All companies make concept cars. They do this to gauge public interest in new features, new styles, and names, and also to figure out what people might expect to pay for a vehicle with all those features. Then they go to the designers and say, "Take this cool concept design that everyone loves to death, make it less awesome, and give us the result". We consumers get that result.
Sure it's cheaper to make the Chevy Volt look like a Camry, but Chevy might actually have people interested in the Volt if they hadn't changed the design of the concept vehicle so much. I understand that it wasn't as aerodynamic as they wanted, and the parts were more expensive to produce, but getting 8 mpg less in exchange for a vehicle that looks like it belongs in the garage of a billionaire is a trade-off Americans are more than willing to make. The Volt as it is now just looks bland, and America won't even notice it. Chevy basically screwed itself in an effort to make a little more money per vehicle.
I'm not a fan of new digg, either, and lots of s**t is broken... but literally every f**king article on digg is bombarded with 'new digg sux' and 'fix digg' comments.
f**kING GET OVER IT. The errors will get fixed, the annoying s**t (hopefully) will get changed. Screwed-up upgrades happen all the time.
If you dont like the new digg, send the admins a message (if you can) and go sign up for reddit.
I'm with you, these idiots need to get over it. I can't think of ANY software or website that has ever been released without any errors. There are ALWAYS problems that need to be fixed, and they can't add every single feature at once because doing so only increases the number of errors.
Think of it this way, everyone: every line of code you write needs to work with the hierarchical logic of modern programming language (which is designed to work with our processors and their hierarchical logic, but that's the only way we can currently make them work with the "0" and "1" values of memory [elastic memory is being developed, more like the brain, but whatever]).
If you want to add a feature to a site, that's another line of code you need to write. That code HAS to work with every other line of code you've written above it. If it doesn't, you get an error. The more lines of code you write, the greater chance you'll have an error from one line not being compatible with the rest. If the site is personalized, every line of code has to reference a specific section of the server that holds the user's information, and if that is inaccessible, you get an error! It's all a giant mess of trying to get bugs out of the coding, so what professional website designers do is build a site one feature at a time.
Digg v4 probably had to be completely rewritten in order to accommodate the new feature-set. The new features would have a higher priority than the old features, as far as the staff is concerned, because they're the focus of the new Digg. They have to make sure all those features work properly first, then add the old features in one-at-a-time to make sure that every one works properly with the new features. If it has a bug, they know that it's the feature they just added, so it's easier to fix.
Ever heard the saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link"? Well, that applies to website design and programming as well. When you're making a chain, you test each link as you make it, before you add more links, because the odds of a weak link getting in there are unacceptably high if you add 10 links at a time, or 20 at a time, etc. prior to testing it. With a website you don't have the luxury of seeing very easily where the chain broke.
You all need to stop posting in every single comment thread with "I hate Digg" and "f**k New Digg" and similar comments, because all it does is annoy those of us who aren't retarded enough to complain in the first couple weeks of a release, and make the site designers rush things to get the old features written in. RUSHING THINGS IS NOT GOOD FOR PROGRAMMING.
All you're doing is making Digg suck balls for those of us who are willing to put up with a couple weeks of inadequacy.
ackerlightAug 26, 2010Buried
f**k new Digg
thentroAug 26, 2010Buried
Have we seen the Demise of Digg?
8134 followers huh, I wonder how this got to the front?
kartman2001Aug 26, 2010Buried
fix digg
praneethreddyAug 26, 2010Buried
Please Please Revert back to the old Digg!
The new digg reminds me of reddit!
:'(
awtrippAug 26, 2010Buried
feels like facebook f**ked twitter up the ass and s**t out a cum bubbling s**t and named it digg4.
also, yeah, concept cars... how 'bout those concept cars.. I reckon it's the end of those.
hmugabeAug 26, 2010Buried
the top stories are total s**t. they f**ked with a winning formula and created new coke.
see you later everybody.
dteleAug 25, 2010Buried
Concept cars are a huge investment of technology, time and resources, and usually only tha major players can afford to undertake this risky marketing.
