Forums: Redesign Feedback: Vote to return to previous layout.

 

Should TV.com return to its previous layout?

  • Avatar of alguna

    alguna

    [161]Sep 25, 2008
    • member since: 01/02/08
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 592
    alguna wrote:

    There's a saying: Don't try to fix it, if it ain't broken.


    Well, I'm sorry if I was not clear enough.
    I meant, I don't understand why they had to change it in the first place, the old one was FINE!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Adelette

    Adelette

    [162]Sep 25, 2008
    • member since: 05/26/06
    • level: 42
    • rank: General Lee
    • posts: 692

    I'd like to add that I spend quite a bit of time on this site - at least a few hours a day. Since redesign launched I've suffered daily headaches - I took a day off to see if the site could be the problem and lo and behold I was headache free. The strain of trying to see the pale grey font compounded by all the blinding whiteness has officially made me physically ill. If it doesn't change, I'll be forced to leave the site. Thanks CBS for ruining my favorite website.

    Edited on 09/26/2008 8:01am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Ppunkinseed

    Ppunkinseed

    [163]Sep 25, 2008
    • member since: 10/03/05
    • level: 16
    • rank: Church Lady
    • posts: 663

    OMG!! What has happened?? I know I haven't been able to spend as much time on this site but. "What the heck has happened?????" It hurts my eyes and it is NOT at all user friendly. I could go on but I won't. I hope someone changes this though.

    Thanks for listening....

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of kyravon

    kyravon

    [164]Sep 25, 2008
    • member since: 01/05/07
    • level: 25
    • rank: Coconut Phone
    • posts: 94

    Yes, please go back.

    They took out or severely minimized what I actually used the site for!

    Episode lists, last episode info.. Trivia on episodes ..... in order to put in more of the crap I avoid on other sites (and why IMDB has gone downhill in recent years). I do NOT want more picture, more videos, more blogs, more gossip, more focus on celebrities!

    The old site worked fine, was easier to use. I see no improvements in this site that would make me want to put up with the changes that have been wrought.

    I've already had to go to other sites to find information I previously came to TV.COM for, they should check logs to see if usage is dropping off.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of talent_knower

    talent_knower

    [165]Sep 25, 2008
    • member since: 11/12/07
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 898
    kyravon wrote:

    Yes, please go back.

    They took out or severely minimized what I actually used the site for!

    Episode lists, last episode info.. Trivia on episodes ..... in order to put in more of the crap I avoid on other sites (and why IMDB has gone downhill in recent years). I do NOT want more picture, more videos, more blogs, more gossip, more focus on celebrities!

    The old site worked fine, was easier to use. I see no improvements in this site that would make me want to put up with the changes that have been wrought.

    I've already had to go to other sites to find information I previously came to TV.COM for, they should check logs to see if usage is dropping off.



    I've been more hampered with the site than any other site i have been on, ever. Even sites in foreign languages are easier to use, easier on the eyes and serves the purpose i originally went to it for. I've seen it happen before, the administration team, revamps the site when it really was unnecessary, people got unhappy and left in droves. I was a senior moderator on a site with 10,000+ members, over a thousand were constant visitors, in the end i left, because there was no one there, the administrator had taken it's my site I'll do what i like approach, the rest of the moderators left the members left, and by the time the admin had seen sense it was too late, word had spead, and the site as a resuilt died. I do not want to see that happen here, but if the top dogs won't listen and act on our wishes it will happen.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of raygoshay

