Yes, the Old Look and Feel is Back…for Now

computer system fail

Bigstock

As we expected, we got a lot of passionate feedback on the new look and feel of the site that appeared earlier this week. Some of it was complimentary, some not so much. And last night — poof! — the old site design magically reappeared.

We had a few behind-the-scenes difficulties that required taking down the new look and bringing back the old one. Our technologically adept IT gnomes are, even as we speak, busily banging away at their keyboards somewhere in the super-secret, socially distanced dungeon in which TTAG keeps them chained to their desks and (occasionally) fed. Don’t worry, they get extra rations around the holiday season.

Long story short, the new look will make a reappearance once the naughty little gnomes fix those problems. We’ll also be implementing a few of the suggestions some of you so helpfully contributed while the new site design was up.

In the mean time, thanks for your patience as we work to improve the site. We appreciate it more than you know.

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    2 boxes of .45 hollow points if you keep the old site.

    1. avatar The anti-fancy says:

      Make that 3, I’m good for one.

      1. avatar Imayeti says:

        Put me down for 4.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Stop it! All of you!!
          You are just encouraging them to make changes we won’t like in order that we bribe them to restore their magazine inventories.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You are just encouraging them to make changes we won’t like in order that we bribe them to restore their magazine inventories.”

          Party pooper, you are.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          I wish it actually worked that way. I made a change people didn’t like and just got yelled at by my wife.

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Wait.
        Are we donating or receiving?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You’re easy, but you ain’t cheap. 🙂

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Tom, thought I’d share something with you one last time since I won’t be returning to TTAG after the new format comes back.
          Shot quail yesterday morning. Knocked down 16 and even managed a double. Fried chicken lunch at the Country Club with my hunting partner, Ray. Then back to the farm to confirm zero on my TC Encore MZL. (MZL season began today.) Yesterday was a good day. You guys be careful and watch your six.

        3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          jwm, I know you like a bird too. That last comment was for you also. Be well.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          GF, quail is my favorite. But my season here in CA has been a wash. Too many fires in my best hunting spots.

          Maybe next year. Hope you and yours have a good Christmas and new years.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Hell, I’ll throw in some 223

      Steel case.

  2. avatar KenW says:

    Can you do like Reddit and some other sites do and allow us to choose between old and new look?
    I like the legacy page look and did not care for the new look.

    1. avatar splic3r says:

      for the love of god, yes, this!

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      …if this is a modern website, what we see is basically a layout template that get filled in by a bunch of database output. What Reddit (and some others) do is let the user pick their favorite template.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The old look is just fine; clean, simple, functional. We could use an explanation of the expected benefits of the new configuration.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      They think it will mean more money for TTAG.

      I don’t mind TTAG making money, but there is a limit to how much obnoxious layout I am willing to tolerate.

      If I could pay $12/year to get an ad-free old-layout newest-on-top option, I’d do it. A buck a month is almost certainly more than TTAG makes serving ads to me.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        I second that motion!

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        Hmmm. I agree. I’d pay a modest fee like $12/yr to get rid of ads; albeit, I don’t mind the ads much.

        I’d pay more; $24 – $36/year to get a moderated version of the web site where moderators filtered-out all of the postings of those users whom they concluded – purely arbitrarily – had nothing useful to offer.

        The thing I most dislike about TTAG is wading through the drivel of postings that are from trolls or idiots who really have nothing to offer. If I could avoid this effort I’d spend more time on the site and reading postings that might be informative or thought-provoking.

        1. avatar That's nasty says:

          Fudds….. who needs em…

        2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @MarkPA

          Be careful what you wish for…

          The Moderators on the Comics Kingdom site are random and capricious…they routinely delete and / or ban Conservative posts that do not have any bad language or threats…while giving a “Pass” to Libbie posts that can be downright obscene, vulgar and full of specific threats. The Mods and I have argued several times…I am usually reinstated…but, it is a hassle each time. CK’s Mods sincerely believe that they are gods (small -g-).

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          I’ve been a moderator on a couple of different sites and I have to say that self-policing to be fair and neutral is tough when there are people who post really stupid things; the job of a moderator isn’t to eliminate stupidity but to exclude irrelevancy and incivility, yet the line between stupidity and irrelevancy isn’t always clear. I preferred being a moderator when part of a team so when there was any doubt we could kick a post to the team and get feedback, and when it wasn’t just a choice between tossing a post or keeping it but we could edit out insults, flip all-caps to regular text, and otherwise adjust posts that actually contributed but contained objectionable content. My default was to keep as much as possible, but I never ran out of amazement at just how horrid quality of writing could be yet still contain a relevant (not necessarily useful, but relevant!) point.

          The best moderators are those with the ability to be amused at any perspective that might show up, regardless of their own views — they feel little compulsion to delete anything because of point of view or even ideology — and who have had experience taking a controversial topic and arguing whichever side was assigned, and doing it to their very best.

        4. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @Roymond

          It is a very human thing to interject your POV into your decision-making process. In an ideal world, Moderators would be neutral…in these days of Media fawning on particular political and social ideologies I don’t see much in the way of neutral when Moderators get involved.

          Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

        5. avatar Roymond says:

          I know a good number of moderators who are quite neutral, who operate as I did and when in doubt leave it alone. I know with the quality of the public education system over the last few decades it’s hard to find younger people that are capable of being neutral, but if the setup allows appeals to a panel of moderators neutrality can be learned. The one difficulty is that this approach requires a larger number of moderators! And even when moderators can nominate even-handed participants as new moderators, not too many people want the responsibility of reading scores of posts and maintaining an objective view through ideological rants and other drivel. It’s easier to get and keep moderators when they don’t have to deal with a hundred or more posts a day! Keeping that post count down can be done a couple of ways, but the most effective I’ve seen is when discussions are divided into fairly narrow topics — something difficult on TTAG since the whole site is pretty much about one topic!

      3. avatar billy-bob says:

        Wait, TTAG has ads?

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Sam,
      Old format= clean, simple, functional, I agree.
      New one = too busy, visual clutter. (Harder on the older eyes)

  4. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Amen!

    The new look sucks!!!

    It is almost as bad as the new Buggs Bunny cartoons.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      I agree.

      But methinks you are just mad you can’t catch that wascally wabbit. I mean, they gave you dynamite…

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        @Montana Actual

        For one of the rare occasions where Elmer gets the best of Bugs, look up the cartoon Hare Brush a 1955 release. A humorous turn of events and the ending is doubly so.

  5. avatar H Allen Davis, LLD says:

    I don’t comment a lot, no matter how passionately I might feel about a particular topic, and most especially regarding as esoteric and ephemeral as the “look and feel” of a website. However, TTAG suddenly got more than cluttered. It became an effort to remain focused. The distractions abounded to the point of sheer and utter annoyance, so much so I actually considered unsubscribing.

    Hey, you guys are in business, and money is money. You need it — advertising brings it in. And I don’t begrudge anyone earning their share of filthy lucre! I will welcome the older format, and am sure you’ll find ways of enhancing it and your ability to fill your wallets.

    Web design is orders of magnitude more complicated and involved over the years, and a lot of people don’t understand that you genuinely need to make TTAG as appealing to the eye as possible, while delivering the content you provide.

    Thank you for listening to your readers, and thanks for posting this message about your efforts to crank out the stuff you send me every day. I learn a lot here, and it’s a great source of information that I wouldn’t otherwise get.

  6. avatar Ben says:

    I refused to visit the new site. It was so, so bad. Like a hooker handling a baby, unwieldy and all around jumbled.

  7. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

    I would venture a guess that pushing the ads to the top of the page generates more hits on them, which is how the site pays for existing… I agree that it would be nice to have a choice option, but truth is someone has to pay for the bandwidth.

  8. avatar Jime Radcliffe says:

    Agree 100%. The new look is just way too cluttered and confusing. It is a headache to read. One of the reasons I visited this site above all other gun sites is it’s clean easy to ready look. Honestly if you go back to the old one I’ll be removing from my bookmarks. The new one is really that bad

  9. avatar Nam62 says:

    Hated it could not tell the old news from the new news!!!!!!!!!

    1. avatar The anti-fancy says:

      This.
      I check ttag everal times per day for new content. I can’t easily tell what is new in the new format and end up elsewhere.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Ditto

        1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          Tritto if thats’ a thing.

      2. avatar tmm says:

        Had the same feeling

    2. avatar Bil says:

      Same issue. Right now, you’re on my “daily read” list. You have new content, I like it and read it. Under the new format, I couldn’t tell what was new and what wasn’t. My quick perusal of your site turned into an exasperating search for new topics. I doubt you’ll be a daily read if you switch back to the new format. Hell, I doubt you’d stay a bookmark. Keep it clean and simple like the old format.

  10. avatar Rad Man says:

    No sir, I didn’t like it.

  11. avatar X marks the spot says:

    The new look sucks ass but if you HAVE to change things for the sake of change, please at least add a Dark mode.

  12. avatar Patriot at the bar. says:

    I’ve got some boxes of .22LR I could slip you under the table if you dump the new look and stay with the classic style.

    Last week sucked when I checked in to see this blog.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    Not seeing too many positive remarks on the other look. I refuse to call.it the new look because that suggests it’s coming back.

    The other look was like the MSN page windows comes up with.

  14. avatar Brainman says:

    I’m with the others. The new format is HORRIBLE. You’ll have lost me when you switch back.

    1. avatar Bob in Calif says:

      Same here. It works. It ain’t broke. Why fix it? Bookmark is already gone. There are many other sites that carry the same stories.

  15. avatar napresto says:

    It’s not about how the site LOOKS. It’s about how it SCANS. When people visit a website, they don’t read it carefully, they scan quickly, looking for information of interest. The old site, for all its flaws, was easy to scan (especially on mobile devices) by quickly scrolling up and down. The new one is noisy and cluttered, very cumbersome to scan. You can scroll up and down… and left and right. Instead of seeing just a couple items at a time, you see dozens. Cognitive load is very high. Spotting interesting items takes time and is frustrating. The new LOOK is fine – very nice, even. The new information architecture is not.

    For those saying that the new design serves advertiser interests, I disagree. The new design is not likely to point eyeballs toward ads anymore than toward articles. Ads and articles are both lost in the crush of visual noise: needles in a stack of needles.

