By now you’ve undoubtedly seen the Tatler’s new look, and several of you have taken the time to write in or comment and let us know what you think. We truly appreciate your feedback, even if you don’t like what we’ve done with the blog. In fact, constructive feedback can help us keep improving the site.
Now, about the changes themselves. We went to the two-column format for a few reasons. Under the previous format, readers had to scroll up and down to get around the site and past posts that might not be of interest. It was more difficult to see the broad range of content that we might have up, and check the site’s headlines at a glance. The new look puts more content up front at a glance, with about 10-15 posts and Scuttlebutt headlines on screen the second you enter the site. The new Tatler look is more of a news dashboard than a scrolling blog.
The word “awful” has been tossed around at the Tatler’s new look, but the fact is, the two-column format is a proven success. If our format is awful, so is that of Hot Air, The Blaze, Power Line, even our own front page and many many other news and opinion sites out there. Publishers use this format because it works. We adopted this format because it works both for readers and authors. Readers can see more content at a glance and can more easily select what you want to read; authors get to have their content displayed longer on the front page than the previous format allowed, giving it more time to catch on.
And let’s be candid: Web sites depend on traffic to survive. We’re no exception. When you click on a story in the new format, you’re rewarding the author with measurable hits that we could not see or measure in the old format. You’re helping us understand what you care about, both in clicks and comments.
Change is a hassle, especially when it hits without warning. As the editor around here who has put the past few months of my life into the Tatler, I hope you all stick around and help us keep growing the site. We’re nothing without our readers. Perhaps no one understands that or feels it more strongly than I do. So stick with us, and hopefully we’ll all get used to and come to appreciate the Tatler’s new look.
You get overwhelmingly negative feedback, and respond that the 2-column format works elsewhere?
Whatever happened to The Tatler being a new kind of PJM outlet, one that isn’t the same as other places? A place with quick hits unlike a normal blog?
It actually took me a while to figure out what the whole “2-column” thing was talking about, being that I normally link from the Tatler column on the main PJM site…..but, since we’re dishin’ it out, why on earth would you cut the Tatler links on the front page in half for in order to boost the new Lifestyle pages? Couldn’t those inches have come out of the endless Instapundit feed?
cthulhu:
As a fan of The Tatler, and as one who liked the old format, I have to ask why the vehemence? Bryan agrees that change is a hassle, and asks for suggestions. You reply with a lot of hostility, such as “You get overwhelmingly negative feedback, and respond that the 2-column format works elsewhere?” PJM is part of an evolving industry. Unlike newspapers, online news sites are not centuries old. So they try new things. As a Customer Service Coordinator for a major tech brand, I can assure you that, by about a 99-to-one ratio, complainers outnumber praise-givers. What looks to you like “overwhelmingly negative feedback” simply reflects the minority of readers who are annoyed enough by the change to comment. People who are delighted by the clarity of the screen, now, and the ease of seeing who’s posting on what subjects, are, by definition, not going to write in. Until I read your intemperate comment, I wasn’t going to comment. But I happen to be delighted with the new look, and my guess is that there are more happy campers than hostile, enraged ones. If you’re pleased, you just enjoy the new lay-out.
Don’t presume “overwhelmingly negative feedback” to be the majority view. It’s only the majority view of people
angry enough to rant. From the minute I first saw it early this morning, I was delighted by how easy it is to read and to navigate. This is what makes horse-racing, as my Uncle Dag used to say, on his way to the track. People have differing opinions, and the ranters always want to weigh in while the ones with no complaints don’t complain. You could even call us the silent majority.
I’m sorry, I’d need to see evidence that you really are a majority.
For all you or I know, many of the “silent” could also dislike the new format, but may be remaining silent because us more vocal folks have already expressed dismay with it.
Absent any evidence of the “silent” group’s feelings, the above speculation is just as valid as yours is. And the only way to get that evidence is for the “silent” to break their silence.
So, I make this challenge… if you like the new format, say so! Say it loud and proud! Let’s see which group really is more represented in the comments right here.
Fair enough. I like the new format. It is easier on the eyes. Well organized. Easy to navigate. It works for me.
I’ll take your challenge. I’m happy with the new format. I think they did a fine job.
I’ll respond. As a web designer myself, I find the new design brilliant. You see everything at a glance and can click on whatever piques your interest. I don’t like change for its own sake, but these are improvements, IMHO.
A vote from the “silent majority.” I vote aye.
Good evening, ConservativeWanderer. I’m not wandering away from the Tatler. Add me to the silent majority.