    raygoshay

    [166]Sep 25, 2008
    • member since: 05/04/08
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 720
    BlackCowDeath wrote:
    I want them to keep the new layout, but just fix some of the issues and maybe tone down the white. Some of you people are way to over dramatic with the leaving and crap, IT'S BRAND NEW THEY'LL GET IT WORKING JUST WAIT LIKE A WEEK!
    Everyday I read about someone having problems with a different issue... that's the kind of thing, as much as it is a bother, can be expected with a drastic improvement overhaul. What is unwarranted is having to deal with petty irritating problems along with major details being either dropped or replaced by a set-up that offers few advantages. If I could see a fantastic TV.Com site just over the horizon once I'd get used to the alterations, I'd sit tight and support the process of tweaking. I haven't been here for years, yet I hopped aboard a very friendly site, considering both community and site navigation. I caught on to the scheme of things very fast and began spending a lot of time here. Well after hitting my umpteenth hurdle, I've started staying here shorter durations, decreasing every couple days. When/if ever the bugs are all worked out and I become acclimated to the changes I'll be visiting a site that is wider and displays a larger personal banner. The negative is that the layout is colder both in set-up and color. Let's say all the forum, posting and submission quirks are ironed out, it'll mean this period of discomfort accomplished a bigger stark bright white screen. This is what I need patience to wait for? I'm not threatening leaving, it's merely happening naturally. Without a "dramatic" decision I find myself simply spending time here easily counted in terms of minutes now rather than the hours prior to the make-over.
    Edited on 09/25/2008 7:00pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of stellarchick86

    stellarchick86

    [167]Sep 26, 2008
    • member since: 10/04/07
    • level: 32
    • rank: Whammy!
    • posts: 10,124
    Voted. Hate it. Simple as that.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jimmy_the_pipe

    jimmy_the_pipe

    [168]Sep 26, 2008
    • member since: 07/21/05
    • level: 35
    • rank: Beverly Hillbilly
    • posts: 661

    Yes, change is needed. If it's possible, please change it back.

    It would probably be easier to bring back the old layout then to waste time designing another one; also, a new design might be even worse!

    But whatever you decide, please change the current design.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of xDexterMorganx

    xDexterMorganx

    [169]Sep 26, 2008
    • member since: 01/14/08
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 78
    I dont mind the new layout at all. It just takes a little getting used to, but i don't see any problems.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of igotbupkis

    igotbupkis

    [170]Sep 26, 2008
    • member since: 06/26/05
    • level: 28
    • rank: Disco Stu
    • posts: 245
    mikeandike95 wrote:

    I and many other users say this new layout hurts our eyes. This is compounded by the fact that this new layout is harder to use than the old layout. Finally, the old layout did not seem faulty or outdated. Therefore, I propose that TV.com should return to its previous layout or offer users an option to display the old layout.

    Post your thoughts below and don't forget to vote in the poll.



    More critically, this new setup is so DOG A** SLOW it is literally agonizing to use. I don't know what half-assed idiots only tested it on 2.4ghz quadcores with $1000 graphics cards, but on any NORMAL machine it takes literally 10-30 seconds to pull up *EACH* AND ***EVERY*** PAGE.

    *************************************
    **** That is NOT exaggeration ****
    *************************************

    I guarantee you that if this is not RADICALLY improved -- either directly or by switching back to the old layout, I'll not be visiting much and I'll be dropping my two editorships.

    The hell with this crap.

    I'm **already** donating my time.

    ========================
    STOP WASTING IT.
    ========================

    The "Vistafied" new layout isn't as bad looking as some of the comments suggest, but it's not a substantial improvement enough to justify the ABSURDLY slow page regens.

    Try pulling the pages up on a single core 1.8ghz machine. THAT should be your test bed. If *most* pages don't come up in a matter of 2-3 seconds after all the components have xferred, THEN THE ENGINE NEEDS A LOT OF WORK. If a fast connection takes more than 5 seconds to transfer enough to partially gen the page, THEN THE ENGINE/SITE DESIGN NEEDS A LOT OF WORK.

    I am so sick and tired of webprogrammers trying to add glitz and pizzazz at the expense of utility in general and speed in particular.

    EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS ON SITE DEVELOPMENT should be familiar -- backwards and forwards -- with the site below, which has now been around for approaching a decade:

    Web Pages That Suck

    ====================================================================================

    P.S. Another thought for you -- BETA TESTING:

    Did it occur to any of your genius decisionmakers that you should have BETA tested this site BEFORE you implemented it? That the obvious people to do such would have been your Editors and High-Level users? That if you had, the massive speed issues, the eyesore complaints -- all might have been noted before EVERYONE got it rammed down their throats as a fait accompli? That you might have had time to FIX the problems before you began doing everything you can to chase away users?

    Why do I have to point this OUT?

    P.P.S. -- As I type this, despite the fact that this missive is radically
    longer than the window it is contained in, THERE'S NO SCROLL BAR AT THE RIGHT --------------------------------->
    Lame, lame, and yes... LAME

    Oh, AND ONE MORE PIECE OF BRILLIANCE:
    "Preview" windows? THEY'RE kinda USELESS when they have different display widths and fonts than the ones used on the final page!!

    WHAT A SHOCKER!! Anyone **else** have a hard time figuring that one out before being explicitly told about it?

    Who IS doing your web site design, anyway? "HafWitz Haf-Pricet Webb Dezyne, Ink."?
    >:-/

    .
    Edited on 09/26/2008 12:03pm
    Edited 3 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of 2POKE22

    2POKE22

    [171]Sep 26, 2008
    • member since: 08/04/07
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 40

    do we realy need this treand ? so they redeed it,they do that to just about everything

    p.s. i will be gone over the weekend so dont bother flaming me

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of crtoddity

    crtoddity

    [172]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 06/16/05
    • level: 33
    • rank: Borg Queen
    • posts: 273
    Something tells me no one even cares about the people on this site.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of mb2000

    mb2000

    [173]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 09/25/05
    • level: 101
    • rank: Grand Poobah
    • posts: 451
    I vote for a new 'Shatterdaymorn'/'I Broke TV.com' emblem that only staff have.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hoeech

    Hoeech

    [174]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 03/27/04
    • level: 66
    • rank: Hollywood Square
    • posts: 928
    francklloyd wrote:
    Can anyone just please explain what the improvement is supposed to be? I can only see downsides to this new version.


    Absolutely nothing has been improved. Even if all of the hundreds of bugs are finally worked out, we'd still be left with a very ugly site that isn't as user-friendly or intuitive. There's nothing new; nothing that wasn't available before nor has anything been made simpler or more streamlined. It's just butt-ugly.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hoeech

    Hoeech

    [175]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 03/27/04
    • level: 66
    • rank: Hollywood Square
    • posts: 928
    Spyrick wrote:
    Much as I hate the new look, I can't vote for the return of the old design (however much I miss it) because it truly is time for a change. But the main problem is the awful whiteness, it truly hurts my eyes.


    To extend that logic, the Parthenon, the Roman Coliseum and the Leaning Tower of Pisa should all be bulldozed and new condo complexes put up in their places.

    Changing something for the sake of change is always a bad idea. Overhauls and renovations are called for when the old system is broken, out of date or incompatible with the world around it. This was NOT the case with the old TV.com. It worked! It was user-friendly! It provided information in very concise and accessible ways. It provided forums and blogs which were easily customizable to reflect the personalities and moods of the people using it.

    IT HAD COLORS!!! I want the colors back!!!!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Mac-Ale

    Mac-Ale

    [176]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 09/12/06
    • level: 60
    • rank: Grape Ape
    • posts: 2,690
    While it would be too lengthy to quote again, post #170 (while using language I find a bit harsh) points out exactly what I find to be the real issue and why I was dreading the TV.com "upgrade" ever since I saw Gamespot doing it this past Summer.

    It's a lot less about "TV.com screwed me out of my favorite feature" and more about fundamental arrogant incompetence on the part of web design and web development personnel.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hoeech

    Hoeech

    [177]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 03/27/04
    • level: 66
    • rank: Hollywood Square
    • posts: 928
    xDexterMorganx wrote:
    I dont mind the new layout at all. It just takes a little getting used to, but i don't see any problems.


