-
Website
http://www.techipedia.com/ -
Original page
http://www.techipedia.com/2007/why-the-new-digg-sucks/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
coriwestphal
2 comments · 1 points
-
faryl
2 comments · 5 points
-
dotlizard
1 comment · 5 points
-
webomatica
3 comments · 5 points
-
Bobby Kircher
1 comment · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
The cynic in me says it's just a way of upping the page view count so they get more impressions and perhaps more ad clicks. Anyone that has spent more than ten minutes thinking about usability would always try and reduce the amount of clicks. They've visited one too many "10 best" lists that are 10 separate pages and become immune to it.
I'm still far to much of a facebook virgin to comment on that GUI but for what digg have just done I think SU does it slightly better. with SUs new interface I get recently commented on stories from my friends in "what's new" and can quickly view the original story or view the friends page.
My normal start page is http://digg.com/users/liamvictor/friends/submis...
now I can't see if I've dugg a page before, like you I miss the description and I can't see what's gone popular.
One step forward and two giant leaps back.
1) The opening stories in a new tab/window is ridiculous. It seems that digg is either trying to synthetically boost page views by forcing users to more pages before they get to the story, or just make it really hard to go right to the news source so people stick around on the site longer.
2) You can't see the descriptions in the friends view ... OR the URL. I purposely don't click on spammy .blogspot URLs becuase they are SPAM. Now I am blind to SPAM! This seems like a horrible step backwards in stopping SPAM
3) You can't go back more than 3 pages in your friends submissions. I only frequent the site when I am at work, and I enjoyed looking at my friends content (i selected them as friends because they DON'T submit junk, and digg stuff i like) and now you can only see back three pages at a time. (A fix is that you can change the friends/submissions/page# in the browser to go back further) but still a pain.
4) In the friends view, you can't see what your other friends liked when hovering over the digg button. That was one of my favorite aspects. You could gauge if the story was more liked by techie people or the political type .. now nothing.
5) I don't use digg for the "social aspects" like mentioned in the article. If I wanted to start "social networking" I would just go all the way and get a poodle, a sex change, and start using facebook. I like fresh hip news while at work, that is it.
6) With the new format of friends submissions makes you look back and forth like reading a book when trying to find out who submitted each story. The submitter and number of diggs is about 1000px apart, and it just horrible usibility.
All around, this seems like an awful change for digg, I wish I could comment on the shout-outs and whatnot .. but I could care less, as I only use Digg for news.
Let's take look at just a few top stories from the September Digg Archive.
"Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked With Taser 10 Times"
"International Talk Like a Pirate Day"
"Boy wakes up with Posh Accent after Surgery"
"Online couple CHEAT with each other"
"8 Simple Ways to Cancer-Proof Your Body"
"Global Warming Could Cause World Crop Collapse"
Sure Digg brings me lots of quality content in the technology space, and many of the stories entertain me on a daily basis. But come on - Digg as a quality news source? That's like telling me you get your daily news from the supermarket checkout counter!
Oh, and where does Digg rank on Google for the term "news"? Nowhere to be found. :-P
Like right now I see the last 5 being :
# Warning: Bush calls for expansion of spy law (260 diggs)
# A Giant Trilobite on the Sun "We've never seen anything quite like it,"... (233 diggs)
# The Hard Science of Making Videogames. (PICS) (220 diggs)
# Dan Rather Files $70 Million Lawsuit against CBS (265 diggs)
# Japan Invents a 26-Hour Work Day [pic] (321 diggs)
But that is a totally different point alltogether.
Why is Kevin behind digging a grave of digg?
First they removed our 100 users names (reduce the influence of the top diggers according to Kevin & co) & now they have done it again by removing the friends submission & all, giving only 3 pages, link in link & all the bulls#!t.
Apart from these now you need to give all you details accurately or else your account may be terminated. Way to go.
Firstly he has moderators who secretly burry the stories, apart from auto bury. And burry brigade cant be forgotten.
Thinking of burry brigade or the left wing under the direct command of Kevin & co operates freely without any fear or rather its the creation of Kevin & co itself.