Good evening, ConservativeWanderer. I’m not wandering away from the Tatler. Add me to the yeas.
Blogguy gives thumbs up. Two thumbs up.
Stunning. Much better than old Tatler.
Two more thumbs up.
By my count (and it is 0500 and I haven’t had my morning caffeine yet, so please attribute any counting errors to those factors), as of this posting we have:
Like it: 8
Dislike it: 19
Sorry, guys and gals, so far the “silent majority” isn’t a majority.
If you’re really out there counting CW, here’s another yes vote.
You’ve made great changes. I’m in favor.
yup. big improvement.
I didn’t see any particular vehemence on my part. I merely pointed out that “everyone is doing it” is a particularly poor argument for redesigning an area that was originally showcased as “new and different”. I’d been seeing ad-hoc criticisms popping up in a variety of posts, so “overwhelmingly negative feedback” was merely descriptive. For this to be labeled “intemperate” and a “rant” weawwy huwts my widduw feewings…. ’cause I’ve pitched an intemperate rant or two in my day and this was several orders of magnitude different.
I should also note that I changed tone when I gave voice to my own discomfort, regarding the bisection of the Tatler real estate on the main page. There’s a difference between observations and opinions.
It’s also amusing that I got 18 lines of ad hominem treatment for three lines of reportage and four lines of personal feedback on a peripheral issue. Eliot Miller’s three responses also stand out. Were you guys consultants on the change? — you guys seem awfully defensive. O’Toole’s jumping all over Dan Murphy also seems a bit tone-deaf. As I had noted, there was a lot of simmering in various other posts before Bryan put this one up — and stepping into a drama in progress is the wrong time to get on one’s judgmental high-horse.
I get the idea on the ‘click thru’ thing – could we fix that with a simple check box to indicate that we’ve read or linked to the page? Yhe Tatler page is the primary bookmarked Pajamas page I check on my Android when traveling and the new format doesn’t work as well. Rather than loading and reading a single page, I have to navigate between several pages. It’s a problem on the Hot Air site also.
For those of us who really liked scrolling through the blog posts chronologically, is it possible to insert on each post a link to the immediately preceding post and immediately following post? Instapundit does this on his blog.
That’s in the works.
Thanks. That’s great news. I know these website changes are difficult and expensive and time-consuming. I don’t envy you this task. And the willingness to consider reasonable, practical requests from regular readers is much appreciated.
This is done, Chipper. The post-to-post nav is up in the little space between the masthead and the post.
While the new format presents more headlines in less space I have already discovered that I learn less. I dislike having to click back and forth just to find out if I want to read more. The previous format gave enough of each article that by the time I had to click to read the rest (when necessary) I already knew whether or not I was interested enough to do so. I read very few articles on the PJM main page or other sites that use a headline and very short summary approach and now the same is happening with the Tatler. Efficiency in presenting headlines is not always the best option for educating the reader since it often leads to readeers selecting headlines that reflect what they already believe.
You say it works well at Hot Air, Power Line, etc., but you appear to miss the point. I stopped reading Ed Morrissey on a regular basis when he moved from the Captain’s Quarters to Hot Air precisely because of the format. Same for Power Line. The ONLY time I visit these sites now is when they are linked from elsewhere, and I already know that I want to read the full post. I don’t like the front page of PJM either, and seldom go to the highlighted articles except when I have run out of Tattler and Instapundit material, or Glenn links to the post and I go from his site. Since you practically forced the Daily Digest on us; we get the same article summaries via e-mail that are on the home page anyway. Nonetheless, PJM has been my home page now for several years, pretty much since Roger (with help) started PJM. I had made a conscious decision that I wanted to support what PJM was doing in my small way in the form of constant traffic to the PJM site. It’s been my home page on both my work and home PCs longer than any in the past, but all good things come to an end. Bryan, your “you don’t know what’s good for you, the new format is really better, you’re just too stupid to know that” leftist attitude is insulting as well. That’s no way to speak with your readers. I’m sure I’ll visit from time to time, but as for PJM being my web home, it’s time to move on.
Dan, Dan, get a grip, fella.
What part of Bryan’s post that specifically said, “In fact, constructive feedback can help us keep improving the site” do you construe as, in your translation, “you don’t know what’s good for you, the new format is really better, you’re just too stupid to know that” leftist attitude is insulting as well.”
To quote many great Americans, “Huh” and also “Excuse me?”
If you have spent as long as, say, a nano-second reading Bryan Preston, you would know (1) he’s a very reasonable man (2) very smart (3) a great sense of humor and (4) he doesn’t have a “leftist attitude” bone in his body.