    Try doing some work on "The Mole (UK)" for a few days and then say "I don't see any problems". I couldn't help but burst out laughing when I read that. Aside from not being able to add episodes, alter cast members or crew, alter or reject submissions, reorder the cast or crew and having to reimport the main cast after every single person, everything else is just peachy!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hoeech

    Hoeech

    [178]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 03/27/04
    • level: 66
    • rank: Hollywood Square
    • posts: 928
    igotbupkis wrote:
    mikeandike95 wrote:

    I and many other users say this new layout hurts our eyes. This is compounded by the fact that this new layout is harder to use than the old layout. Finally, the old layout did not seem faulty or outdated. Therefore, I propose that TV.com should return to its previous layout or offer users an option to display the old layout.

    Post your thoughts below and don't forget to vote in the poll.



    More critically, this new setup is so DOG A** SLOW it is literally agonizing to use. I don't know what half-assed idiots only tested it on 2.4ghz quadcores with $1000 graphics cards, but on any NORMAL machine it takes literally 10-30 seconds to pull up *EACH* AND ***EVERY*** PAGE.

    *************************************
    **** That is NOT exaggeration ****
    *************************************

    I guarantee you that if this is not RADICALLY improved -- either directly or by switching back to the old layout, I'll not be visiting much and I'll be dropping my two editorships.

    The hell with this crap.

    I'm **already** donating my time.

    ========================
    STOP WASTING IT.
    ========================

    The "Vistafied" new layout isn't as bad looking as some of the comments suggest, but it's not a substantial improvement enough to justify the ABSURDLY slow page regens.

    Try pulling the pages up on a single core 1.8ghz machine. THAT should be your test bed. If *most* pages don't come up in a matter of 2-3 seconds after all the components have xferred, THEN THE ENGINE NEEDS A LOT OF WORK. If a fast connection takes more than 5 seconds to transfer enough to partially gen the page, THEN THE ENGINE/SITE DESIGN NEEDS A LOT OF WORK.

    I am so sick and tired of webprogrammers trying to add glitz and pizzazz at the expense of utility in general and speed in particular.

    EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS ON SITE DEVELOPMENT should be familiar -- backwards and forwards -- with the site below, which has now been around for approaching a decade:

    Web Pages That Suck

    ====================================================================================

    P.S. Another thought for you -- BETA TESTING:

    Did it occur to any of your genius decisionmakers that you should have BETA tested this site BEFORE you implemented it? That the obvious people to do such would have been your Editors and High-Level users? That if you had, the massive speed issues, the eyesore complaints -- all might have been noted before EVERYONE got it rammed down their throats as a fait accompli? That you might have had time to FIX the problems before you began doing everything you can to chase away users?

    Why do I have to point this OUT?

    P.P.S. -- As I type this, despite the fact that this missive is radically
    longer than the window it is contained in, THERE'S NO SCROLL BAR AT THE RIGHT --------------------------------->
    Lame, lame, and yes... LAME

    Oh, AND ONE MORE PIECE OF BRILLIANCE:
    "Preview" windows? THEY'RE kinda USELESS when they have different display widths and fonts than the ones used on the final page!!

    WHAT A SHOCKER!! Anyone **else** have a hard time figuring that one out before being explicitly told about it?

    Who IS doing your web site design, anyway? "HafWitz Haf-Pricet Webb Dezyne, Ink."?
    >:-/

    .


    DITTO! (That was easier than I thought it would be)
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Slayergirlkal

    Slayergirlkal

    [179]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 08/04/05
    • level: 38
    • rank: Squarepants
    • posts: 510
    I must say that some things are nice about this layout like with show guides guest stars and all are easier to see but that's about the only good thing!! The old one needs to return I'm tired of seeing all the ads for Californication too!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of AndreaMSkate

    AndreaMSkate

    [180]Sep 27, 2008
    • member since: 12/20/07
    • level: 49
    • rank: Snufflupugus
    • posts: 12,207
    Going back's got my vote, for sure.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.