is there a rule ...

.... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

i think you rbr lifers ought to gin up a REAL cyclingNEWS website and
put them all to shame.

On Jun 19, 7:04*pm, bar wrote:
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? *cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

i think you rbr lifers ought to gin up a REAL cyclingNEWS website and
put them all to shame.

Actually, I happen to think Pez is a great site. It does what it does
very well, and doesn't try to be everything to everyone. I wouldn't
say I read it for news, but for its own unique appeal and blend of
quirky features. I also like that they post their photos at
reasonable sizes. Every photo on VeloSnooze is the size of a postage
stamp.

-rj

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:20:01 -0700 (PDT), ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:04*pm, bar wrote:
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? *cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

i think you rbr lifers ought to gin up a REAL cyclingNEWS website and
put them all to shame.

Actually, I happen to think Pez is a great site. It does what it does
very well, and doesn't try to be everything to everyone. I wouldn't
say I read it for news, but for its own unique appeal and blend of
quirky features. I also like that they post their photos at
reasonable sizes. Every photo on VeloSnooze is the size of a postage
stamp.

Ditto, Pez's design is good, writing is decent, photos are good.

It's not a "news" site - it's a fan/ads site pretendnig to be a news
site. It's like the Us Magazine of cycling.

On Jun 19, 7:04*pm, bar wrote:
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? *cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

i think you rbr lifers ought to gin up a REAL cyclingNEWS website and
put them all to shame.

Cyclingnews is still making changes. They said within the next few
weeks that will tweak the site, give them time.
I like Pez also.
Cheers,
Rick in Tennessee

"bar" wrote in message
...
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

Cyclingnews was the exception until a couple of days ago. Imagine paying
some hacks to design a website that EVERYONE hates.

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
"bar" wrote in message
...
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

Cyclingnews was the exception until a couple of days ago. Imagine paying
some hacks to design a website that EVERYONE hates.

This is a big deal, worth everyone having a say, more importantly post
comments then pre request ideas submitted by users. The CN gang said they
had listened to the comments of their readers, and designed something based
on those comments, at least they stated something to that effect. This
doesn't seem to be the case at all, but if they were listening to readers,
they would listen now and seriously considering scrapping it in favor of a
total reboot. To start with, cloning bike radar is a bad idea cause that
isn't what readers want for CN. How many people even like Bike Radar
compared to CN? This seems to be a business call based on marketing and not
on what readers want.



Good for them I suppose, cause two sites that look and work the same can
save editing time, but if the readers hate it, then its a non-starter. My
first impression of the purple beast was Bike Radar for sure, but when I
started to click around it didn't take only a minute to figure out its way
too busy and convoluted for readers. Consider too, the whole gamut of
readers from teens to tons of older people who wear glasses already struggle
with reading convoluted sites, and easy on the eyes and easy simple
straightforward navigation is key.



There are just too many extra clicks and there is just too much on any one
page. Results are spaced out in those gray-tabled rows, and they wrap
sometimes weird, all spaced out weird, as before the results were just
neatly in line. Dynamic core link menu overlaps sometimes, and the spoilers,
ugh. There is a script to remove that in Firefox if you need it. I never
did like black text on solid white background as that isn't the best for the
eyes, but at least they might of taken a cue from the default background
shades of html for reading. Not the prettiest but better for the eyes then
white.



Also the columns don't wrap like they should, you got a very narrow section
of long text to scroll with lots of wasted space on the side sometimes. For
photos you got to go find them, as where before you photos links were right
there with the article and results. Separating everything is not better like
putting all the cookies in many separate jars. It just drives you crazy, and
I wonder how many people will stop sending their photos to CN now.



However, CN deserves a fresh original approach instead of copying bike
radar. I like the appeal of the theater like graphic approach of the
U-Sports site, which IMO, the CN face lift sucks bad compared to that. I
would have preferred more flair on the home page, but with not the overkill
of bells and whistles and trying to squeeze everything into one page. Every
page shouldn't be all things to everywhere. Too much navigation can be a bad
thing, adding clutter and extra fancy clicks.



The old down and dirty design will always be my favorite, and while links
were sometimes missing or dead, misdirected, the navigation worked
reasonable well without too many extra clicks. The search engine left must
to be desired, and the photos should of been large thumbnails with alive
links to larger ones. However, the way it is, a real mess, I hate it. Its
rather obvious to me that it's cloned from bike radar and they didn't
research some of the award winning designs out there. However, they might
want listen to their users now, and Toppermost made a good point.



"I have yet to see anyone address the very simple, yet profound question of
the day: It does not matter how many neat little bells and whistles you put
onto the new format. Its the (entire format itself) that people don't like.
"



IMO-

GBMT

On Jun 20, 12:17*pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ...