    I highly recommend Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think” for some timeless web architecture and design advice. It’s a great book full of awesome advice, guidelines, and rules about these sorts of things.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I think you nailed it. I like this classic format because it’s very easy to SCAN. And as others have commented above, I refresh TTAG several times per day (I often keep it open in the background as I work) to see what’s new and to follow up on comments on the most recent several articles. The newest-on-top works the best for me, as well as this current (classic) font and color scheme. I’m not a fan of the test format, as it was “jumbled”.

      As I mentioned in another comment yesterday, I can appreciate Dan’s desire to keep the site fresh and relevant, and to avoid becoming “dated” as compared to other successful sites, but to be honest, this classic TTAG format is my favorite, and a large reason why it’s always my #1 go-to daily guns news site. I prefer it over Ammoland, Bearing Arms, The Gun Feed, etc. I’ll visit those sites, of course, but always secondary to TTAG, and this site is the only one I keep open all day.

      So, Dan, if your goal is to retain eyes on the site, I think you already have a winning formula with this easy-to-read layout. I highly recommend you provide links for us to visit a beta site so we can see your proposed changes and give our feedback. After all, we come to TTAG for the articles, and some of us even spend more time amongst the comments.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        “I highly recommend you provide links for us to visit a beta site so we can see your proposed changes and give our feedback.”

        User testing like this is how you make a product great (and avoid having to retract your newly launched design).

        1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          Can I be anal for a moment?

          Skim, not scan.

          Thank you, and yes, I too liked the old version better. I’ve made the suggestion since 2012 randomly to have a pay version of the have yet to do it.

          Hey Dan, why not take a poll? You guys used to do that annually to see how to make the site better.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @’liljoe,

          According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, both words have different primary definitions, but can refer to the same action of rapidly reading a portion of text. I prefer “scan” when associated with words on a screen.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          FWIW, in grad school “scan” was used for rapidly looking through text in search of something specific, while “skim” meant rapidly looking through the text to get the general feel.

        4. avatar napresto says:

          “Scan” is also the typically used term in HCI, information architecture, and UI/UX. But skim has about the same meaning.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Always thought “scan” related to electronic communications, while “skim” related to hardcopy.

        6. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          Sorry guys, my English degree is twenty years out of date and not used often. Back in the day skim was to glean shallow surface material (get a feel), scan was to analyze in more detail. I skimmed the book to see if I wanted to read it, I scanned it for mistakes.

          I’ll crawl back into my hole now 🙂

  16. avatar f says:

    Please do NOT bring back the “new” sight. Extremely difficult to visually navigate. Current site is good as is.

    1. avatar Hush says:

      At the onset I had to think more than usual to navigate the “new” site. Butt, after a few days it was easy enough for me and I looked for the date an article was posted which kept me from being redundant and simply took no note of other things. I google TTAG daily because my subscription kept dropping. The extra search is no major problem, just a few(4) key strokes and hit the enter key(5 total). I read TTAG daily for the content and don’t concern myself with grammar, off subject comments or ads. Advertisements catch my eye and I do a little shopping from time to time. Most of all I appreciate the content which keeps me more informed of things pertaining to POTG and our 2nd amendment right to keep and bare arms. Thanks Dan.
      The short answer: I can live with either the new or the old because I am more interested in the content than the physical makeup of the TTAG site.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Having advertisements is fine, so long as it doesn’t look like someone in the seventh grade was plastering posters of the same thing repeatedly — and so long as they can be ignored easily.
        As an example, there was a site I used to frequent that had the text area for discussions on the left side of the page and all the advertising on the right. Most people would check the right side for anything new, then ignore it — and if it was visually annoying, which so far everything on the “new” TTAG look is, you could just scoot your browser window to the right so the advertisement stuff was hidden.
        I’m revolted by having the ad on the right show up in giant form as background on the left. It isn’t enough to make me stop checking articles, but it is enough that I’ve become very selective as to which ones I’ll bother to check out; I’m screening articles using the email notifications and I’m far less likely to actually come to TTAG and read than I was before.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I keep forgetting that there are still people who don’t use ad blockers. It’s the only way I can stand to read on the internet at all.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          I have ad blockers, but they’re useless when the whole background of the page is ads! I don’t even want to know what the site would look like if I whitelisted it.

          I’m so tired of having to stare a that guy’s face here I’d shoot him if I ever met him.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          Huh — no option to edit my comment….

          I just found out that ad blocker can turn off background items, too — but apparently I have to repeat the action for every new image!

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          One device I use to access has an adblocker. I see no ads whatsoever. None. Beautiful, clean article pages.

          Another one has no adblocker so I can choose to see the ads from time to time, as every once in a blue moon I’ll click and check them out. I’ve bought products from two advertisers.

          I have other devices I rotate through, as well.

  17. avatar Mercutio says:

    Your choice – you can have a logical “latest at the top” design like Instapundit or you can go the “WhatFinger Dumpster Fire Look”. Guess which one I read and which I don’t.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      ^^^What he said.

  18. avatar Mercutio says:

    I suspect the dumpster look comes from letting an “Art Director” design the page instead of a Content Editor.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Like the sudden jump from Windows 7 to Win 10, and Microsoft’s inexplicable decision to abandon the common-sense menu tree in favor of the infamous tiles that only a 24-yr-old web designer would love. At least there were third party fixes that allow for Win 10 to be swapped back to the general navigational format of beloved Win 7.

