New Digg vs. Old Digg: Which one do you prefer? (Poll Closed)

24,821 Total Votes

  • Dan - 10 years ago

    Clearly, you had your reasons for dropping the new format and algorithms on the digg community.

    However, we've seen no indications that those reasons included any meaningful contact with those who use the site. If so, their voices and recommendations would have included substantive, functional changes (improvements) that could have been introduced, and tested, in a more sequential process.

    Instead, apparently, your "creative team" tried to do most or all of the "thinking," designed a retrogressive "new" look and functionality, and ended up with a revolt. Duh!

    You may control digg, but you don't "own" digg. That remains in the keyboards of its users. You need to relate to, communicate with the "owners" before deciding on a massive "remake." All of those who use digg are stakeholders. Ignore them at your peril.

  • anon - 10 years ago

    i'm not an active digger, in that i never contribute and this is my first time ever leaving a comment. but i was pretty addicted to the website before the change -- checked it multiple times per day, really liked it. it was getting to the point where i had to consciously limit how much time i spent surfing it. but the new digg has solved my problem for me. i spend almost zero time on it...for me, it's a downgrade in every way. don't like the layout, don't understand it, not nearly as easy to get to interesting stories. immediately, my daily time on digg dropped from around 2 hours (counting time bouncing around links from digg stories) to maybe 5 minutes. and that's only because i'm still in the habit of going to the website...that's fading too. if it doesn't change, this (albeit inactive) digger will end up never coming back, simply because it's no longer enjoyable. just my two cents

  • Eric - 10 years ago

    The problem with the 'new Digg' is that it basically took a hammer straight to the heart of the Digg community, and smashed it...

    ...In the hopes of dividing diggers amongst their individual friend circles (a la Facebook), and handing over pretty much all of the generated top news content over to actual news organizations/websites/blogs/etc... The result of which was of course the loss (pretty much overnight) of the spirit of Digg, with regards to its usual quirky stories and/or actual news worthy headlines that would've made it to the front page.

    Rather than voting on stories like the end of the Iraq War (which for all intents and purposes would've generated a substantial debate on Digg), you're left with headlines about Leo Laporte doing whatever, or Paris Hilton being her usual slutty self... (i.e. mostly blogs and news websites using the site simply as promotional ad space now).

    All in all, Digg 4 is just an ill-conceived mess that could've easily been avoided. As things stand now, I have no reason whatsoever to visit Digg any longer.

  • Timbo - 10 years ago

    My usual routine used to be to check out Google News first, for the conventional news. Then I would scan through Digg for the colorful, offbeat, quirky, creative and truly interesting news. Voting stories down was just as important to me as voting them up. I felt that my tastes and opinions mattered, at least a little.

    The new Digg seems pretty similar to Google News. No point in going there.

  • zzzzz - 10 years ago

    Any site that has users expressing disapproval globalism and tyranny or the like is either systematically incapacitated, shutdown, locked-up with new requirements for membership/passwords, or they're outright attacked by the media by the way of propagated lies that incrementally uprise internal bickering about useless and petty crap.

    I'm not the least bit surprised digg is going the way of incapacitation; it's like the tyrants behind digg are intentionally turning digg's users against them in order to make digg's most naive users stupidly appreciative for what little they've been provided all along. In other words, over the recent years, digg has been allowing major political parties and corporations to take more control of the content, and digg has been tricking users into believing that they didn't suffer from that before the *new* digg arrived.

  • Celino - 10 years ago

    If you want to see if people prefer the new or old Digg, don't you want people who actually use Digg?
    Sort of dumb to add the option "Neiter, I'm not a fan of Digg"

  • sa - 10 years ago


  • saeed - 10 years ago

    how about as long as I can remember
    its been and then
    for as long as I can remember
    why do you change a thing that is working for you!
    you must be at the verge of selling to high paying buyer
    you have just lost trust of many people and have become all the other crap that is infesting the internet
    i checked your website everyday for at the very least from its existance
    and than for a few months it was about advertising wasn't it you pigs
    it was only about money
    you build yourselves up, and now you want to sell to someone else for MONEY
    good luck
    I will be looking for and alternative
    you SUCK

  • saeed - 10 years ago

    hmmmm check everyday , the preivous person said everyday,

  • Alastair - 10 years ago

    I check digg almost everyday. I've never contributed a story. But now it sucks. Can someone just create the old site somewhere and give me the link?

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment