Thursday, October 9, 2014

SFGate Again Unveils New Appearance Which Looks Crappy And Is A Pain In The Ass To Navigate; Thursday First Take

 Once again...and again...and again...SFGate has rolled out their new on-line website and once again, and again, navigating it and its assorted pages is tantamount to a hike up Mount Tam in your skivvies --who the hell is in charge over there? Are any of the Hearst executives aware the new format looks like shit and takes forever to finally get to your desired destination?

I give up.







*Follow me on Twitter

53 comments:

  1. It is absolutely horrible. Is it more modern looking? Sure. Is it a better experience for the reader? No way. I really hope they listen to the nearly universal negative feedback on their site and change it back... but I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Rich, how much are you paying for the website you are criticizing?
    If you don't like it don't go there you schmuck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The site is god-awful. Is this is an example of the hipper, younger, trendier,"improved" way to deliver news? Whether or not it's free is irrelevant to its quality.

      Delete
    2. 7:26, how much are the advertisers paying to have an ad on that site that won't get my eyeballs because of the shite "design"?

      I may be a robot (Cylons have rights too!) but I don't appreciate the crap "work" of some pierced and tatted webster who doesn't have a clue.

      Delete
    3. By your "logic," since no one pays for the website, no one should criticize it. In fact, no one pays for the web period, so no one should criticize it.

      Movie critics don't pay to see the movies they review. I guess they should all say nice things then.

      God, what a moron you are.

      Delete
    4. @2.23 OK Einstein, since you don't feel people are allowed to criticize a "free" site that looks like crap & is virtually impossible to navigate, I won't criticize it..anymore. :p I also won't bother visiting it since it takes too damn long now to find anything on it.

      Delete
  3. Yesterday, it wasn't a pain in the ass to navigate ... IT WAS F...... IMPOSSIBLE!

    I tried - with no success - to activate several stories. And, the "loading" symbol never moved.

    However, I did find most of the stories by going to Google News, and typing the desired keywords in the "search" window, on the top of that page. A few of them came up credited to "SFGate," so you can get some of their stories without getting their grief.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What an effing mess! In the olden days we could scan the column listings and see - by reading the headline - whether or not we'd read the current one, or whether it was a repeat (Jon Carroll comes to mind). Now they list them only by writer's name, not content, so scanning is not an option.

    What next, that flipping paywall again?

    I quit. Done. Over and out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes excellent point there at 8:27am.
      Before you could easily scan the headlines and make a decision as which stories you would read. Last you were bombarded with constant movement or graphics that overwhelmed the screen.

      Delete
  5. I can get loaded faster then this new improved website can get loaded.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every time they "improve" a web site they screw it up more.

    I can tell you a little about that, since I investigated UX when changing careers. The UX field started out genuine and wanting to make the user experience better. But, like news itself, it got corrupted by consultants who now buddy up to clients and tell them what they want to hear to get their money, all in the guise of "facts" and "statistics" and "research." Which is why so many sites are ridiculously designed, and the designers are proud of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "designers" are usually pierced tatted poser geeks who never did anything in their pre-"career" life, and who now think they're God because they can push code, and some account exec buys into their BS because they look so "hip" with all that crap hanging off them.

      Delete
    2. I did UIs for a long time. Don't assume a lot of thought went into the new format. Usually the people responsible for coming up with these formats simply look at trendy websites and copy them, with no regard as to whether they are easier and more efficient to use.

      Delete
  7. ...And ironically, one of the two words I had to type in to publish that post was "websites." Bizarro, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stop listening to the codepushering webgeeks. Have a real human tell you if your wonderful new site is useable, whether you work for the Chronicle or someone else.

    I won't be wasting my time going to sfgate anymore. It's unuseable as wellas fugly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. and they did this horrific abortion of a redesign -- what is this, TMZ? -- just as the Giants are going into the NLCS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean ALCS, no?

      Delete
    2. no...he means NLCS just like he said

      Delete
  10. Take a deep breath people. They will tinker with it, already yesterday's glitches have been fixed.
    Those saying they won't visit the site are lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The glitches have not been fixed. The website is still cheap looking and user unfriendly.