      If it ain’t broke and nobody wants the “solution” in search of a problem, then…

  19. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    The one and only thing I like about the new set up is when responding to a comment you can easily look at said comment without having to scroll back to find it. Also the new format repeatedly told me my email address was invalid.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Yeah…happened to me as well.

      Usually the third try pushed it through.

      I thought it was like a new security challenge…..is that REALLY your email address?

  20. avatar EpsteinDidNOTKillHimself says:

    I agree with the (as of this posting) majority of comments.
    The old site was better by far.
    Cannot say I will return or go to other sites if the “new” site makes a return.

  21. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Welcome to the modern internet and modern websites – just like the bad old days of the early 2000s, with ads (now in fullscreen background image form, for added measure!), popups, and autoplay media shoved in our faces, interfering with doing what we’re on a site to do: consume the actual site content.

    I realize that sites have to be self-sustaining financially, but this approach sucks just as bad now as it did 20 years ago. As I’ve said before: TTAG is utterly unusable on mobile. On the desktop, I can use script-blockers and such much more easily.

    I like TTAG. I’m happy to support TTAG. I hate TTAG’s website. Come up with some form of subscription model (Patreon, etc.) and let us have an ad-free TTAG experience.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Come up with some form of subscription model”

      Dan already forewarned us about that. It’s coming.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Dan already forewarned us about that. It’s coming.”

        Like hell will I pay to be exposed to the ‘new’ layout.

        I would pay a modest fee for this layout right now…

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Brave browser is available on all mobile platforms. Get it. You won’t be sorry.

    3. avatar KenW says:

      Trying to view the new look TTAG on a tablet was a pain. On a cellphone it was an exercise in frustration. I gave up and stopped reading for a couple days and today used a laptop to see if it would help. And was glad to see legacy mode is back.

      I would be happy to chip in for a subscription based TTAG if it stayed open like now. If the only chorus was all like minded that would be no fun. I may not agree with a few ( more than a few at times ) but their viewpoints are no more invalid than mine.

  22. avatar Old Air Force says:

    The “new” look is not easy to navigate and is very cluttered. I like the current “old” design. It flows better and is a lot easier to read. If the new look returns the I will visit a LOT less. I will miss you guys.

  23. avatar A O says:

    This format of TTAG is like a Glock; it works. don’t screw with it, make some small change, such as adding a section in your drop down to choose articles by author, and say you are TTAG Gen2.

    1. avatar "Old" TTAG all the Way says:

      So you are saying the old site was extremely over rated, unimaginative, priced to high and its sole advantage is the after-market accessories?

      Got it.

  24. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Whatever happened to “If it ain’t BROKE, don’t FIX it”?

  25. avatar jwm says:

    New format will cause me to look for another site.

  26. avatar Umm . . . says:

    TTAG: “We’ve received near-unanimous negative feedback (Surprise!) for shitty, gratuitous change-for-change’s-sake. Technical reasons forced us to go back to what everyone likes, but we’re working hard to implement what you all hate!”

    Half the commenters: “Oh, thanks so much for listening and taking care of us!”

    1. avatar Just another John says:

      As Tucker Carlson would say, “Shut up and obey!” lol

      1. avatar Umm . . . says:

        Only computer assholes are this arrogant. Can you imagine Ford or Toyota repainting your car and moving the speedometer and gas pedal to the trunk when you take it in for an oil change?

        Just the other day my USB ports stopped working (no backups, no phone pictures), forcing a Windows update. Everything became washed out and illegible in the default Light mode. The other option, Dark, was awful in other ways, so I had to customize the color scheme for it to be usable. Amazon and IMDB no longer load.

        These people need to be hunted to the ends of the Earth and throat-punched wherever they are found. Every. Last. One.

  27. avatar John says:

    I EXTREMELY prefer the old look to the new as well. I think you’ll find beyond the masses much less preferring the new “subject organization” look that the loss of titular pictures on the main page (at least in my personal experience) draws less clicks/interest. Personally I went from ~hour/day to ~5 mins/day.

  28. avatar slow says:

    Ever heard of “new Coke” circa 1985?
    Might be worth your time to read.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      I wrote coca cola a 13 page letter explaining the fallacy of their endeavor to REPLACE Coke… Now I drink Coke Zero… close as you can get to real Coke without gaining 2 pounds a day and worrying about a sugar OD….

      1. avatar Lee the fudd says:

        I have tasted Coke zero. Yuk. It is appropriately named.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You’d like it better with a shot of good rum, I bet!

        2. avatar "Old" TTAG all the Way says:

          “You’d like it better with a shot of good rum, I bet!”

          Wait..There is another way to drink it?

          Come to think about it, I heard of this fancy new drink call Bourbon, maybe I’ll give it a go.

  29. avatar BluesMike says:

    If the new look comes back, I’m gone. As an expert in UI design I can tell you that the new look was awful and violated many rules of human interaction with computers. It was absolutely terrible. In fact, it looked like a poorly done Sharepoint site and that’s really bad. If you bring back that new look you simply have to provide a “classic” button to allow people to keep the reasonably well designed current look.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      Haha, a “classic” button. That would be hilarious.

    2. avatar EpsteinDidNOTKillHimself says:

      @BluesMike,
      Comparing the new, improved TTAGs to Sharepoint . . . whoa, there Mike! No need to be THAT insulting! (thumbs up!)

