New site design

[mikere]

Why????

The new site looks slick, but is far far worse. What happened to race maps and profiles????? And also, please don't put who won a race in the headline! Soemtimes i like to read the whole live report even if the race is over! I am not sure what you think you are improving, but i give it a big thumbs down.

 

[lanceolot]

My proposal for the new, improved site. Tell me if you like it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010118201700/http://www.cyclingnews.com/

 

[Derry Walsh]

Send the message to CN sponser/advertisers

Take a minute and email a sponser or advertiser from CN. Ask them to pass on the message about how bad the new site is back to CN. This might get CN's attentions.

 

[micmat]

This new site is far too busy---I joined this forum basically to post feedback to this effect.
I feel that you should have stuck to the KISS principle.
The previous version was simple, clear and concise and easy to check several times a day at a glance--i doubt if I will bother more often than weekly now,if at all

 

[jfo-ny]

bad to worse!

The new design looks more professional, in a corporate way, but is much harder (ie necessary) to navigate. Your idea of features = bloat, redundancy.

The old site was simpler, easier and quicker.

Yes, revenue generated by click throughs, pages etc but you're just driving people to find another alternative. So corporate.

like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0

why is this hard?

Design: Less = more
News: information not production
/rant.

 

[jfo-ny]

More Hate for new design

When I posted the previous comment I got booted to a "you're not logged in" page"

I hate this corporate BS!

I had to re-log and re-post. A five minute activity turns into a 20 minute ordeal.

The letters to CN was better - forums suck! vox pop = ok, mob rules = not ok

4 million opinions for what? there are other better, purpose designed forum sites, letters was quick and personal. I had to register for this? this sucks!

You are quickly turning something trouble free, informational and fun into a hassle.

 

[jfo-ny]

I see a pattern here...

CN readers: I don't like this new site design, philosophy or treatment by the site admins, designers, editors, owners etc.

New CN staff: we hear you and don't care, are not responsible, and in any case - since all websites/news organizations/corporations/whatever we care to quote/ do it this way, you can suck it

I see the birth of a new website as immanent... and the death of an old one as inevitable.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[stpete300]

FAIL.

That is, you, cyclingnews, have failed. I've spent all week with the new version of the site, there were initially obvious things like the spoilers that I really reacted negatively to, and there are small tweaks that were just bothersome, still I held out and tried to use the site as I usually would to give it a chance.

Honestly, who is driving this thing? The beauty of the old site, as clunky and old school as it may have been, was its simplicity and the ease with which it presented readers with the information they came for. The new site, while still full of information, has me chasing it all down all over the place. It's not the clickthroughs that I mind so much, tho' I do mind them, it's dismal navigational design of each page.

Let's take a stage of the TdSuisse for example. On the old site, no spoilers on the home page, a single click brings me to the recap, photos and ALL of the results. Basic, fast, fun, informative. Now I know the winner before the home page has even finished loading...which often just ticks me off so much, I navigate away from the site completely. If I do stick around, I have to click away from the recap to get the FULL results and then go back a few to even look at the photos. This is not brain surgery...The old site is clearly better by any standard, design or otherwise. It worked, this does not. If your aim was to force people into more clickthroughs, nice job, unfotunately, it's probably gonna cost you so many readers, the few clickthroughs you do get are not going to pay the bills.

Why segregate the road, MTB, track and 'cross sections so much? Most readers like all kinds of bike racing, tho' they may spend more time with one discipline. I liked reading about MTB races when links popped up in the course of reading about road races. The old site lured me to other things. The new site walls up each discpline and discourages any cross-over clicking. Why not have the home page include headlines from all four areas? Seems pretty simple to me.

The center column is now full of redundent news. You've provided headlines to all the individual stories and then, below, provided links to the daily editions, which, oddly enough, contain links to all the individual stories. Did I mention that this is redundent? Come on, this is a huge waste of space.

Why on earth would you change a site that people loved and turn it into a nearly exact copy of bikeradar.com, a site, frankly, that I had never heard of before this whole debacle? Content is king, and you guys have just gone and buried him.