Who and what the heck are you commenting on? Certainly nothing written, above, by Bryan Preston. He explicitly, like in plain English, wrote “In fact, constructive feedback can help us keep improving the site”
So, give the guy some constructive criticism, already and lose your attitude. So they made some changes. Hey, I’m sorry to be the messenger of bad news, but—how can I break this to you?—stuff changes. Most people, apparently including the dudes at PJM, are looking to make improvements. You gotta give them credit for that. If you don’t agree with their improvements, don’t beat up a guy who has clearly asked for suggestions to tweak the new look. That wasn’t an invitation to use him to vent whatever anger you’ve built up today.
Sorry you’re having a bad head day, but you owe Bryan and your fellow readers an apology. Attack mode isn’t your best strategy to move The Tatler’s site design into a direction you’d prefer.
Just try being an effective communicator instead of a grumpy old man. Doesn’t lead to constructive change and just makes you out to be a troll.
No one listens to suggestions delivered as an insult.
What you don’t know, Mr. O’Toole, is that I had already sent in an e-mail earlier today directly to PJM before this was posted, letting PJM know how disappointed I was with the change. Then Bryan decides with this post to respond in a mildly condescending fashion about trends, and how this is much more functional to use (e.g. “The new look puts more content up front at a glance, with about 10-15 posts and Scuttlebutt headlines on screen the second you enter the site. The new Tattler look is more of a news dashboard than a scrolling blog.”) He then lists other prominent web sites which have done the same thing. I responded, and specifically addressed that this is the major reason I don’t frequent those sites, and specifically mention why I don’t care for the format. And yes, I did toss in a single mildly insulting line to counter Bryan’s condescending tone.
And yes his overall post is mildly condescending, and yes, while not exclusively, a condescending attitude is one hallmark of the leftist.
So, yes, a bit of insulting sting was intended, but my post was certainly far, far milder than yours, and I stuck with the subject and author whereas you’ve jumped in to address another commentator, not the post itself, or the subject of the change, and readers who are unhappy with it. Please note that commenter #7, Mysterian1729 seems to agree with my sentiment
And as for you, Mr. O’Toole, you are obviously just a jerk. You’ve spent way more time insulting me right back, both with your tone (“get a grip”) and references to me being a troll and a grumpy old man, or my reading comprehension. Are you trying to convince me or anyone else that we should give the new format a chance, or did you just see this as an opportunity to be a jerk for 7 paragraphs?
And try taking your own advice: “Just try being an effective communicator instead of a grumpy old man. Doesn’t lead to constructive change and just makes you out to be a troll. No one listens to suggestions delivered as an insult.”
I’m with O’Toole, on this one, Dan. You’ve been way out of line, and you deserved every word O’Toole wrote. You see condescension where it doesn’t exist. That says something about you. You’re an embarrassment to all Murphys, including me.
I second Sean’s comment. O’Toole’s comments to you, while
stern, were warranted. PJM isn’t then place to take out your anger management issues.
O’Toole was fair. You were over the top, and didn’t know it. Tells us a lot that you can’t see it.
Harrison O’Toole: “Attack mode isn’t your best strategy to move The Tatler’s site design into a direction you’d prefer.”
Bryan Preston: “So stick with us, and hopefully we’ll all get used to and come to appreciate the Tatler’s new look.”
>> It would appear that there is no best strategy to move The Tatler’s design into any other direction.
H O’T: “Just try being an effective communicator instead of a grumpy old man.”
BP: “Change is a hassle, especially when it hits without warning.”
>> Is it being “grumpy”, or getting “hassled” by something that “hits without warning”?
H O’T: “No one listens to suggestions delivered as an insult.”
BP: “We truly appreciate your feedback, even if you don’t like what we’ve done with the blog. In fact, constructive feedback can help us keep improving the site.”
>> “….even if you don’t like what we’ve done….” intentionally devalues contrary opinions. It’s like saying, “we love everyone, even if they’re Catholic.” You can try to read that as inclusive, but it says that there are good and sufficient reasons to dismiss them, and they’re being treated along with the others out of the goodness of our generous hearts. Try reading it with any minority group substituted in — try “Texan”, for instance. It’s dismissive and insulting.
I think Dan Murphy is ahead on points. Maybe he should be receiving some apologies.
Why would you intentionally take BP’s quote out of context?
That’s what lawyers & journos do when they want to frame someone.