One fine day this brigade is going to turn itself like Osama bin laden against Kevin himself. We paid the price of training Afghanis to fight against Russian & ultimately created the monster laden. So will Kevin pay!
Plus, I agree that Digg should not try to be something it isn't. We don't need 10 more Facebooks - businesses can certainly evolve, but trying to be like someone else undermines their own authority in the space.
Great post!
I understood adding video. I understand adding pictures. But we're on Digg, not Diggbookspace!
anyway, with anonymity comes immaturity in the internet age, and that's what eventually dominates these situations, i wish there was some way around it but the internet will never become the information tool which it was once envisioned as.
I guess I have come full circle with Digg. I was fascinated with it for a while there, but I can't take it seriously any more. I have this huge blog post I've mostly compelted, where I liken it to a game. The post is long as, and to be honest I can't be bothered completing it.
Digg to me is such a waste of time. I mean, the traffic is huge, IF you don't get buried -- and I usually do -- and the kinds of people who come by leave again as fast as they got there.
I'd rather be focussed on compelling content and relationships with the ProBloggers, Smashing Magazines and LifeHackers of this world, where at least the traffic is "qualified" and interested.
I really don't care much any more what Kevin Rose does...
He's never done anything for me. I mean, where's the marketing category in Digg? He's never bothered to give our entire industry one! And yet he creates one for the here-today-gone-tomorrow Presidential election!??!
It's a load of crap, and about time we all stood up and said so.
While I'm not enamoured by the while voted news site model, I think I've got more time for Sphinn. But I haven't even been there lately, either.
Sorry. Just so over it at the moment!!
-Alister
I was introduced to Digg by Tamar (of www.techipedia.com) some time ago.
This was before Tamar became a "staple" on the Digg network.
Our company manufactures and sells diamonds and jewelry on the Internet, so I was excited about the prospect of joining this unique social community.
The "old Digg" was great; interesting and informative, easy and accessible.
If I liked something, I could go from " 0 - 60" in two seconds and "Digg" the post..ETC.
However, today's "improved" Digg ABSOLUTELY STINKS!!
I just checked in today for the first time in a while and was surprised by how much I hated these new changes..AND I AM A RELATIVELY INFREQUENT USER.
The new Digg is cumbersome, tedious, hard to navigate, too time consuming and a total slap in the face to all the people who catually made Digg waht it is today.
You have to go through multiple steps to Digg a posting, you cannot see what your community is discussing...IT STINKS!
In any case I want track and vote my friends.
I not like current changes in digg.com
:(
I disagree with point 3 because what I think they're trying to force you to do is digg the STORY, not your FRIEND'S stories. The latter has resulted in Digg becoming a social hangout for a select few who always get their stories on the top 10. Digg is trying to find a way to prevent this crude form of nepotism.
In my experience, usually the first story was submitted by my friends since they're so adamant about using Digg and timing their schedules around when stories get published. Now, I honestly don't use Digg much anymore (and I'm out of town so I don't even know what happened at the town hall meeting on Monday) but there's a serious desire to be the first submitter of the stories that are posted on a regular schedule, and guess what? My friends typically do it. Is choosing to vote for them crude nepotism or is that just a matter of serious Digg addiction? I think it's the latter and that you don't understand the mindset of those hardcore users. I can't blame you because I've been there too.
If you've read any of my other submissions, I admit that I networked with people on Digg because their submissions were interesting to me. That's why Digg is a social news site and not just a traditional voting site that has absolutely no social influence.
http://ezapples.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/34/De...
The answer is in the post. I hope you read it.
There was only one story and completely unrelated. It only had one Digg.
Seems like someone is manipulating Digg
I am working on a site which try to solve many of the problems with digg.com.
You can find it on http://crowdnews.eu.
The main problem with digg is the voting system.
When only top voted stories get on the front page it has
to be a subject that many can relate to,
which result in stories with a low information content.
http://crowdnews.eu solves this by using sharing instead of voting.
Every have a personal news page on which they can subscribe to other users and when those users share stories they will appear on the personal news page.
Crowdnews