So what prompted this? Laziness? Lack of funds? Lack of imagination? I'm sure I haven't said anything new here, I hope that adding my 1.5 cents makes that ringing in your ears a little louder.

In the meantime, I'm going to go check out velonews, they used to suck, but who knows...I guess it's all relative.

 

[pharaonic]

Form over Function

I've read most of the responses re the new site design. I agree that it is much worse than the old site. Three things that bug me (and others it seems):

1. Navigation is crap.
2. Spoilers.
3. Not mobile friendly

No need to reiterate the arguments for these here - that's been done eloquently (and otherwise) many times already.

The old site had some issues (mainly aesthetic) but the new one represents a classic example of a victory of form over function.

 

[Matt OBee]

My main impression about this new site is that its a disappointing new direction. I always thought the previous design was what any sports website should aspire to be, a clear, open and easy to navigate site that was bursting with easily accessible information and features. I just noticed, when now you look at a race result, there are no longer a list of pictures from the days race!. Now its a crap copy of the bikeradar site, which, when that changed from the previous procycling website, i stopped visiting. You all should take note of what happened with Facebook when they attempted to change their site, they forgot the main reason people came to the site was because they had got it right, the same will probably happen with cyclingnews, unless you all reassert your identity as 'cyclingnews', the until now best cycling news website by miles. The more complex and packed a site is, the worse it is to navigate and enjoy, its as simple as that., and that is what you have done to this site. Please dont insult our intelligence by merely replying 'it'll take time to get used to', ive given myself enough time to make up my mind. Youve taken the opinions of website designers who's main aim is just to have the most fancy, elaborate, sophisticated and multi-faceted site at the expense of the people who make cyclingnews so popular, its readers. I hope you reconsider the changes you have made, and the contract you signed when you all sold out isnt for too long, so the old cyclingnews can eventually return.Take a poll and i guarantee the negative responses will outweigh the positives. I'm off to the eurosport.yahoo.com/cycling page, velonews.com and to any other site i can get what i used to from this one page.

 

[frankrevi]

Where do you stand?

From post 840:

...the theory about BikeRadar and Cyclingnews isn't correct - while they share some similarities visually at the front end, Cyclingnews was built from a clean sheet of paper, so to speak. BR has no results/race engine to begin with, doesn't publish editions of news etc. - so CN is a from scratch job. Even the back ends of both websites are completely different.

Greg: Again, decouple the back end from the UI in your thinking. Your readers are not concerned with the back end and that's the way it should be. The fact that the back end of CN is different from BR is totally irrelevant to your readers, even though it's huge for you (and rightly so).

It is utterly obvious that that the BikeRadar user interface was used as a template for CN, and Stefan even said as much (post #265):

Does the new CN look like BikeRadar? A blind man can see that it does, and of course this was deliberate. ...it allows us to have a more consistent style across our bike websites.

When you say there are "some similarities visually" between the new CN and BikeRadar, that's really disingenuous, and it's just plain insulting.

Some of the decisions made aren't popular, I get that, but we've called a spade a spade, told you what we can do based off the feedback...We've informed you of the things that won't be changing....

1. When you say you're getting that some decisions are unpopular, you appear dense. If, on the other hand, you realize that a huge number of your users are furious at the changes you made and are quite consistent in expressing a number of major, specific design decisions to which they object, then saying that some decisions are unpopular is disingenuous. You're not dense.
2. Phrasing it "decisions made" is corporatespeak to avoid ownership of the decisions and place them beyond scrutiny. It says you're not open to consider your decisions.
3. You have not called a spade a spade. What you have done is to deal in an upfront manner with a few highly specific presentation and functionality bugs; this is commendable. You have announced that you will not address several major complaints of a large number of loyal readers, and bad design flaws; OK, that's a spade, but it's not commendable. You have completely avoided addressing any of the remaining problems - the silence is deafening.
4. You have told us, in a very few cases of highly specific feedback, what you are willing to do. You have ignored all other feedback. You have announced that certain major reader concerns will not be addressed, sometimes claiming it "can't" be done, without further explanation. The fact is that every problem with your user interface and your design decisions can in fact be solved in an efficient straightforward way. The only holdup is the decisions to do so - that's none of our business as readers, fair enough. But understand that this generates user revolt.
5. Claiming to be transparent like this is disingenuous and insulting. If you wonder why you feel like readers think you're the face of evil, first of all that's an overreaction, and second of all this is why.