What he actually wrote was this:
“We truly appreciate your feedback, even if you don’t like what we’ve done with the blog. In fact, constructive feedback can help us keep improving the site.”
Taking his words out of that context is an unfair tactic. I disagree with you and I agree with HO’T that Dan Murphy owes BP an apology.
And you’re lucky PJM hasn’t taken down all your comments for saying “And as for you, Mr. O’Toole, you are obviously just a jerk.”
See Rule 3 for comments.
There’s something going on with your comments between the lines and in them. Hope you feel better tomorrow.
I must agree. I do not enjoy the new format. And I say that as a very long-time commenter here as you can probably determine from your logs.
The “click-thru” rate can be measured on the longer posts by having the author put the first paragraph or two on the front page then adding the familiar–and very commonly-used in blogging, since that seems to be one of your metrics–(More) tag at the bottom. People who are interested based on the displayed information will click, those that aren’t won’t.
However, the current format does not give enough information to truly determine if the content will be of interest. You’ll probably end up skewing the results in the direction of more hits, because people will click on items that they really aren’t interested in, because they can’t tell that they’re not interested from the headline or the very short blurbs on the main page.
I stopped reading Michelle Malkin’s blog when she went to a similar format. I have friends here, both among commenters and a couple of very kind authors, so I will not leave immediately, but if I have to click on every single story, or even most stories, to see if it’s of interest, I’ll quickly tire of that game.
As a regular (too regular, probably) reader of The Tatler, I’d be sorry to see you go because I’ve always liked your comments. Why not give these guys a chance to respond to your concerns before packing your bags.
As I said, I’m not leaving immediately. I’ll see what Bryan comes up with–if anything–to address the concerns I and others have raised.
If I was being crass, I might insert a plug for my own humble little blog here, but I won’t. (LOL!)
I second Dan Murphy.
Bryan, you cite Power Line as another example of this new format. They are a frequent stop on my Daily Blog Patrol and I don’t like it there either but I do think their execution is better in that at least you get a paragaraph or so of the post. Tatler appears to be just a headline without even the Drudge trick of clever juxtaposition to pique one’s interest and the clicking through and back on each one to see if I want to read more is too time consuming when I’m just trying to catch up quickly on goings on between tasks at work.
Also, to paraphrase everyone’s mom, if all the other kids are jumping off a cliff does that make it a good idea?
It’s looking a little better this morning, Bryan, with the most recent posts having a little of the content. I still prefer scrolling up and down which is way faster than click, wait, click back, wait, repeat.
Add me to the “hate it” column. ConservativeWanderer made all the salient points that I totally agree with. I used to regularly read Powerline – scrolling by what didn’t interest me (usually determined by the first paragraph). Now, I find myself reading almost nothing, since they “new and improved” to this format.
I will click on one or perhaps two of your specific authors, but will probably read a lot less of The Tatler than I used to.
It’s not that we are resistant to change, but that the change is not as user friendly as the original format.
Personally, I prefer a chronological scroll format, it’s more pertinent to the news cycle and a reader gets a feeling how contributors relate to each others viewpoints and opinions. The new format kills the topic riffing that made Tatler fun to read. Instead of stopping by a couple of times a day to scroll thru the postings and interactions, I just clicked thru to a couple of random posts and when I couldn’t move easily to the next post I clicked out.
Sorry, but you’ve lost me as a regular reader, as did Hot Air and Powerline.
Here’s a perfect example of what I pointed out above… serious flaws in the new design. A headline from the “new, improved” Tatler says:
Does that really convey the sense of, say, this paragraph in the article inside?
Or this one?
The headline might hint at such commentary, but it doesn’t really indicate what’s inside. If I hadn’t already read the Politico story upon which it’s based, I probably would have had no idea what the heck the story was about.
Add me to the “hate it” list. This format is an absolute disaster on a small format screen like an iPod Touch or the iPhone. The Tattler used to be my number one read on my iPhone because it loaded quickly and did not require the clicking back and forth. But having to constantly go back forth between pages makes reading this site extremely slow.
Like some other commenters, I don’t read Powerline much any more, nor do I bother with some of the other sites that have adopted this format. You know who I read a lot? Stacy McCain’s site, which is not graphics intensive and loads quickly.
First and second impressions…I hate it. Seriously, I thought it was annoying enough that you guys seem to have instituted a policy of splitting all posts/articles over 2 paragraphs into two-pagers. Presumably you do so in pursuit of increasing “clicks” and therefore page views (along with the corresponding ad views), but if so, you’re measuring the wrong things. I’ve got no problem with you guys boosting your revenue but at a certain point it’s more of a pain to navigate the site than it’s worth, in my opinion. So instead of forcing me to chase content across multiple pages you just remind me that I really don’t *need* to read this.