      Delete
  11. The new SF Gate - Game on!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'd like to share an observation and would appreciate any feedback.

    I've been visiting this blog for a couple of years and believe it's fair to say that Mr. Lieberman has nothing but contempt for the local media. He thinks all the local newspapers are lousy, all the local radio stations are lousy, all the local television stations are lousy, the owners and management of all the above are greedy and incompetent, and now the online SFGATE.COM is terrible.

    It is now quite apparent how Mr. Lieberman feels about all of the above. What is the point of repeating this ad nauseam? Might as well change the name of the blog to "Howling at the Moon."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rich is right. Bay Area media is lousy. How can we improve the media if we don't question it.

      Delete
    2. Well, Kathleen, how can you question the media without a....QUESTION MARK?

      It looks like this: ?

      Delete
    3. Rich repeats his contempt because the Bay Area media keep finding new ways to demonstrate their suckdom. The new sfgate.com is only the latest example.

      Rich certainly isn't alone in commenting on the crap that is the new sfgate.com. Take a look at the "Welcome to the New SFGate.com" page and see how far you have to go down the 1202 comments before you can count 10 positive comments.

      Here's a hint - it's a long way.

      Delete
    4. Rich is a media CRITIC. While I do not always agree with his criticism, I understand his role is to point out what he sees as flaws in local media.

      Meanwhile, if you've invested "a couple of years" visiting this site, and you don't like it, perhaps you should find a new hobby.

      Delete
  13. It looks like a 12 year old played with fonts and colors and threw this up

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes it is very difficult to navigate. I must have spent one hour last night trying to finish one story because of the constant movement of graphics.
    SFgate who built this website? So far a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's beyond horrible. The graphics-loving brain trust at SFGate.com must have assumed nobody would look for actual NEWS on their site.
    Why do newspaper web site "upgrades" usually result in a web page that's much worse then the original?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because most newspapers are losing their shorts or are facing a very real future, based upon a decline in revenue that can be empirically proven. Thus, in order to "attract" more readers, they tinker. Often, consultants say newspapers need to attract the same demo group that Cumulus sought when it nuked KGO. However, that demo won't be reading or listening much, as they go other media. For that demo, TMZ, Kinja, Radar, and other gossip sites are on their regular visits. Newspapers with solid journalism are not (not saying The Chron is solid; it isn't) on their list. Additionally, when looking at my children and their friends, they are addicted to social media. Who has time to read real news? Old folks like me. The Chron is in the ICU. In terms of quality, well, that's long been dead.

      Delete
  16. "It is now quite apparent how Mr. Lieberman feels about all of the above. What is the point of repeating this ad nauseam?"

    And yet you continue to read his blog. If it's so repetitive and negative--as you've alluded--why give it a click? With such an unfavorable view of Rich's content, it makes little sense that you've been here for a "couple of years."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because he also represents many of us who used to work in media, be it print or broadcast. Although I don't always agree with him, he provides a forum that, while it may not be your cup of tea, has chronicled the continuing decline of Bay Area media, which was had one of the best newspapers in the country. The San Jose Mercury News was revered when I was in J-school. Now it's a trash heap owned by a hedge fund with more typos than a second-grade class. When I moved to the Bay Area, I was happy because I thought I could get Bay Area TV news, which years ago I got on cable but that system dropped most Bay Area news. Sadly, I was shocked. The decline is over. It's RIP Bay Area news.

      Delete
    2. Response to @12:18,

      Yes, I do read this blog periodically, but decreasingly so. My objection isn't to the negativity but to the repetition. More and more it seems like Mr. Lieberman is repeating himself and nothing more.

      The things Mr. Lieberman is complaining about aren't about to change and I question the value of endless repetition of the same complaints without anything new.

      My interest in this blog is waning and I feel like it's become a home for people who can't adjust to change.

      Delete
  17. "Yesterday, it wasn't a pain in the ass to navigate ... IT WAS F...... IMPOSSIBLE!"

    @8:09 Truer words have never been spoken.

    Went there today and it was the same disaster. Left the site after reading one story as it was far too much trouble to continue with others.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lost interest and exited halfway through the scroll.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, it is a hot mess. WTF were they thinking? I feel for the real journalists there--and they do have some, despite all the flak they get here and elsewhere.

