What is Digg?65 Comments
- zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Some people still don't quite understand that its better to have substance than appearance. You go to Slashdot for informative, insightful, and intelligent news and comments. Yeah sure they have a lot of geek humor, but these people ACTUALLY KNOW what they discuss. Which is more than I can say for some of the people I've seen comment here. The entire time I've been a Slashdotter I have yet to see anyone say "Take [name here]'s dick out of your mouth" but here I see it every other day. Just today I read a comment from an Apple Basher telling an Apple Fanboy to "Take Steve's dick out of your mouth." Wow, that just reeks of maturity.
Not to offend Kevin R., the moderators, and the more intelligent members but, a lot of Digg still lacks maturity and common sense, along with some computer knowledge.
I'd also like to state that probably one of the biggest reasons Slashdot hasn't taken a big overhaul interface wise is Slashdot being pretty old and having a lot of things set in their ways. Changing things that have remained unchanged for years takes a lot more effort than one might think. You just can't simply swap the frontend and expect everything to go as easily and hassle-free as possible. No, you have to test, debug, and fix everything you come up against. - Psykus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I admit I still go to Slashdot. Although I love the idea of Digg, the community just isn't built up enough compared to Slashdot. Most of the time though, i'll go to Digg first, and then maybe Slashdot to read the discussions after i've exhausted Digg for the moment.
It's supposed to look like crap really. One of the main goals when they were working on the CSS version of Slashdot was to keep the default CSS theme looking exactly like the old, plain HTML design so people wouldn't complain, nor would the site look much different.
On the other hand though, I can definitely tell the difference between the current CSS design and the classic HTML one. It definitely still needs some work, but I admit the other CSS themes they have going for slashcode.com do look nice. - thro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To those crapping on about the style of slashdot being so 1996... I ask you this:
What's wrong with it?
I've been a member there since 1996 (1351), and i know where to find stuff, I'm happy with the layout. Now it's CSS, good for them.
If you're that upset with the way it's laid out, why not put your money where your mouth is, and come up with something better. - daehrednud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does anyone remember when being geeky was desiring function over form?
- saachi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I personally like slashdot that way, like most slashdot die-hards, only difference being I've only been to slashdot a few times this year.
Good on them for 'staying loyal to roots design'. - cnslcwby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think part of the point was to convert it all to CSS now so they have the option of swapping out stylesheets later.
- tyrelb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I go to slashdot for relevant news - not just barfed out "lookatme" links...
- jon_k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Still looks like *****. You think they'd at least make a better style than their current 1996 layout.
- 68kMac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't care so much about the looks but about the DIV soup they produced. So now they have lots of stuff like
(div id="slogan")(h2)News for nerds, stuff that matters(/h2)(/div)
Why the extra DIVs? What's wrong with (h2 id="slogan")? - Jalada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You'd really think they'd overhaul the look and the engine someday...+digg anyway, 'cos it's good they've moved to CSS.
- kriegs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1true a site is all about content, but without an attractive apperance you shy away a majority of people. you need to find that balance of appearence and substance.
- wetelectric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It looks less sharp.
Slashdot is still better than digg tho. Digg just needs to trains its users a bit more, then it'll be prett good. - stynesteen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1btw still looks the same :/
- zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kriegs I think that's kind of the point. They don't really want that broad of an audience, the site is devoted to the hardcore geeks and nerds, the hackers (and some crackers). The site is run by people that build homebrewed hardware, like to hack, program for a living. Its not a site for those that know very little, or pretend that they know something.
Cute Wetelectic, you got a smirk out of me.
Nice display of that exact immaturity I was talking about.. ,,|,_ - kungfustickman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Slashdot provides great tech news. BTW I like how the pages load faster. It was so slow before they added CSS.
- eyesx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The css conversion is mentioned here
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/09/22/1324207.shtml?tid=124
And how it started is here
http://pchere.blogspot.com/2005/09/slashdot-gets-css-beta-test-slashcode.html - daehrednud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just trying to illustrate that there are many posters on this digg who appear to be too hypersensitive to the "look" of Slashdot. It seems like that kind of behavior is easy fodder for people who don't really possess anything but the most shallow understanding of the content made available by sites like Digg and Slashdot.
I wouldn't want to think that a lot of you are into sites like these just because it's "chic". - satyap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It doesn't look like crap.
- saysaknow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's in CSS alright it just looks the same.
- paintist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.slashcode.com/ -- looks like they do make a "half-way decent" css site.
- rebug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like an editor decided to bitchslap any mention of it on in the first article posted under the new slashcode.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/22/0027254&tid=185&tid=218 - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Alot of you are ***** idiots.
Digg is possibly one of the worst designed sites ever.
It loads ass slow, and somehow manages to ***** up scrolling to glitchy jumps.