In corporatese, PJM is losing sight of their core competencies.
– Annoying ads that distract from the actual content? Check.
– Comment areas that require people to opt-out of newsletter subscription (rather than respecting people’s privacy by default)? Check.
– Making people click through multiple pages in order to read even short blurbs? Check.
Personally, I’ll come here to read articles from specific authors (Fernandez and Totten with the occasional Driscoll and Hansen) but the days of me refreshing the PJM site a few times throughout the day to get the latest stuff…that’s done.
Bad decision on your part, I think, but good luck anyhow. The nice thing about the internet is that you, no doubt, will find readers even as I won’t have any problems finding well-written content.
Sorry, bot another vote against here. I don’t read the Powerline site anymore either. I do get their RSS feed, which allows me to read their content in a nice scrollable format on my cell phone. Why did you scrap your RSS feed?
Relax folks – a change is as good as a holiday!
If it wasn’t broke and you fixed it is it neutered?
If you put it back the way it was I will start reading it again.
No sir, I don’t like it. More clicks forward and back rather than just scrolling. Because of these changes, I will read less. I Hate, hate, hate the layout. I quit reading several sites that implemented it.
At least offer an option to read it old style, or I will probably quit reading the Tatler, too.
Two columns is worthless on a smart phone. If you hadn’t told me there was another column, I never would have known it was there.
The old format was at least usable on a hand-held device. We aren’t all using wide-screen peecee’s and Macintoshes, you know. Or do you not care about people with scaled-down Internet access?
I shall be scrolling elsewhere!
I just started reading the Tatler before the change. Now I’ll just read it through the RSS feed–as I did with Hot Air back when I still read it. I think that the new format could benefit a site that has long posts (e.g., the PJ main page, Power Line, and Hot Air) but the Tatler posts are so short that, before the change, I could easily skip any given post with a press of the ‘Page Down’ button.
The format would improve if the titles and teasers were more descriptive.
Long time reader, first time commenter. Count me among the disappointed. I too, have bailed on hot air, and would have given up on Powerline if thy didn’t allow you to select the old format, why don’t you guys do that? As it is now, the clicking back and forth is way annoying and it’s impossible to use on my touch.
Seriously, Dnow, did you actually look at the site on a touch? The new format looks fine on my iphone, I can actually see about four posts without having to scroll at all. Clicks work, backward and forward work, the graphics look sharp. It’s fine. It looks like you and several others here are just looking for an excuse to whine about something.
Chill, Steve. Of course it works, it’s not literally impossible, sheesh, it’s just way more difficult. I don’t know about you, but I can’t read anything on this site with my touch unless I biggen it to see only one column, and, well, that means a lot of side to side in addition to the usual up and down scrolling. Did you actually read all of my post? I offered a constructive suggestion that they offer a user-selectable single column option like powerline does. With that option, powerline is easy to read and scroll through. Far from some random crabbiness, this is a good faith criticism intended to help improve one of my favorite sites.
Meh. Don’t much care for the new layout, but I don’t feel all that strongly about it. Sometimes change is good, and sometimes change is bad, but mostly it’s just “different”, neither good nor bad; a big blah something in the middle. That’s what this is. It’s change FOR THE SAKE OF change. The old system was clean, concise, and for the smaller articles, I could read the whole thing without needing to click on something else. This shows a title, a part of a sentence, and a perhaps-relevant graphic; different, yes, but not better.
I guess I’ll get used to it.
I don’t mind the layout, so much as the lack of content. I like being able to get a quick summary of the story for two reasons. First, I can review alot of stories by reading one page. Second, I can then read in depth what interests me. I don’t want to be jumping all over, waiting for each refresh between each story. And that is critical if you’re at a boring conference and reading via bberry.
I think, Bryan, that I can sum up the largest problem in one short sentence. I offer this without malice, in hopes of making one of my favorite websites the best it can possibly be:
Insufficient customer testing.
I think what’s driving some of the vehemence seen above is the fact that this was pretty much sprung on us, with no warning and with a delayed explanation of exactly what’s going on. It was just presented as a fait accompli, and the explanation comes off–again, being bluntly honest but not offered in a malicious way–as “the other guys are doing it, so we are too!”
