Comments on: Random But… http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/ HoosierAccess.com Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:12:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Josh Gillespie http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2126 Josh Gillespie Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:17:56 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2126 Get this, in today's print edition of the Star, it came with a users guide on how to use the revamped site. That can't say much for it's usefulness if it comes with a users guide. It's 16 pages long with no advertisements! Lots of nifty pictures though. Get this, in today’s print edition of the Star, it came with a users guide on how to use the revamped site. That can’t say much for it’s usefulness if it comes with a users guide. It’s 16 pages long with no advertisements! Lots of nifty pictures though.

]]> By: Scott http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2123 Scott Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:49:50 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2123 Gannett is rolling out a redesign of the websites of all of their newspapers; the Courier-Journal's was also redone (and not for the better). Gannett is rolling out a redesign of the websites of all of their newspapers; the Courier-Journal’s was also redone (and not for the better).

]]> By: Jim http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2120 Jim Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:51:12 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2120 I have always appreciated the Indy Star's commitment to their website. I must say I liked the old design better. Haven't they been through this tinkering and gone back to the old style before? I have always appreciated the Indy Star’s commitment to their website. I must say I liked the old design better. Haven’t they been through this tinkering and gone back to the old style before?

]]> By: Nathan Brindle http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2119 Nathan Brindle Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:47:12 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2119 OK, so I checked load time on my workstation in DC, where the company I work for has a fractional T3 connection and the page ought to load in nothing flat. It took 20 seconds from start to finish. It's slow. It's got too much scripty goodness and way too many advertising sites loading even after the main content (which took 15 of the 20 seconds) is displayed. F5 reload wasn't any better. And Michael is right. The website now looks like the print edition: Tastes great, less filling. YMMV. OK, so I checked load time on my workstation in DC, where the company I work for has a fractional T3 connection and the page ought to load in nothing flat. It took 20 seconds from start to finish.

It’s slow. It’s got too much scripty goodness and way too many advertising sites loading even after the main content (which took 15 of the 20 seconds) is displayed. F5 reload wasn’t any better.

And Michael is right. The website now looks like the print edition: Tastes great, less filling.

YMMV.

]]> By: Michael Jezierski http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2117 Michael Jezierski Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:52:54 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2117 Considering the Star has little in journalistic substance, they now find themselves having to dazzle us with their **** [see "Posting Guidelines"]. Oh look! Shiny objects! Considering the Star has little in journalistic substance, they now find themselves having to dazzle us with their **** [see "Posting Guidelines"].

Oh look! Shiny objects!

]]> By: Chris http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2116 Chris Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:13:37 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2116 The Star site looks nice -- sort of like a blog in some ways. I didn't have a problem with speed. After reading the last comment, I even reloaded the page using F5 to get it to really reload and didn't have a problem. The Star site looks nice — sort of like a blog in some ways.

I didn’t have a problem with speed. After reading the last comment, I even reloaded the page using F5 to get it to really reload and didn’t have a problem.

]]> By: Nathan Brindle http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2115 Nathan Brindle Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:00:36 +0000 http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/03/19/random-but/#comment-2115 The Gannett Star has a website? It takes so long to load, I was kind of wondering. Look, I'm old school. I don't need or want all the fancy bells and whistles. Just give me the [word removed, see "Posting Guidelines"] news. It would make the website a lot faster and I'd be more inclined to use it on a regular basis. But the front page consistently takes nearly 25 seconds to load completely for me (old and new sites, makes no difference), and I've got a 4Mbit connection that I just tested to make sure it's running full speed. In sum, the Star site still feels like it's 1999 and I'm on 56k dialup. Other than that, the site is very pretty and I like the fonts. But pretty doesn't feed the bulldog. Either they need more bandwidth or they need to hire somebody competent to bum their code and tweak their servers. The Gannett Star has a website?

It takes so long to load, I was kind of wondering.

Look, I’m old school. I don’t need or want all the fancy bells and whistles. Just give me the [word removed, see "Posting Guidelines"] news. It would make the website a lot faster and I’d be more inclined to use it on a regular basis. But the front page consistently takes nearly 25 seconds to load completely for me (old and new sites, makes no difference), and I’ve got a 4Mbit connection that I just tested to make sure it’s running full speed.

In sum, the Star site still feels like it’s 1999 and I’m on 56k dialup.

Other than that, the site is very pretty and I like the fonts. But pretty doesn’t feed the bulldog. Either they need more bandwidth or they need to hire somebody competent to bum their code and tweak their servers.

]]>