Slashdot is sleek and fast, Digg can't compare on either these points. - tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CSS has a wide variety of options that are only limited by the skills and imagination of the designer. "Harsh, ugly, robust, gritty, manly?" Are you honestly telling us that you would rather have this: http://humblefool.net/theproject/www/index.html instead of this: http://www.csszengarden.com/ ????
- pussyWagon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0damn what a difference in load time. Nice!
- BradMurray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Attractive appearances are nice if they are done correctly, but the presentation on digg wrecks the usability. The biggest problem on Digg is that big pages bring the browser to it's knees. The perfect example is the artice at http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_To_Start_War_With_Microsoft_And_Dell. It took 68 seconds to render in Firefox and 16 in IE. There is paging on the who dugg this section. Why in the hell isn't there paging on the comments? Slashdot does an infinitely better job at reducing the size of over-sized pages to make them usable.
- wetelectric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"
I wouldn't want to think that a lot of you are into sites like these just because it's "chic".
"
fair point.
re:
"http://www.csszengarden.com/"
the itallic default wording looks real ***** on my computer - caffeinated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hasn't broken in Opera yet...
- Benad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At least you can patch the CSS if you don't like the look, for all of you whiners...
And the pages load faster of Firefox! - wetelectric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well that is one the major bonus' of css
- kinney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I for one am glad to hear everyone saying that they refuse to use slashdot because of the ugly interface. This should keep all the non computer users off slashdot. Slashdot may not look that nice but the quality of the articles and discussions on slashdot far exceed the quality of the interface on digg.
- whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think they know it still looks like *****, but i'm guessing theyre in the "we don't need no smooth gradient filled BS site to give to geeks the facts!"
since ive been visting digg, slashdot always reminds me of an old man. a few pearls of wisdom, but lots of stuff you really couldn't care less about - binarypower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I cannot stand Slashdot. It's too quirky and the links are never any good...
- MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slashdot deliberately make their site design mediocre to keep the sort of people that say 'Slashdot looks ***** so I won't read it' off the site.
At least their interface and moderation works. Perhaps you diggers would benefit from taking a critical look a your own site one day?
Clue: It's far from perfect.
I honestly hope it improves soon though. - punch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hopefully digg will rule slashdot one day....
ok maybe not - ericpp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org.nyud.net%3A8090%2F - Andir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apparently you've never heard: "if it's not broke, don't fix it"
The design works. People are used to it. It's easy to navigate, just because the colors aren't what you like doesn't make it horrible.
Your reply: "Then why did they move to CSS? It was working before."
My Reply: Table based HTML is heavy. CSS Positioning is light, takes up less bandwidth. If you had as much traffic as /. you'd notice a TREMENDOUS decrease in bandwidth utilization overnight. It was broke, CSS fixed it. ( at least I hope it did :p ) I haven't run the page size comparison, but I'll bet it's at least 25% smaller.
-------------- Next Thought...
"Digg is possibly one of the worst designed sites ever.
It loads ass slow, and somehow manages to ***** up scrolling to glitchy jumps.
Slashdot is sleek and fast, Digg can't compare on either these points."
I blame this on the background processes. Something is quite literally ***** in the background of Digg. I think I heard once that they use MySQL, which if I'm not mistaken has no stored procedure method, so all your database logic (update table 1 with this data, send this data to table 2, etc.) is all handled by the web server. (logically guessing) This is my assumption based on how long it takes to submit stories, and why it may slow down the page serves during busy hours. For this reason alone, I'd never trust my production site to MySQL. I'm in no way an MS fan, but they did something right with this IMHO. - FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yup, still the same crap. No Digg.
- zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Again more rabid displays of immaturity. "OMG ITS UGLY! THUS IT SUCKS! FORGET THE FACT THAT THE DEBATES AND NEWS IS FAR MORE INTELLIGENT AND COHERENT!"
- mailman-zero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What keeps me going to slashdot? Nested comments.
- jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0last night slash-dot had different logos and layout.. A red logo square in the top right above the ads.. and a more finished look to it. (it may have just been an IE7-feedburner layout thing) I'll have to check when I get home... They do use feedburner right?
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ok, and how has it changed? really cool! (haha, just playin')
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Still looks like ass and they STILL need to implement a nested comment scheme that makes sense.
- wireplay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow -- they could have at least updated the design -- Still looks like crap. No diggity. :)
- Serendipity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree, it still looks the same crap.
- mouthster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org.nyud.net%3A8090%2F"
Oh NOOZ! Who cares man. When over 90% of the people still use IE your gonna have to break some standards. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0ooh im so exited same crappy diseign, horrible interface, and out of date news! I AM SO EXITED!
- Nooon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Still looks like crap IMO..
- dstart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well that was pretty pointless move.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is