I think you may have missed out on the fact that I, and apparently several others if the comments above are any indication, came to the Tatler precisely because it was not like HotAir (which I read on Kindle via subscription but hardly ever do so online unless I am going to a specific story), The Blaze, and PowerLine (neither of which I ever read). I also tend to spend far more time on the Tatler than I do on the front page–again, this can be verified by looking at where I’m leaving comments.
A better way to approach this change would have been to put up a test page, then link it to a banner prominently displayed on the Tatler main page saying something like, “We’re considering a new format for the Tatler! Click here to see it and give us your opinion!” This would have avoided presenting us with a fait accompli and would have allowed you to gauge reactions without as much of a risk of angering the customers–without whom, let me gently remind you, you have no business. I, of course, still would have voted no on it in the strongest possible terms, and according to my very unscientific poll above, so would a majority of others.
It seems–again, I am offering this as a constructive criticism, not in malice–that you came up with a format that you and the other editors at PJM liked and just decided to run with it, assuming we’d go along and/or that negative feedback would be minimal. I think that idea has been pretty much debunked now.
In short, and again, with no malice, I think you’ve managed to recreate New Coke in the blogging world. Coke wanted to be more like Pepsi, and the customers wanted Coke to remain Coke–if they’d wanted a taste like Pepsi, they’d have been buying Pepsi. You apparently wanted to be more like those other sites, and we want the Tatler to remain the Tatler… the way it used to be, not the way it is now.
Please consider these thoughts in the spirit offered–constructive criticism, not malice.
I liked that you looked akin to the Ace of Spades than HotAir; I’ve read many (and enjoyed!) more articles that I would have otherwise passed over. Now you’re no different that the blogs you mention, hiding behind your click-firewall with only the power of whomever the blog posts’ author (who?) to compel me to bother with the time. Which is not powerful at all. I’m sure this new model will be wildly profitable to your bottom line – just look what it did to Little Green Footballs.
Thanks but No Thanks,
blogRot
I’m one of those that sent in negative feedback, but I find Bryan’s points persuasive. I’m particularly swayed by the need to measure the hits a particular story generates. Capitalism works, and you can’t manage something you can’t measure, so I’m willing to put aside my curmudgeonly objections and give it a go. I may even bite the bullet and try reading the front page again.
But I must say, I really do like scrolling blogs. It killed me when Wretchard shortened his posts. Perhaps you can give individual authors they’re own scrolling blogs? I can think of a particular Austinite I’ve come to really enjoy reading
Iagree wi wanderer. Your format also doesn’t work well on a blackberry. But mostly I prefer more information, not headlines.
Given my resume and background, anyone who suggests that I have any “leftist” tendencies has no earthly idea what they’re talking about. Anyone who agrees with them is similarly without clue.
I mentioned Hot Air mostly because I was on the team that founded that site. If “everybody’s doing it,” they’re doing what I had a hand in doing five years ago. I mentioned the other sites because they followed a model I helped develop, and that has proven to work for readers and authors. Dan, I am truly sorry that you, sir, are not sharp enough to understand that. But that is your problem, not mine.
You folks who wasted yesterday hating on me for no apparent reason and without taking any reality into account need to get help, or get lives.
As I clearly stated in the post above, which some of you deliberately chose to misread, we welcome constructive feedback. We do not welcome unreasonable and pointless rage directed at our staff. Period. That is all.
Although I’m reading between the lines a bit — I wasn’t the author — I believe that the “leftism” remark referred to the common leftist tactics of: (a) appeal to authority or credentials over observable conditions, (b) defining what is “good” for someone else, and (c) the assumption that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t as intelligent as you are. I didn’t see any overt political meaning to the comment.
One thing that I didn’t fully accomplish yesterday — possibly because of the distraction of having a life — was digging up the archives of The Tatler. I vaguely recall something in its first few days about a statement of purpose — a way that it would be distinguished from other blogs — a “raison d’etre” or intended theme. I couldn’t find it from my side of the blog — perhaps it’s easier on yours. But it might be interesting to see whether the current change has “kept faith” with those initial principles. That said, themes and purposes certainly change over time — and authors own works in ways that readers cannot.
Bryan, you appear to be making the lamentable error of equating criticism of the Tatler redesign with criticism of you, personally.
I, personally, do not care what your pedigree is or what your experience is. I know I do not like the new design and if it is not improved drastically, I will find places I enjoy reading more to spend my online time. That’s not a threat, that is a statement of my intent.