  30. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    I’m not one to begrudge progress but sometimes ‘new’ does not equal ‘better’.

    Even though the old format looks dated and has some shortcomings, it’s simple, easy to navigate and quick to scan for new content. It’s also very nicely setup for mobile use. Its actually a lot like Rock Auto’s site (which is laid out like navigating folders in an ancient version of Windows😅) in that it’s a simple, no extra fluff kinda layout that can be zipped right through with minimal headache.
    I’m sure advertisers though would rather the traffic didn’t ‘zip’ quite so fast.

    I didn’t hate the new setup but it was pretty ‘busy’ and it was obvious there was going to be a ‘learning curve’ as to how to quickly navigate it. A little streamlining and it would be very ‘passable’, not as good as the current setup, but workable.
    As far as the ads, they don’t really bother me as I use a pretty aggressive ad blocker. 😁 Too much of the internet is practically unusable without it!

  31. avatar Prndll says:

    Why not setup “themes” for people to use if they want something other than this standard? Why force everyone into a box?

  32. avatar 2aguy says:

    I like the new set up……..easier to find content.

  33. avatar The Swiss says:

    Please keep the old layout! It’s straight to the point, easy to read, thanks!

  34. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Long story short, the new look will make a reappearance once the naughty little gnomes fix those problems. We’ll also be implementing a few of the suggestions some of you so helpfully contributed while the new site design was up.”

    Do as you wish but your hits and readership will decline precipitously,remember the new improved Coke.

  35. avatar I don’t care says:

    Another vote for original flavor ttag

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Classic TTAG

  36. avatar former water walker says:

    I got used to the “new” look quickly. And noticed it ran better. My reply button worked well too but your site was hard on my fading eyes. Since I pay nothing to use it whatever you do is OK to me. It barely worked at times a few years ago…and I have no idea what Chip is going on about. I pretty much ALWAYS use my cheap LG phone.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      most of this. except my phone doesn’t do internet.

  37. avatar hal says:

    the original design is much better than the new, nice that’s gone flavor.

  38. avatar Roger J says:

    Can you guess which side I agree with? It should be easy.

  39. avatar M1Lou says:

    The new look was not easy to navigate. I like to read articles as you post them. The only improvement I would love to have, that used to be part of the site, is a way to click and arrow to go to the previous article or next article.

  40. avatar Old Region Fan says:

    Please keep our old way ! Everything in the modern world is about change for no apparent reason, many look to your site as a constant. Let’s keep it that way!

  41. avatar Ragnar says:

    That new look is as popular as making Kamala Harris the new TTAG Editor-in-Chief.

    If that abomination of a website design returns, I will say goodbye to TTAG.

  42. avatar Darkman says:

    The problem lays with the whole IT concept. Having worked for several companies who were driven by the need to constantly change for the sake of change it often resulted it mass confusion and a lack of productivity. Even after some amount of time it usually required the IT dept. to re implement some of the old systems ways. It really comes down to “Just because you can…doesn’t mean you should”. The success or failure of change is always determined by the ability of the end product to meet the customers demands. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. KISS

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The success or failure of change is always determined by the ability of the end product to meet the customers demands.”

      Which first requires identifying “the customer”. Once worked for a distribution company where the supplier was considered a “customer”, and the businesses that bought from our distribution house were considered a “customer”. Now, that was confusing.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        In the world of Quality Improvement and Management. A customer is defined as any person or business that receives goods, services or information from a company both internal and external. This isn’t even a knew concept as I spent almost 10 years teaching it while I worked in Government and that was in the 90’s and early 00″s. The problem falls in a organizations inability to realize that change for the sake of change and the next new thing doesn’t always improve quality of service.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “A customer is defined as any person or business that receives goods, services or information from a company both internal and external.”

          A classical explanation that presumes the receiver is paying for goods or services. When the proposition is that someone receives good and services for which someone else pays, is the receiver actually the “customer”?

          Look at healthcare provision; is the individual receiving service the customer, or the insurance company paying for the services? Is the insurance company the “customer”, or merely the pass-through financial agent? If the insurance company is negotiating pricing with healthcare providers, is there a financial fiduciary construct where the insurance company must only represent the premium payers, or does the insurance company represent itself?

          In the case of TTAG, are the subscribers “customers”, or observers/beneficiaries? In a situation where the company (TTAG) seeks to “sell” advertising on the website, is the observer the customer, or the companies providing advertising revenue? If both are “customers” who determines which one receives priority treatment?

  43. avatar Sam says:

    New look was awful. But maybe, like the NRA, it’s time for something else to take your place of precedence.

    I vote for Open Source Defense! None of the culture war or demonizing the other. Just logic and sound strategy for persuading the other side to come to our side.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Just logic and sound strategy for persuading the other side to come to our side.”

      Aaahhhhh. There’s the rub.

  44. avatar Ralph says:

    “we got a lot of passionate feedback on the new look and feel of the site . . . . Some of it was complimentary”

    I must have missed the complimentary part.

  45. avatar EpsteinDidNOTKillHimself says:

    FYI everyone, so far, using an ad blocker like uMatrix (Firefox), blocks nearly all the ads, pop up vids, background ads on the old/current version of TTAGs.
    IF the new and improved version of TTAGs comes back, will test it and report accordingly.