Yet, you'd rather us hire a PR company to manage perception - which, lets be honest, is all they do...

You don't need a PR firm to feed your readers bull****, you need to understand how to properly communicate with your readers. On second thought, you have a good point, maybe PR wouldn't do that for you. But please take the main point to heart: you need to understand how to properly communicate with your readers.

That starts with the design of your site's user interface.

I hope this helps you and influences Future Publishing.

 

[Burkni]

Time to say goodbye

Just signed up for the forum to bid farewell to what was once in my opinion the best web site of any kind in the world. The new site is not something I am interesting in frequenting, all my complaints have already been voiced in this thread. I have now for the first time ever opened up Velonews and bookmarked their site and mobile site.

Thank you for all the good years, Cyclingnews.

 

[le_mond]

new design

this is my first post, as i feel the CN team need as many responses as possible to make decent decisions on the future of the site.

as with many, i've been visiting for years on a daily basis. i'm not someone who reads all the race reports in detail, but like to keep tabs on all that's happening in the news, check out the new products, and generally feel part of the sport.

the spoilers aren't a deal breaker for me (and i rarely checked out the course profiles), but i understand they are for the majority

however, with race results that read 1, 1 and 1, instead of 10, 11 and 12 is a pain. can't wait for the tour when the numbers are constantly over 100. and not easily being able 'click through' the photos easily is a major hindrance.

on first impression, the site looks good, but for those of us who know what we're after, it's a pain in the ****. why can one story be in the 'today on cycling news', 'news last updated' and 'news editions last updated'??? surely it only needs to be in the 'news last updated' until it can be put into the latter. this would save a huge amount of space, right? i love the fact that with the daily overview you can click on specific stories, and this feature negates the need to repeat the story again.

i'm not quite in the camp of bringing back the old site, but the face of the site needs all the features (plus a couple of the new improved features) that we all love and cherish.

i also enjoy listening to the scripted podcast. not this week though as there wasn't one. i trust daniel was too busy sorting out all these issues, to ensure there is a future for this site. i hope so.

i too have googled pez and velo news and the others. none touch the old cycling news, but rarely are break-ups easy.

ps. and why is stage 7 used for 1-day races?

 

[pedrospeeps]

The number is rising

From post 840:


Greg: Again, decouple the back end from the UI in your thinking. Your readers are not concerned with the back end and that's the way it should be. The fact that the back end of CN is different from BR is totally irrelevant to your readers, even though it's huge for you (and rightly so).

It is utterly obvious that that the BikeRadar user interface was used as a template for CN, and Stefan even said as much (post #265):



When you say there are "some similarities visually" between the new CN and BikeRadar, that's really disingenuous, and it's just plain insulting.


1. When you say you're getting that some decisions are unpopular, you appear dense. If, on the other hand, you realize that a huge number of your users are furious at the changes you made and are quite consistent in expressing a number of major, specific design decisions to which they object, then saying that some decisions are unpopular is disingenuous. You're not dense.
2. Phrasing it "decisions made" is corporatespeak to avoid ownership of the decisions and place them beyond scrutiny. It says you're not open to consider your decisions.
3. You have not called a spade a spade. What you have done is to deal in an upfront manner with a few highly specific presentation and functionality bugs; this is commendable. You have announced that you will not address several major complaints of a large number of loyal readers, and bad design flaws; OK, that's a spade, but it's not commendable. You have completely avoided addressing any of the remaining problems - the silence is deafening.
4. You have told us, in a very few cases of highly specific feedback, what you are willing to do. You have ignored all other feedback. You have announced that certain major reader concerns will not be addressed, sometimes claiming it "can't" be done, without further explanation. The fact is that every problem with your user interface and your design decisions can in fact be solved in an efficient straightforward way. The only holdup is the decisions to do so - that's none of our business as readers, fair enough. But understand that this generates user revolt.
5. Claiming to be transparent like this is disingenuous and insulting. If you wonder why you feel like readers think you're the face of evil, first of all that's an overreaction, and second of all this is why.