Again, I point out the number of people who’ve already said they’re leaving, and the ones, like me, who hold out hope that most of these poor changes will be rolled back. In fact, since my earlier count this morning, there are 3 more negative votes and no new positive ones that I can see, leaving it at 8 positive votes and 22 negative as of the time of this writing. In short, you’re turning off a little under 3 people for every one that approves. That really doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me, but if you think you can run with it, all I can do is wish you luck.
Again, I am not leaving immediately, but both the change and the lamentable attitude of those in charge of it are pushing me away fairly quickly.
One of you accused me of having a leftist attitude, and another concurred. And then there was pile on while I spent the day doing my job. That’s not personal?
It is personal, and idiotic to boot.
I tried being nice to the critics with this post, and that got me intentional twistings of what I wrote, and a day and night of savagery in this comment thread. So if you were me, would you bother being nice anymore? What’s the point?
To the commenter who compared us to another site I won’t name, the fact that not a single banning occurred while you folks piled on proves that you’re totally wrong. Care to revise your remarks?
Eh, don’t bother. This is the last time I’m looking at this thread.
Ahh, yes… because someone else, who was and is not me calls you a name, therefore I must be calling you a name.
You’re not selling your new redesign very well, Bryan. You’re acting incredibly defensive, in fact.
I’ve made several comments on this, and I’ve always strived to be as impartial and impersonal as I can, yet you seem oblivious to that and just want to focus on the few personal attacks.
I’ve suggested a way you can both keep better track of the hint count and give people enough of the article to determine if they really want to read the article in question. You’ve ignored it.
Therefore, I might check this place once or maybe twice a day to see if the format has been improved… beyond that, PJM is dropping out of the sites I visit regularly, because of the redesign and the attitude of the people in charge of it. If things improve, I’ll return. If not, well, au revoir.
Sheesh, CW. You’re basically saying I’m not allowed to defend myself, on a site I manage, when people slam me with their misconceptions about it. You wouldn’t accept it at your office; why should I accept it in mine?
By the way, look at the front page. I haven’t ignored your suggestion. We’re mixing longer and shorter tags. We’ve also added post-to-post navigation.
Alright, I need to clear the air. I shouldn’t have lumped you in with the others who launched into the personal hits on me. That wasn’t you, CW. I apologize.
Apology accepted.
However, I am still pushing PJT down on my list of sites to visit. I do not like the format, and that’s that.
If I want that sort of 2-column format, I can go to those other sites you say you want PJT to be like… HotAir, PowerLine, etc. Why should I come here when I can go there? The stories are nearly identical, and if one site gets the story a little bit before the others, it’s usually not more than a day or so difference and there’s no real “leader” in running with stories first, each site has their little scoops.
In short, I visted the Tatler because it was not like those sites. If you’re bound and determined to copy those sites that I don’t visit cause I don’t like the format, well, I just won’t visit here much either.
This is what happens when Coke tries to become Pepsi… you don’t gain Pepsi drinkers, and you lose Coke drinkers.
Anyone wanting to get in touch with me can do so through my blog (link in my username), where there is a contact form. I promise I read every email, except the obvious spam.
The new format will take some getting used to, but I suppose I am smart enough to figure it out. With the old format,l if the content wasn’t interesting, I would just scroll quickly past and you would never know. If it was brilliant, I would read it, then scroll past, and you would never know. That was your point, of course.
The Scuttlebut section was never of much interest to me – I prefer just to read the stories.
The PJ Lifestyle blog will take some time to grow on me, and it might never take hold.
Best of luck
Okay; I really do not mind the layout so much; as the annoying photo clips inserted. They do not make me want to read the story. What attracted me to your site in the first place was that you did not have them. It was straight story . This morning you offered three small story teasers without pictures and some with. I really only read those without pictures or art clips, including yours which I always read but the card thing just turned me off.
What is funny about this is that last night I was wondering which of my regular sites I was going to remove so I could put The Tattler on Speed Dial (I use Opera of course). I realized that this WAS fast becoming one of my favorite sites and could eventually knock Instapundit from the top after it dawned on me that I posted comments more here than everywhere else combined (I’m usually a Lurker).
That made me focus on why I liked here so much. In brief; TOP quality content from the best on the net who seem much more laid back here than on their “regular posts”, with it all in a format I really liked because info was boiled down and arranged in a simple format that allowed me quick & usually full access with very few clicks, and those usually for the comments section.
In very brief: I’m here increasingly regularly BECAUSE it’s NOT like those other sites.
I understand a lot of hard work went into the redo. I understand that it could cause problems not really having a way to see who’s most responsible for drawing traffic. I just hope you’ll understand why I’ll be coming here less now.