    And while we're on it, the next biggest Bay Area former print website is insidebayarea.com

    Every so often, I get a notice that I've "maxed out" my articles for the 30 day period and that I will have to pay to see more. As IF!

    Whoever thought this one up and sold it to the bosses doesn't realize that the savvy reader can do one of two things:
    1) Say "Oh well!" and give up (because we weren't all that interested anyway).
    2: Go over to google and type "San Jose Mercury" or "Oakland Tribune" or whatever and voila! There's the exact same news page they were trying to charge you for!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Auntie L,

      You are so correct about the paywall of the Merc/Oakland Trib. Finding short cuts through the certain news sites can be tricky. The merc. paywall is not as efficient as WSJ.

      Other options are: emptying of the memory cache and the cookie cache of your browser or using another browser or web unit.

      The problem behind SFGate.com starts from the top.

      Technology evolution does not always equal to human evolution. It is the sign of the times.

      # Good topic. ... Richie L You are the best ... .

      Delete
  20. SFGate/The Chronicle have to know of the pitfalls of this format/technology. They launched it several weeks ago, and it was cumbersome, and un-responsive, at that time.

    When the news of Robin Williams death hit the media, in a firestorm, they reverted to the familiar format. After a few days, they tried again ... UNTIL ... the Napa earthquake hit, and once again we wanted responsive access to local news.

    The third time has not been a charm.


    ReplyDelete
  21. I understand it was designed with a nod toward getting a younger audience to read it. TRENDING!

    ReplyDelete
  22. It looks ridiculous. No dates on anyone's column archives, so a casual(occasional) user couldn't tell which column was the most recent.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 2:23. (LOL)

    I understand the quest for demographics. Likely, most of us who read/respond, here, do.

    Does SFGate understand that - if the main page can't be fully viewed, and the stories won't load - the age, and lifestyle of the user is immaterial?

    Evidently not.






    ReplyDelete
  24. The new Format on sfgate is big, bold, and far too busy... The Fonts thet are using are way too big, and should be size down.

    All of us commenters on sfgate have complained mightily about Viafoura, to NO AVAIL. The better comment Format is Disqus which SJ Mercury News is utilizing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jesus what a clusterfuck. The demise of America's media continues at a rapid pace

    ReplyDelete
  26. The website has larger type and photos, but I can't find the article dates and authors. WIth the old site I knew what was yesterday's news.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I can't even get it to load past the first screen... with no scrolling whatsoever. What a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It sucks. Every time SFGATE makes a change it really means make it worse...

    ReplyDelete
  29. "My objection isn't to the negativity but to the repetition...My interest in this blog is waning and I feel like it's become a home for people who can't adjust to change."

    By your own admission, you've lived at this home for a couple of years and though your interest is "waning," you haven't found a new place. Very interested to know why you stay.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's so bad. I keep clicking it out of habit and it's just a mess. Like a nightmare you can't wake up from. Serious stories mixed in with fluff. No organization that seems to say "this story is important." or at least more important than another. The fonts are terrible.
    Was this focus-grouped? I can't imagine anyone thinking this is an improvement.
    The push for more stupid non-news galleries at the top of the page at the old site were bad enough, but you could at least see that there was news on the site elsewhere on the page. There has to be a better news site for the Bay Area right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is the third time I've tried to post a comment on this website, now I just want to see if I can get on. Must be some simple trick I'm missing?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I can't even try to navigate the site because it freezes up as soon as I try to load it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. No matter what "state-of-the-art" computer platform I use (Windows8.1,MAC) the SFGATE website runs poorly.
    I bet they paid well over a hundred K to have a team of morons to develop it.
    Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Overall it is a horrible experience...I have read the SF Chronicle since before it was digital. Too many ads and pop-ups and just unpredictably erratic at best. The news needs some life! And all the adds have to be downplayed...too confusing. The site will close automatically during a session and the spooling is dismal!!! I used to like to read the SF Chronicle, but this new format is terrible and unpleasant to navigate. Please make it better; after all we all know that the technology is at your fingertips...Silicon Valley, programming and CSS, to name a few. Get your shit together!

    ReplyDelete