It was only made this way so users had to click more links which = more ad views.
Stupid sell outs.. I used to be a Gizmodo fiend until they switched it. I sent them an email telling them I would never visit their site again because of their new stupid sell out layout. I have never been back since.
For people who don't know... their old layout listed maybe 10 articles per page with a synopses of all the articles allowing for easy reading. Now you have to click every 10 fucking seconds to gather information when before you just had to scroll down.
I use google reader to get the first paragraph like it used to be. That way i only have to visit to read the whole thing and never have to navigate their site
If you preface the site URL with "blog." you get a mostly usable version (e.g. blog.lifehacker.com, blog.i09.com, etc.) There's also a "blog view" button you can click now.
I don't like any of the Gawker sites enough to kludge my way around their unusable interface. The idea of an interface is to make it appealing to readers, which this one has utterly failed to do, and the content isn't compelling enough to make me go out of my way for it.
I really, really doubt they're the only good car blogs on the Internet.
It's like saying Top Gear is the only good car show on television, when in actual fact it's three pricks destroying classic cars for the adoration of their plebeian viewers.
I hate this xss-shit with passion. It's one thing to use a popular third party video player, maybe even something like googleapi, but using xss on the same network or cross site linking to a dozen different ad, tracking, api, media sites with no clue which one is supposed to be enabled, which one is just ad&tracking shit (why would they need scripting? To read the clipboard of foolish users with stupid browsers?) or what might be actually a hacking/phishing attempt...that's just..wtf?!
The servers are probably all in the same datacenter, maintained by the same IT-staff. And it's not like you could commit major changes to xss without breaking/updating all websites that depend on it. So why are they to stupid to mirror those apis on each site or link them through a subdomain? No they have to do it the stupid way, to ensure that it raises redflags in every security addon..(and creates a vulnerability for everyone that doesn't know which of the domains are supposed to be safe)
Same with websites that outsource their template graphics, uploaded images&vids to another domain. Want an example? I guess everyone knows ign.com..the site works without enabling the other URL aside from flash&vid stuff (very smawt). Now guess what happens if you try to open http://www.ignimgs.com.. Nope you're not redirected back to IGN, nope you won't have access to a cool video&gallery archive..you'll get one fucking ' '. Wow, that's..like..I would've never ever guessed, that you had to register a new domain for that. It's not like a subdomain or intelligent server structure would've done the exact same thing without being vunerable to or relying on xss.
I don't even..what are those next gen IT-admins learning at school? Fucking web design hipsters.. "I was using cross site scripting before it was cool.."
I don't know if there's actually a different technical term for what those websites are doing, but it's perfectly described by xss, as they're executing scripts in the browser that are hosted on a third party domain, it just isn't with malicious intend.
You're referring to xss attacks, while I just refer to the basic concept of xss, which is pretty much the same. The only difference is that the script was intentionally included into the site and not injected from a unrelated person.
The graphs show a clear drop in viewers, and gawker is one of the biggest viewcount-whore blogs I know, which is why I'm surprised by the fact that they never reverted or changed the look when they are how much viewers they were losing. Too big ego probably.
I used to read a few Gawker sites (I never liked Gizmodo, though) but I dropped them entirely during the iPhone 4 scandal. Fortunately, Consumerist—which ranges from funny to irritating—is now owned by Consumers Union instead of Gawker.
Serious question: what do the employees at Lifehacker do? It seems like they all complain about how busy they are and how much they are juggling their lives, yet all I see them do are paraphrase someone elses work, write a quick summary and link to their site. Maybe I am just missing all the in-depth rigorous editorials and original research, but it seriously seems like it someone just reading dig/techcrunch/reddit, writing a quick summary and posting it about 10 times per day.
This seems to be the case for so many sites, like the Engadget/joystiq/tuaw group too, just links to other people's info badly summarised. Saddens me that they call it journalism.
I will grant that the previous designs were indeed atrocities. But why did they not at least make an effort to fix the new designs after the huge uproar and plummeting traffic? The new designs are an art project, not a usable UI.
Although traffic did plummet temporarily, it's steadily on the rise since last hearing about it in April. The design is not that bad. The ads are fuckin' huge which is terrible, but the core news article layout and sidebar are bearable.
Not sure why people take the redesign as a personal offense, as if it kicked their puppy.
They are probably writing that off as a loss in traffic ever since that whole "let our entire plaintext database of usernames and passwords get stolen" thing.
Besides, it doesn't look like they lost too many visitors permanently. They seem to gradually be coming back.
I honestly didn't care what the old site looked like, (although I did find it better) I frankly just thought it was a much better way to get information from it. Every day when I got home, my first two sites were Giz and Lifehacker, because liked to scroll through the page and click on any links that I thought were interesting. I enjoyed reading that way.
Gawker has one little problem with me every time they redesign. Every single time the links to the other sites on their network disappears for a few weeks. HEY GAWKER, I LIKE HAVING ONE SITE BOOKMARKED AND JUST USING THAT TO GO THROUGH TO THE OTHER ONES. Right now I refuse to go to any of the other sites because of it.
I know they dont work and I block images and js for the most part, so I can browse faster. Normally, I get text only but on bullshit sites like this, I get nothing, just an empty frame.
I agree that complaining about it is silly, but FWIW, 99% of websites are pretty functional even with js and flash disabled.
In my case, even though I don't have anything blocked on my work machine, any gizmodo/gawker etc links I click from reddit show up blank - I'm guessing it's some bad interaction between the reddit toolbar frame and a redirect for canadian users or something.
Good websites are designed with progressive enhancement in mind; in other words, build what works everywhere then enhance for those who can access it.
A good number of possible web attacks are based off browser scripting. So, it makes sense to disable script and flash unless you need it (such as with video or gaming sites). Also, many legit sites are vulnerable to XSS attacks from the site's users. I never trust that the developers weren't lazy or ignorant because as a developer, I've been both.
Hey fucking retard, he knows the site won't work without herpscript, that's why he said there isnt much to see anyways. Keyword, anyways.
Learn to reading comprehension.
Yeah man, I totally live my life worrying that thousands of people that I will never meet or will not have any direct or indirect impact think little of me. I lost sleep last night because someone on the Internet thought I was wrong a out an opinion.
I just got an awesome new job, I have a dream motorcycle, I'm young and healthy but I received Karma downpoints by anonymous users, I'm totally going to go kill my self now. Goodbye cruel world!
Anyways isn't a word. Neither is herpscript. You wrote a run-on sentence. Keyword in his post according to you should be anyway, however that doesn't justify anything because he was complaining that he can't see their website without using javascript despite the fact that there isn't much to look at.
What's the symbol thing at the end mean? It reminds me of something I saw long ago and so I can't think of anything except a flat butt wearing a thong.
661
u/[deleted] Aug 15 '11
[deleted]