It makes financial sense to propertly develop something that will actually see the light of day and be of use to people.
gibletoidAug 26, 2010Buried
I bet the new Digg will have great success just like new Coke!
lightfire409Aug 26, 2010Buried
Guys, I can't stand this anymore. I'm heading over to reddit :(
norman619Aug 26, 2010Buried
Another reason why we need a 'No s**t' category.
brezzzAug 26, 2010Buried
Every story is related, it's the s**t we're left with after the switch.
norman619Aug 26, 2010Buried
As many times as it takes for them to get the message.
cuervoman914Aug 26, 2010Buried
no wonder i rage so much. this s**t sucks
bauxzauxAug 26, 2010Buried
right now it's cool to hate the new digg.
torisutanAug 27, 2010Buried
All companies make concept cars. They do this to gauge public interest in new features, new styles, and names, and also to figure out what people might expect to pay for a vehicle with all those features. Then they go to the designers and say, "Take this cool concept design that everyone loves to death, make it less awesome, and give us the result". We consumers get that result.
Sure it's cheaper to make the Chevy Volt look like a Camry, but Chevy might actually have people interested in the Volt if they hadn't changed the design of the concept vehicle so much. I understand that it wasn't as aerodynamic as they wanted, and the parts were more expensive to produce, but getting 8 mpg less in exchange for a vehicle that looks like it belongs in the garage of a billionaire is a trade-off Americans are more than willing to make. The Volt as it is now just looks bland, and America won't even notice it. Chevy basically screwed itself in an effort to make a little more money per vehicle.
mabsarkAug 28, 2010Buried
Everyone should boycott Digg on Monday.
maxxellAug 27, 2010Buried
I'm not a fan of new digg, either, and lots of s**t is broken... but literally every f**king article on digg is bombarded with 'new digg sux' and 'fix digg' comments.
f**kING GET OVER IT. The errors will get fixed, the annoying s**t (hopefully) will get changed. Screwed-up upgrades happen all the time.
If you dont like the new digg, send the admins a message (if you can) and go sign up for reddit.
torisutanAug 29, 2010Buried
I'm with you, these idiots need to get over it. I can't think of ANY software or website that has ever been released without any errors. There are ALWAYS problems that need to be fixed, and they can't add every single feature at once because doing so only increases the number of errors.
Think of it this way, everyone: every line of code you write needs to work with the hierarchical logic of modern programming language (which is designed to work with our processors and their hierarchical logic, but that's the only way we can currently make them work with the "0" and "1" values of memory [elastic memory is being developed, more like the brain, but whatever]).
If you want to add a feature to a site, that's another line of code you need to write. That code HAS to work with every other line of code you've written above it. If it doesn't, you get an error. The more lines of code you write, the greater chance you'll have an error from one line not being compatible with the rest. If the site is personalized, every line of code has to reference a specific section of the server that holds the user's information, and if that is inaccessible, you get an error! It's all a giant mess of trying to get bugs out of the coding, so what professional website designers do is build a site one feature at a time.
Digg v4 probably had to be completely rewritten in order to accommodate the new feature-set. The new features would have a higher priority than the old features, as far as the staff is concerned, because they're the focus of the new Digg. They have to make sure all those features work properly first, then add the old features in one-at-a-time to make sure that every one works properly with the new features. If it has a bug, they know that it's the feature they just added, so it's easier to fix.
Ever heard the saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link"? Well, that applies to website design and programming as well. When you're making a chain, you test each link as you make it, before you add more links, because the odds of a weak link getting in there are unacceptably high if you add 10 links at a time, or 20 at a time, etc. prior to testing it. With a website you don't have the luxury of seeing very easily where the chain broke.
You all need to stop posting in every single comment thread with "I hate Digg" and "f**k New Digg" and similar comments, because all it does is annoy those of us who aren't retarded enough to complain in the first couple weeks of a release, and make the site designers rush things to get the old features written in. RUSHING THINGS IS NOT GOOD FOR PROGRAMMING.
All you're doing is making Digg suck balls for those of us who are willing to put up with a couple weeks of inadequacy.