This site has been sucking me into the PJM world. Instapundit got my traffic, but didn’t translate to the other guys. I hated the front page. Ironically, because of this site, I’ve started going to the front page sometimes to look for names like Bryan Preston and Stephen Green because I liked them so much on The Tattler.
Sorry Bryan & company. I tried. I really did. Came back several times over the day. Wanted to add actually constructive criticism, but I just can’t see how to make the new site anything close to what I liked so much about the old format without, well, basically going back to a variation of the old format.
I guess I’ll move on down the road then. The more I studied the new site, the less reason I found to want to come back. I might check now & then to see if you guys are sticking with this, but it’s just not for me. If I must slow down to click through, I want more when I get there. Of course if you give me more, then what would differentiate The Tatler from a half dozen or dozen other sites that already do that version well? For that matter, wouldn’t it just be competing with the front page of PJM?
If you’re the same as the other sites, IMHO, that puts you guys now competing for the same market that they have a huge headstart in already. You’re not outstanding, offering something new anymore. Out of that market, I’ll pick one or two to stick with 80% of the time.
Maybe eventually, you guys will be one of the two. Or maybe I’ll miss your comments section & be back sooner than I think.
Either way, good luck to ya guys! I hope you get all the kinks worked out & are a huge hit!
P.S. If this new look is only a moderate hit, maybe you guys should consider how many people like myself were slowly being won over to PJM through this backdoor approach. Maybe think of it as PJM’s version of a loss-leader?
Well, I hope you don’t go. The content here hasn’t changed at all, not even a little bit, we just pack more of it up top now in a format that’s maybe five years old instead of a format that’s maybe 12 years old. I really don’t get all the griping in this thread, not at all, nor do I get the resistance to pushing the button on your mouse in order to read an article.
But thanks for not insinuating that I’m a closet Commie because I re-organized a web page.
I don’t know if this will help, but today, when I repeatedly checked out the new look, I clicked on 2 or 3 links besides this one. On the old page, all this stuff I didn’t think I’d be interested in was already up there for me to see, so I’d skim through it. You have such good writers here, that I’d get sucked in and read 3/4 of what was there and I’d leave feeling good about it. You guys TEMPTED me in by having it in my face and you provided good enough content that you MADE me feel good about it. Oh my Gosh! I just realized, thats my own modus operandi with women! Tempt them in, get them to do what you want, and make them feel so good about it that they’ll come back for more! LoL!
A brief one liner (LoL) like you have with the new look, just doesn’t tempt me enough to click that button. It’s not enough to convince me the content is worth reading. We’re all spoiled by over-abundance of info. You just can’t make time to see every angle of every interesting story, especially when conservative sites cover 70 or 80 % of the same subjects. You fly through trying to find the one with the best content and you learn to make snap, split-second decisions about where to spend the time for that click-load-click back-reload time. When I’m on my phone, pages load so slow, it’s a HUGE thing. Before you changed the look, I didn’t have to make that decision. You had it in my face to skim quicker than I could go through the click cycle on other sites.
Part of it also was that here you guys boiled it down REALLY well and I know that hasn’t changed. But now, me SEEING it has changed. If I never click to start with, I won’t see it with this format. And if I must spend the time to click, I want the full story when I get there. I may skim it, but if I gotta spend that time, I want it all. The news/blog web is EXTREMELY info competitive.
I was starting to use your site to see which stories I was interested in (especially ones that I wouldn’t have thought I was) and then look for those through the rest of my surfing day. I was increasingly using PJM sources to follow-up with.
I don’t think you guys realize what you had created. Sure, it was based on an old format, but you made it something unique. Never would have worked without top grade content and a laid back attitude. Wouldn’t have been nearly as valuable to any site that didn’t have HUGE quality content to lead into.
You think it was old school. I think it turned into something innovative. I hate to see that go.
P.S. I really don’t think he meant to call you a commie, LoL. I think he meant to say thats a weak argument, similar to what we see Leftists use FAR to often. I think he just meant to challenge you to come up with what he thought was a stronger argument. And maybe he was a little strong and you were a wee tiny bit touchy after all the hard work you put into the site. I don’t think any sane person thinks you’re a closet Commie. I know I don’t. It’ll all be good tomorrow, LoL.
I know this was an article instead of a post, but hey, it might be my last here and I really want to help because I really like you guys and The Tatler.
Again, no matter what you do with the site, good luck to all of you. You really have some nice talent here. (It’s been waaay better than the front page, but don’t tell the Rogers I said that! LoL!)