  46. avatar Thin Blue Malarkey says:

    There are only three reasons a website is “improved” —

    1. They’re a bunch of arrogant a**hats who think they know better than everone else in the known universe (the Mozilla/Apple model).

    2. They just hired the boss’s nephew who just graduated with a C- minus degree in graphic design.

    3. They think they will put more ads in front of eyeballs and make more money.

    Which is it, TTAG?

    1. avatar MLee says:

      That’s funny about Mozilla. Although I still use Firefox, my longtime email client was Thunderbird. Well that pile of crap finally got to the point where it just wasn’t working with no obvious fix. Yeah yeah Mozilla said this or that and you have to do this or that but it just got really old having emails from my favorite addresses not work for no apparent reason, ones like [email protected]——–.net
      We just want things to work for Petes sake. Don’t screw it up needlessly.
      And yes, I really have that email address.

      1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

        Long time firefox user here too.
        I actually had to figure out how to roll back to the previous version and lock out automatic updates because the new version (at least on my phone) was complete and utter garbage. Add to that, it no longer supported my ad-blocker (ghostery) and it was either roll back or dump it all together. Ghostery is the only thing that makes YouTube watchable (it blocks all the ads that aren’t actually part if the video itself) and I didn’t feel like searching for another ad blocker that works so well AND would be compatible with ‘new and improved’ firefox.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Try uBlock. I use it (for years) with Firefox. Disclaimer: My version of Firefox is very old, as is my OS (mac). I can’t vouch for how well newer versions work.

  47. avatar JJ says:

    The “new” site was not friendly to my browsers. No, I will not move to Chrome, Opera, Edge, or the default Firefox.

    Being able to view the site with javascript off is nice. I tried twice when the new design was up. I decided I wasn’t coming back. I ended up, by habit, hitting my bookmark and saw the old design was back. I was happy. Now to read that the new design is coming back, I will make sure to remove my bookmark when that happens.

    Too many times websites release new designs to make it look like things are still fresh and upbeat. No thank you. I want a site that just works. No need for anything extra just to peruse. Yes, I pretty much just lurk.

    Sure, update things when needed on the back end. Keep up to standards when security is concerned. By leave things alone that the public/customers sees when the public/customers are not having issues is the proper way to do that. Yes, I had to fight with a previous employer when they wanted a complete redesign. I made a few changes up front and all the changes in the back, but the site was 95% similar to the old design. Customers complimented the few changes. No one complained. The employer was happy with the new design.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The “new” site was not friendly to my browsers. ”

      I tried Edge, Chrome (4 varients), Avast, Firefox, Irridium, Pale Moon, Safari, Comodo, Slimjet. Even tried adjusting settings in each browser; the result was always the same – confusing and clumsy.

      Also, when involved in software design and distribution, I encountered the same problems you did. Indeed, the company founders insisted in a one inch tall company banner at the top of the display screen (on desktop computers). Our product was “enterprise”, and not available to the retail public. The “users” of our software did not make decisions about which product/software they used to conduct business (the decision was at the C-level), yet our founders insisted that the banner influenced companies to buy more of our 110 offerings. The “users” uniformly hated the loss of screen real estate.

      That company lasted five years, and went bust because the infrastructure of the programming defied scaling to true enterprise level. We were more interested in introducing new, cool stuff than in providing a robust enterprise solution.

  48. avatar MLee says:

    Change or discontinuing isn’t always popular. It’s like your favorite food or breakfast food being discontinued.
    It’s a major annoyance. It’s almost like having your cell phone die and you have start from scratch with a new phone with all your contacts missing. To get your new phone up to snuff and re-configured takes FOREVER or used to. They have some nice back-up and transfer programs now that vastly improve that headache but it used to suck, royally SUCK. That’s about how I felt when I hit my TTAG shortcut and the new page opened up. It was truly depressing.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      some above mentioned new/ classic coke.
      my passion laid with the maker’s mark fiasco to detune from 90 to 86 proof. launched a couple of notes containing no uncertain terms.
      ha. i still don’t see the shelves bereft of their product as they predicted. but that was the supposed impetus for the reformulation.

      1. avatar MLee says:

        Wanna hear STUPID? Hershey’s AIR DELIGHT. Now that was a lame idea. Did they really think reducing the amount of chocolate and replacing with air bubbles was going to catch on and sell? SERIOUSLY?
        Just how stupid do they think people really are? Yes it was discontinued.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        When I drank good bourbon, ‘Maker’s Mark’ was a favorite of mine…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “When I drank good bourbon, ‘Maker’s Mark’ was a favorite of mine…”

          MM is not even a patch on Champipple.

  49. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’ve seen so many change-for-the-sake-of-change pushes that just end up burning piles of cash only to have to undo everything that was changed months or years later. I’m being paid handsomely right now to undo a bunch of bullshit that I very strongly came out against years ago when it was being implemented. Figuratively filling in the hole somebody else dug and I know as soon as I am done somebody else is going to come along and start digging all over again is some misguided race for faux relevance in the eyes of peers, management, whoever. What I know with 100% certainty is that when that shiny new veneer fades and reality sets in I’ll get the call once again to come put it back the way it was.

