Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.07.2008 5:55 pm

An update on the STLtoday redesign

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

We’re a day into the redesign of STLtoday and we’ve made a lot of progress in addressing many issues that arose — some issues we’ve noticed ourselves, and many you’ve brought to our attention. For example, within 30 minutes of launching the new design, some of you let us know that some key links in the classified advertising section were broken. I think we got those fixed about 31 minutes after launching the redesign.

First, here’s a link to our video tutorial about the redesign. And at the bottom of this posting, you’ll see a link to our “frequently asked questions” about the redesign.

Some have asked whether we tested the site before we launched it.

Well, of course we did.

I think many people familiar with this process will agree that sometimes, you don’t really know where the problems are until you get the site out of the garage or the test track and onto the highway, in a true production environment. I won’t suggest that’s the cause of the all the problems, but it accounted for some. Here’s a few updates on our progress — along with our thank you for coming along for the ride and for those of you who offered constructive feedback.

Pop-up ads. We know some of you have had an issue with numerous pop-up ads. We’re working on that and we think (stress, think) we have figured out the problem. Please let us know if you still see it. The more detail you can provide, the better (i.e. what browser and operating system).

Can’t find the older columns. Boy, howdy, we know this was a problem. You could read current columns, but not previous ones. We’ve made progress on that, but it’s high on our list to address.

Formatting problems. You probably have noticed some pages that weren’t formatted in our new design correctly. Prep Sports, Weather, some of our guide listing pages (i.e. restaurants, bars) and others. We’re getting to them as quickly as possible.

Site map the Today’s Post-Dispatch. Oops. We thought we had’em ready — but obviously, we didn’t. The site map is up. So is Today’s Post-Dispatch — but there’s still some tweaking to do. Thank you for your patience.

Blog text formatting. We’ve made changes there to fix the lack of text formatting — bold, italic, bulleted type and set-off quotes. All fixed.

Broken links in the dropdown. Made a lot of progress stamping out bugs there, but let us know if you still see things. Some of you have made great suggestions for items that should be in the dropdown that we overlooked, so we’re adding and tweaking as needed.

Dropdown menu under ads. Ugh, yes, we know. Working on that, too, and as we ID the ads that are causing the problems, we’re taking care of it. If you have specifics on that issue, again, we’re all ears.

Forums – we increased the number of threads! We heard about this for a long time, so we’ve bumped the number of threads per page from eight to 12.

Multimedia channel. A work in progress. Thank you for your patience.

Got more questions? Don’t forget to consult the FAQ we posted here. You can also send e-mail to sitehelp@stltoday.com.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 1 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
68 comments

Comments are closed.

The Good….loads faster

The Bad….dump the teal

The Ugly…pop ups

— countrysmooth74
8:34 am May 13th, 2008

The new site is not dialup friendly at all. It takes a lot longer to load.

— Mike M
9:57 am May 13th, 2008

I just wanted to say that the older site was my easier to use in my opinion. The new one makes it diffucult to find what you want. On the old one you could see exactly what you wanted. Here you have to weed through all of links. Plus there was a little more design effort put into the old one. I personally would like to have the other more user friendly version back.

— Jerry
10:36 am May 13th, 2008

It wasn’t broken, so why’d you “fix” it? I really, really, REALLY don’t like the new design. And it’s not that I don’t like change- I do, when it’s warranted. But you’ve made the site much less reader-friendly. The old site was great. The main page gave a much better overview of all the sections. A little bit of everything. Now, lots of things are missing. For example, there’s nothing from Life & Style on the main page- I have to click it to see any Life & Style news.

The main page is just so much emptier now, and I feel like I’m missing a lot of updated columns that used to be featured there. I suppose I’ll get used to the new format eventually, but I really don’t see why you did this useless overhaul in the first place.

— Karen D.
8:14 am May 14th, 2008

I see they now edit out the most negative comments from their feedback section as well. Nice.

There were many, many more negative responses yesterday, but somehow they mysteriously disappeared. Hmm… Cover up the criticism and the problem goes away? Nope. Still awful design and horrible functionality. Doesn’t change the facts.