"bar" wrote in message
....
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? *cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

Cyclingnews was the exception until a couple of days ago. Imagine paying
some hacks to design a website that EVERYONE hates.

This is a big deal, worth everyone having a say, more importantly post
comments then pre request ideas submitted by users. The CN gang said they
had listened to the comments of their readers, and designed something based
on those comments, at least they stated something to that effect. This
doesn't seem to be the case at all, but if they were listening to readers,
they would listen now and seriously considering scrapping it in favor of a
total reboot. To start with, cloning bike radar is a bad idea cause that
isn't what readers want for CN. How many people even like Bike Radar
compared to CN? This seems to be *a business call based on marketing and not
on what readers want.

*Good for them I suppose, cause two sites that look and work the same can
save editing time, but if the readers hate it, then its a non-starter. My
first impression of the purple beast was Bike Radar for sure, but when I
started to click around it didn't take only a minute to figure out its way
too busy and convoluted for readers. Consider too, the whole gamut of
readers from teens to tons of older people who wear glasses already struggle
with reading convoluted sites, and easy on the eyes and easy simple
straightforward navigation is key.

There are just too many extra clicks and there is just too much on any one
page. Results are spaced out in those gray-tabled rows, and they wrap
sometimes weird, all spaced out weird, as before the results were just
neatly in line. Dynamic core link menu overlaps sometimes, and the spoilers,
ugh. There is a script to remove that in Firefox if you need it. *I never
did like black text on solid white background as that isn't the best for the
eyes, but at least they might of taken a cue from the default background
shades of html for reading. Not the prettiest but better for the eyes then
white.

Also the columns don't wrap like they should, you got a very narrow section
of long text to scroll with lots of wasted space on the side sometimes. For
photos you got to go find them, as where before you photos links were right
there with the article and results. Separating everything is not better like
putting all the cookies in many separate jars. It just drives you crazy, and
I wonder how many people will stop sending their photos to CN now.

However, CN deserves a fresh original approach instead of copying bike
radar. I like the appeal of the theater like graphic approach of the
U-Sports site, which IMO, the CN face lift sucks bad compared to that. I
would have preferred more flair on the home page, but with not the overkill
of bells and whistles and trying to squeeze everything into one page. Every
page shouldn't be all things to everywhere. Too much navigation can be a bad
thing, adding clutter and extra fancy clicks.

The old down and dirty design will always be my favorite, and while links
were sometimes missing or dead, misdirected, the navigation worked
reasonable well without too many extra clicks. The search engine left must
to be desired, and the photos should of been large thumbnails with alive
links to larger ones. However, the way it is, a real mess, I hate it. Its
rather obvious to me that it's cloned from bike radar and they didn't
research some of the award winning designs out there. However, they might
want listen to their users now, *and Toppermost made a good point.

"I have yet to see anyone address the very simple, yet profound question of
the day: It does not matter how many neat little bells and whistles you put
onto the new format. Its the (entire format itself) that people don't like.
"

IMO-

GBMT

dumbass(es),

bottom line is they screwed up one of the best cycling related news
sites around. it's probably where we all were going on a daily basis
to stay posted on things. now the site is just a hideous, tangled
mess ... with flashy nonsense going on, some lame sunflower
background, and a "forum" right out of 1998

and they did all this seemingly without warning or without consulting
regular users. that's fine -- it's their site, their decision -- but
they've lost users.

i think cyclingnews just pulled a "Tropicana" on us --
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/bu...a/23adcol.html

"GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
"bar" wrote in message
...
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

Cyclingnews was the exception until a couple of days ago. Imagine paying
some hacks to design a website that EVERYONE hates.

They also got 11 moderators working the forum. Not so much it seems to
remove thugs, but to keep tabs on what is being written. Looks like the
whole friggin staff is moderating. I think they have cut back on policing
threads cause they want to hear what people say, but they also closed the
forum to external links for a period until recently. Too much heat I guess.
If all those people, and they are listed, many which we know, are actively
pouring over the posts, then they are very concerned obviously, like WW3 or
D-Day. The **** hit the fan so to speak, and there is much to read, hundreds
of pages of complaints, but I am not counting. Good reading though!



A few quotes from the CN staff...

"The 'IT IDIOTS' are concerned with functionality and availability. The look
of a website is drawn up by usability, commercial and design concerns. Us IT
IDIOTS only build what we get told to build, and to make sure that you can
see it all over the world, any time."