    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Change for change’s sake is a game for morons who don’t know any better or scammers trying to shine a turd before selling.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Geez…you just described what I do. Cleaning up crap I told them wouldn’t work, can’t work, and probably should not try to make work.

  50. avatar Shwiggie says:

    Just fashion the site based on what is most beneficial all around. Whatever you do, responsive theming is going to be best for mobile users and going into the future, categorical layouts are better for browsing and finding content, and I imagine the SEO optimizations and modern plugins of a new system would be far superior for monetization and ad revenue.

    As for a commenting system…meh, I hate blog comment systems as much as I do Facebook integration. I still prefer forum backends for that, but I’m decidedly old-school and in the minority when it comes to community-building

    It’s a tightrope, and change is hard for some. I’ll keep reading. For what it’s worth I dig the new config.

    1. avatar Swig says:

      You are one of the …IT gnomes (that), even as we speak, busily banging away at their keyboards somewhere in the super-secret, socially distanced dungeon…that Dan mentioned above.

  51. avatar Kendahl says:

    There is a bad, old joke about the way to keep a hard on: Don’t fuck with it! The same advice applies to just about everything once you get it right. The TTAC web site, as it is Saturday morning and was until you changed it Friday, is an excellent example.

  52. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    The Font used on the old site is easy to read! Not hard on the eyes.

    I don’t care if you go to a subscription model, or ads, or whatever. Just don’t make it hard to read. I’m not 20 years old anymore and my eyes suck only worse getting older.

    My browser is ‘Brave’ not firefox, Opera, edge, whatever.

    https://brave.com/

  53. avatar TP says:

    Thank goodness. I don’t mind updating but that was a mess.

  54. avatar Nanashi says:

    “Load more” and infinite scrolling are abominations of website design and are unacceptable. They make it way harder to browse through older articles, hate unstable connections, and eat browser resources. Pages exist for a reason.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Definitely!

      One site I haunt has all kinds of material on it but it isn’t all thrown at the user on one page. Enough people go there just for the discussion forums that they tweaked the site so it was possible to navigate within the forums without every having to go through anything but the forums. That made everyone happy, as you could go to what you wanted and not have to deal with a deluge of obnoxious eye-clutter .

      So for the comment/discussion portion of TTAG, there should be nothing but comment/discussion on the screen except for a narrow column of simple ads on the right that can be ignored or hidden.

      And BTW, having ads with faces filling a major portion of the screen is equivalent to having a communist waltz into your house and sit herself down to your Thanksgiving dinner — it’s like “Who invited you and how do I make you go away?”!

  55. avatar Raimius says:

    Don’t go back to the “new” look. It makes the site much less user friendly, and will drive long term views down.

    If you have to do something like columns for topics, go more realclearpolitics style, where the latest news is by chronological order on the main column, and popular/subject-based items are on the wings (and mobile users can look at one column at a time)

  56. avatar Ahil925 says:

    “ Long story short, the new look will make a reappearance”

    That’s a threat buddy! If that old format returns I will either (at best) remove TTAG from my adblockers white lists or (at worst) delete it from favorites and just browse that other firearm blog. Either way you ain’t getting my ad views/clicks. You know that I won’t be the only one ding that either.

  57. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

    Dan et al,

    First off: I enjoy the majority of the articles and stories TTAG provides…your DGU reporting is often the highlight of my day. Most of your contributing writers have earned my respect for writing in a straightforward and often humorous manner.

    So far (by my count) there have been two attempts of you trying to introduce your “new look”. Both of them have generated massively negative feedback. I never envisioned you and TTAG as promulgating a Progressive Democrat ideological stance …defined as: trying the same thing over and over, consistently failing, and expecting different results each time (apologies for the snark…I had to let it out).

    Personal opinion: the “New” look is not avant-garde…it is reminiscent of a 6th grade class project. Your I.T. gnomes should continue to receive beatings until their morale (or performance) improves.

    Since you seem determined to implement a site that will alienate your most passionate readers, I offer the following constructive observations:

    Too much white space.

    Font did not have enough weight and had a weird kerning (almost like you chose the absolute hardest-to-read font available)

    The shadowed out “Reply” buttons were hard to see.

    The “Next” and “Previous” arrows are fine for the shallow attention level of many of the younger Internet users…I suggest you keep a version of the current content viewing process to appease older readers.

    Poor use of screen real estate.

    You might consider a two-tier approach to reading and commenting (such as the site Comics Kingdom). Free would give a basic access with basic commenting privileges and a plethora of advertising. Subscription would give a fuller access with minimal advertising (with the option of opting-out of targeted advertising).

    I would consider enrolling in a subscription version for USD $20 (or less) per annum if you met my privacy requirements and offered a decent archival menu.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So far (by my count) there have been two attempts of you trying to introduce your “new look”. Both of them have generated massively negative feedback.”

      Just a thought…..

      Dan might not actually be driving change.

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        Possibly? But, as the listed Managing Editor, he is the only name that I can address my concerns / suggestions to. If Dan chooses to share with us who is driving the change we could address that person(s) with our comments in re the “updated” TTAG.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But, as the listed Managing Editor, he is the only name that I can address my concerns / suggestions to.”

          I don’t know what’s what, or who’s who at TTAG. I just follow my momma’s advice: “Only believe half of what you hear (read), and none of what you see.”

