Page.
- soupisgoodfood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They really need to ditch the whole current design. It just looks too amature, and considering how big they are now, I thought they would of had a nice, profesional looking design by now, something like here at Digg.
- Maajid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Looks pretty much the same to me. Plus, anyone who doesn't like the default colour scheme and that can change it in their preferences.
- herrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't like it at all. If that is the new, just keep the old.
- dlichteman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1since nooone has done it........
"Soylent green is people!!!!!!!!!!"
yeah the green blows, other than that its ok - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Looks pretty much the same. *shrugs*
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is