Another comment on their pages. I have seen these auto generators years ago
like CN uses. I knew it was a bad idea then. You end up with thousands, and
in time millions of pages and directories that are just not needed. It
reminds of wasteful auto generated html code compared to simple only needed
straightforward html for what's needed. The amount of waste is colossal, and
in time would require a very robust server. However, the number of
directories is most frightening, much too much IMO. Management systems are
good, but which ones, and how wasteful are they in terms of how disk space
is used and CPU cycles? I don't mind the systems as long they are invisible
and don't effect the layout and how content is provided simply enough
without overkill. Flair or the new look and the new functional design on the
homepage can be cool, as long as its not convoluted and cluttered. For me, I
just roll my eyes on their homepage, and have decided to just link to
certain categories, other words I give up too for now.



From the CN forum editors-

"Missing functionality: I'm talking about all the things you loved on the
old CMS that haven't appeared or aren't working in a manner that's easy to
find or understand. For example, race images, calendars and photo captions
to name but a few topics. These issues are logged with our development team
but what I'd like everyone to accept is that CN is a huge website. It has
million and millions of pages with stored content with no content management
system or sophisticated order. Transferring and replicating what we had on
the old site was always going to be a mammoth job. In the cases of results,
reports, articles, blogs, tech we've nailed it. There are some areas, like
race images that haven't worked yet, so please bear with us while we get to
grips with these bugs and fix them. Once we've fixed each major bug we'll be
sure to drop into the forums to let you all know and ask for more feedback."

On Jun 20, 1:04*pm, bar wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:17*pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:



"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ...

"bar" wrote in message
....
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? *cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites, un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

Cyclingnews was the exception until a couple of days ago. Imagine paying
some hacks to design a website that EVERYONE hates.

This is a big deal, worth everyone having a say, more importantly post
comments then pre request ideas submitted by users. The CN gang said they
had listened to the comments of their readers, and designed something based
on those comments, at least they stated something to that effect. This
doesn't seem to be the case at all, but if they were listening to readers,
they would listen now and seriously considering scrapping it in favor of a
total reboot. To start with, cloning bike radar is a bad idea cause that
isn't what readers want for CN. How many people even like Bike Radar
compared to CN? This seems to be *a business call based on marketing and not
on what readers want.

*Good for them I suppose, cause two sites that look and work the same can
save editing time, but if the readers hate it, then its a non-starter. My
first impression of the purple beast was Bike Radar for sure, but when I
started to click around it didn't take only a minute to figure out its way
too busy and convoluted for readers. Consider too, the whole gamut of
readers from teens to tons of older people who wear glasses already struggle
with reading convoluted sites, and easy on the eyes and easy simple
straightforward navigation is key.

There are just too many extra clicks and there is just too much on any one
page. Results are spaced out in those gray-tabled rows, and they wrap
sometimes weird, all spaced out weird, as before the results were just
neatly in line. Dynamic core link menu overlaps sometimes, and the spoilers,
ugh. There is a script to remove that in Firefox if you need it. *I never
did like black text on solid white background as that isn't the best for the
eyes, but at least they might of taken a cue from the default background
shades of html for reading. Not the prettiest but better for the eyes then
white.

Also the columns don't wrap like they should, you got a very narrow section
of long text to scroll with lots of wasted space on the side sometimes. For
photos you got to go find them, as where before you photos links were right
there with the article and results. Separating everything is not better like
putting all the cookies in many separate jars. It just drives you crazy, and
I wonder how many people will stop sending their photos to CN now.

However, CN deserves a fresh original approach instead of copying bike
radar. I like the appeal of the theater like graphic approach of the
U-Sports site, which IMO, the CN face lift sucks bad compared to that. I
would have preferred more flair on the home page, but with not the overkill
of bells and whistles and trying to squeeze everything into one page. Every
page shouldn't be all things to everywhere. Too much navigation can be a bad
thing, adding clutter and extra fancy clicks.

The old down and dirty design will always be my favorite, and while links
were sometimes missing or dead, misdirected, the navigation worked
reasonable well without too many extra clicks. The search engine left must
to be desired, and the photos should of been large thumbnails with alive
links to larger ones. However, the way it is, a real mess, I hate it. Its
rather obvious to me that it's cloned from bike radar and they didn't
research some of the award winning designs out there. However, they might
want listen to their users now, *and Toppermost made a good point.