You don't need a PR firm to feed your readers bull****, you need to understand how to properly communicate with your readers. On second thought, you have a good point, maybe PR wouldn't do that for you. But please take the main point to heart: you need to understand how to properly communicate with your readers.

That starts with the design of your site's user interface.

I hope this helps you and influences Future Publishing.

This is another example of a great post. As I have said, I wish I could write like this. Greg, you have taken part of my advice and stopped replying to the post. I do hope you are getting a PR firm to work for you, it could save your bacon...that's not waffle (I worked for PR firms installing computer systems back in 90's and they save many large companies) Now you guys are not responding (as my advice) I am beginning to miss you, at least it was human. The treatment we are getting here is inhuman..so I guess you can't win.

Thanks for the wonderful post here. I hope others will come forward to give such a thoughtful reply.

 

[Cant Climb]

The old site was Phil Ligget.

The new site is Bob Varsha.

 

[GoodbyeCN]

We're not middle school children...

...we don't need slick flash and pseudo-"functionality".
I am another first time poster here to express my disapproval and say that I am not returning. Today was my first time visiting the forum. I had no reason to visit the forum previously, because I could get the information I wanted from the website. I can't do that anymore. I visited the forum to see if other people had the same problems with the new design that I've been having since the change. I found this thread.
Cycling fans do not seem to me much like most of the general public that is awed by cool flash windows and fancy website designs. Cycling fans are generally geeks (no offense to anybody). They want a simple interface that will quickly quench their need for information and lots of pictures. They also want to be able to quickly access the review of a product or coverage of a race from ten years ago. CN does not provide this service anymore.
The catastrophe of this site makes me appreciate the brilliance of ESPN.com. They acquired one of the most popular NASCAR websites, jayski.com. Started as a news site by just one person, it was popular because it was simple: mostly text, easy to follow, loaded quickly, full of archived information, no unnecessary emphasis on "functionality". Basically, it appealed to geeky fans. ESPN did not change the site, they just gave it more resources. It is still popular.
I am not ambitious enough to start my own website that fills the gaping hole created by the recent destruction of cyclingnews.com, but I hope somebody else is and I find their site soon.
Congratulations to the new management on their ride to success, I've cracked and you've dropped me.

 

[Red Lobster]

Add another vote to the "fail" column on the site redesign, especially as to how results are displayed and the spoiler issue . . . both of which have been adequately discussed.

 

[Cant Climb]

..We're not middle school children... .

Yup.....not sure if has been mentioned yet.

The old site was much much more conducive to checking/reading at work. It was quick and could be shrunk to be much more stealth.

Most serious cyclists also have a solid professional career. We don't need slow loading, lots of clicks, and flash.

 

[trip221]

I can only hope that the designers read the forums. Until the site is as easy to navigate and has all the race coverage and pictures as before I will read cycling related news on other sites. I am bummed - the old CN website was like a trusted friend that I would visit every morning to catch up. But going to the new website is not fun. And if we need to hit them where it hurts - make sure you don't click on any of the advertisements from CN. That will only make them think they've made things better.

 

[maxlite]

I've had enough!

Really trying to give this site a go.....but I'm not getting there.

For example all results whether they were road/mtb/track/cross came up in order of event date in ONE list now you have to click on specific cat.... you just miss things.

Ease of access/use has gone out of the window

RIP, CN

 

[TreeFiddy]

you suck, loser...get f.uc.ked

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The old site was Phil Ligget.

The new site is Bob Varsha.

Great analogy.

 

[redcliffs]

I can live with the redesign, but the spoilers are a deal breaker -- too bad, because so much of the news here makes for really great reading.

 

[fergnago]

The old site was Phil Ligget.

The new site is Bob Varsha.

No the new site is Adrian Karsten

 

[BroDeal]

No the new site is Adrian Karsten

When does the Kirsten Gumm version come out?