It’s obvious that Mr. Greenbaum knows nothing about site design and his “About the Editor” resume is remarkably devoid of any online experience. It seems that the designer of the site enjoys the same lack of experience.

Your editors should be ashamed. I understand if there is profanity or threats or something of that nature, but most of the critical comments were trying to help you create a better product. I guess your skin is as thin as your design skills.

Stay classy Post-Dispatch. Those that want navigable sites are going elsewhere. See ya.

— ant
1:10 pm May 14th, 2008

I’ve been trying to put my finger on exactly what it is about the changes that bothers me so much, and after reading the comments here I think I’ve got it. The changes age the site about 15 years and make it look the way sites used to look when the Internet was starting out. The professional look of the old site has been replaced by something that appears to have been put together by the staff of a high school newspaper. The old site was tight, efficient, professional. The home page was chock full of information, but never felt crowded. There was just the right amount of “white” space and no wasted space. A quick glance over the page was rewarded with the high points of all the sections.

Now, not only are there vast amounts of white space (which makes what IS there look sparse), but lots of WASTED space. Why is prime space near the top wasted with a blog excerpt, reader photo, and featured forum thread? These items are a bore and should be placed elsewhere, not in a space that is one of the first places the eye hits when looking at the home page. The highlights of all the sections should be there (as they were in the old site), not stuck way down at the bottom of the page. Put the blog excerpt, reader photo, etc. at the bottom!

And like everyone else, I do not like the teal. It doesn’t just age the site 15 years- it ages it 25 years. That color just screams “80s”.

Like others who have commented here, I used to check the site a few times a day because it was such a pleasure to navigate, but sadly have not even averaged once a day since the changes were made because it just doesn’t “feel” good anymore. Everything is too hard to find.

I wonder if you might consider putting things back the way they used to be. Your readers would forgive you for the temporary lapse in judgment and go back to eagerly visiting the site. There is no shame in admitting one’s mistakes.

— Mike Sherman
3:43 pm May 14th, 2008

Ant:

If, by censorship, you’re referring to deleted comments that were off-topic or personal attacks (and, therefore, a violation of our terms of use), then we plead guilty as charged.

I could hardly imagine how anyone could read these comments and suggest we’re thin-skinned. Your reaction speaks for itself. And I’m happy to leave it where it is.

As for my credentials, well, you didn’t try very hard, did you?

— Kurt Greenbaum
4:59 pm May 14th, 2008

Please get rid of the huge quotation marks around each comment. Also, it was better when the comments were numbered. I understand there was a problem with the numbers being messed up when comments were deleted. Couldn’t this be solved by:

1. Replacing the deleted comment with a short “Comment Deleted” and leaving the number in place, OR

2. Removing the comment altogether and moving the numbers up somehow- turning what was comment 11 into comment 10, etc.

— Mike Sherman
2:17 pm May 15th, 2008

I am pleased to see that I am not alone in my distaste for your new design. As fastdata posted above, this is a NEWS site, and when I visit, I want news. In the old design, I could browse 25 to 50 story titles by simply scrolling down the page. Now I have to click half a dozen times to maybe get the information that I’m after.

Day after day, I’ve tried to give the new website a chance, but I find it easier to go to other sources….

— chiang01
6:21 pm May 15th, 2008

I’ve given the site some time to improve, Kurt, but honestly it’s almost unreadable. The format of the stories is really difficult to read. Since when did the Web site stop putting spaces between the paragraphs? All of the text runs together in one big, gray mush. It honestly wouldn’t be so bad if the stories at least were easy to read. I don’t know what you guys were thinking, or who you have advising you on this new site, but it really misses the mark and I’ve had enough. I’m only coming back if some kind of emergency hits St. Louis. Looks like this is the perfect opportunity for the St. Louis Beacon to overtake STLtoday as the place for online news. You’ve lost this loyal reader.

— Jason
5:32 pm May 16th, 2008

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 » Show All