"I have yet to see anyone address the very simple, yet profound question of
the day: It does not matter how many neat little bells and whistles you put
onto the new format. Its the (entire format itself) that people don't like.
"

IMO-

GBMT

dumbass(es),

bottom line is they screwed up one of the best cycling related news
sites around.

dumbass,

i agree. the old site was tight and i even used it as a model for
sites i designed. the only thing it was missing was RSS but it used
ewoud's scraper for the news anyways.

i don't like how the results and news appear with a pic and and the
results are posted on the front page.

maybe it's just a matter of me getting used to it, but i liked the
functional feel of the old site - but i am an egghead and i like to
see as much info on one page as possible.

putting each story in it's own link probably makes it easier to manage
the content, but i liked having all the news on one page and i would
just scan through, reading only the items i was interested in.

According to CN poll, 80 percent of those who logged into the forum, logged
in to complain about the new site design. The forum has been on fire lately.
If you have time to wade those the topics, many good points were made as to
why its bad. Very few threads giving the thumbs up, but mostly the be
patience thing.

"Amit Ghosh" wrote in message
...
On Jun 20, 1:04 pm, bar wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:17 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" wrote:



"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
...

"bar" wrote in message
...
... that says all cycling news web sites have to suck? cyclingnews,
velonews, pez, eurosport ... all just absolute nightmare websites,
un-
navigable, and clearly designed by crackhead monkeys.

Cyclingnews was the exception until a couple of days ago. Imagine
paying
some hacks to design a website that EVERYONE hates.

This is a big deal, worth everyone having a say, more importantly post
comments then pre request ideas submitted by users. The CN gang said
they
had listened to the comments of their readers, and designed something
based
on those comments, at least they stated something to that effect. This
doesn't seem to be the case at all, but if they were listening to
readers,
they would listen now and seriously considering scrapping it in favor of
a
total reboot. To start with, cloning bike radar is a bad idea cause that
isn't what readers want for CN. How many people even like Bike Radar
compared to CN? This seems to be a business call based on marketing and
not
on what readers want.

Good for them I suppose, cause two sites that look and work the same can
save editing time, but if the readers hate it, then its a non-starter.
My
first impression of the purple beast was Bike Radar for sure, but when I
started to click around it didn't take only a minute to figure out its
way
too busy and convoluted for readers. Consider too, the whole gamut of
readers from teens to tons of older people who wear glasses already
struggle
with reading convoluted sites, and easy on the eyes and easy simple
straightforward navigation is key.

There are just too many extra clicks and there is just too much on any
one
page. Results are spaced out in those gray-tabled rows, and they wrap
sometimes weird, all spaced out weird, as before the results were just
neatly in line. Dynamic core link menu overlaps sometimes, and the
spoilers,
ugh. There is a script to remove that in Firefox if you need it. I never
did like black text on solid white background as that isn't the best for
the
eyes, but at least they might of taken a cue from the default background
shades of html for reading. Not the prettiest but better for the eyes
then
white.

Also the columns don't wrap like they should, you got a very narrow
section
of long text to scroll with lots of wasted space on the side sometimes.
For
photos you got to go find them, as where before you photos links were
right
there with the article and results. Separating everything is not better
like
putting all the cookies in many separate jars. It just drives you crazy,
and
I wonder how many people will stop sending their photos to CN now.

However, CN deserves a fresh original approach instead of copying bike
radar. I like the appeal of the theater like graphic approach of the
U-Sports site, which IMO, the CN face lift sucks bad compared to that. I
would have preferred more flair on the home page, but with not the
overkill
of bells and whistles and trying to squeeze everything into one page.
Every
page shouldn't be all things to everywhere. Too much navigation can be a
bad
thing, adding clutter and extra fancy clicks.

The old down and dirty design will always be my favorite, and while
links
were sometimes missing or dead, misdirected, the navigation worked
reasonable well without too many extra clicks. The search engine left
must
to be desired, and the photos should of been large thumbnails with alive
links to larger ones. However, the way it is, a real mess, I hate it.
Its
rather obvious to me that it's cloned from bike radar and they didn't
research some of the award winning designs out there. However, they
might
want listen to their users now, and Toppermost made a good point.

"I have yet to see anyone address the very simple, yet profound question
of
the day: It does not matter how many neat little bells and whistles you
put
onto the new format. Its the (entire format itself) that people don't
like.
"

IMO-

GBMT

dumbass(es),

bottom line is they screwed up one of the best cycling related news
sites around.

dumbass,

i agree. the old site was tight and i even used it as a model for
sites i designed. the only thing it was missing was RSS but it used
ewoud's scraper for the news anyways.

i don't like how the results and news appear with a pic and and the
results are posted on the front page.

maybe it's just a matter of me getting used to it, but i liked the
functional feel of the old site - but i am an egghead and i like to
see as much info on one page as possible.

putting each story in it's own link probably makes it easier to manage
the content, but i liked having all the news on one page and i would
just scan through, reading only the items i was interested in.