        2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @Sam

          The “About Us” link at the bottom of TTAG’s home page has the information regarding the Editors and Contributors…Dan is the first entry and Jeremy is second (along with the photo of him fondling his “Pork Sword”).

          My Mom’s advice was a bit different from your Mom’s. Mom said to believe your own eyes over what you read / hear from others. Everything they write / say is filtered through their personal perceptions which can “tint” the output.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “TTAG’s home page has the information regarding the Editors and Contributors…Dan is the first entry…”

          True, but……

          Managing Editor is not necessarily Owner, or Publisher.

          Also, “He who pays the Piper calls the tune.”

        4. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @Sam

          I believe we are arguing the same side. We do not know if Dan is an / the owner or not. However, Dan is the highest name listed in the TTAG hierarchy…therefore I chose to address my concerns to him. He may or may not choose to pass them on. I realize that his admission the the “New Look” will return defeats all of our posturing and negative comments. It will be interesting if all the persons who say they will leave the site when the “New Look” returns will actually do so. I’m still waiting for Cher, Miley Cyrus, George Lopez, Snoop Dogg, Whoopie Goldberg, Amy Schumer and a host of others to follow through with their promises to leave when Trump was elected in 2016.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I believe we are arguing the same side. ”

          Perhaps. Just pointing out that unloading on Dan may bring no results because Dan has no authority regarding the “look and feel” of the website. Until we can know that, we should probably not take a visceral dislike to Dan’s words about the coming changes.

        6. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @Sam

          Show me where I have engaged in an ad hominem attack on Dan. I thought (other than the admitted snarky comment in an earlier post) that I had been respectful of Dan and the site. As the senior listed Management person on the site, Dan is the obvious choice to whom to address reader concerns as he is in a position to pass those comments up-the-chain of TTAG leadership…whether to the Owner or Publisher…or both. Empty posturing or making undefined threats does not give TTAG Management viable feedback or actionable data to provide better services to their dedicated readers.

          (this is fun…beats splitting wood outside on a cold, nasty day when a local inversion is [email protected] up our WX.)

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Show me where I have engaged in an ad hominem attack on Dan.”

          That is not the claim, nor the caution. It is irrefutable that many angry comments, about the change to the website, are directed at Dan, personally (which is far from ad hominem). I point out that our heat should be reserved for whomever actually calls the dance. Pointing out shortcomings in a more subdued tenor would be more appropriate. Many here maybe “shooting the messenger”, while the culprit goes unnamed and unscathed. I would guess that because Dan has not lashed back at the harsh comments, he is remarkably serene, or his job is to take the arrows without comment in order to keep his employment.

        8. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @Sam

          Not to beat an already dead horse…we are saying the same thing. I agree that the vituperative rhetoric we’re reading is not conducive to reaching a productive solution. I further agree with you that our heat should be reserved for those actually making the corporate decisions. All I said was that Dan is in the best position to pass along any negative (or positive) comments or criticisms (constructive or otherwise) to those who have the power to act.

          Completely agree about calmly pointing out the shortcomings….and offering positive suggestions. A number of readers have done so without resorting to “shooting the messenger” (Dan).

          Ta ta for now. Have to fire up the grill…there’s a Brontosaurus steak (bison) awaiting the correct amount of sear.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “there’s a Brontosaurus steak (bison) awaiting the correct amount of sear.”

          Flame thrower set to 3-squirt “burst” usually does it for me. Full auto is always a disaster.

        10. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          It’s all in choosing the correct combination of firepower and marinade for the task at hand. Personally, I find that controlled semi-auto fire is more accurate than full or even 3-squirt burst-fire…YMMV. The potato’s are baking nicely. Mama’s fixin’ the salad and we have leftover apple pie (from our two Haralson* apple trees) for desert.

          *for those readers who have never tried Haralson apples, you are missing one of the best eating / baking apples in the world…and they are perfect for colder weather climates.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Mama’s fixin’ the salad and we have leftover apple pie”

          Brontysower is better served with Banana Pudding for dessert.

        12. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Ufda, ate a dinner most Royalty would envy. Sat down with my Chef to watch a movie and lapsed into a food coma. Finally conscious and ambulatory…will try not do do that again soon.

          I will have to try banana pudding next time Brontosawyer is on the menu…hard to beat homemade apple pie though.

          G’nite

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…hard to beat homemade apple pie though.”

          Did you put ice cream on the pie? It ain’t really homemade apple pie without ice cream on top (I like chocolate or strawberry).

          Regarding Banana Pudding, don’t use instant, or pre-made pudding. Cook the pudding at home. Use “from scratch” Meringue, about two inches high on top of the pudding. Bake to golden brown, with no burnt tips.

        14. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Yes, Tillamook French Vanilla ice cream.

          My Chef (spouse) is very particular about her banana pudding…definitely no instant or *ugh* store-bought. We’ve never tried meringue on bp…may have to try it soon. There a couple of overripe bananas on the stand as I write.

          Keeping the discussion firearm relevant…was it you or Haz that was thinking of a TX-22 pistol? I like mine so much that I pretty much don’t shoot the G44 anymore…never thought I’d be proud of a Taurus…ya live and learn!

          I hope that u were able to find one.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…was it you or Haz that was thinking of a TX-22 pistol? ”

          Probably Haz. My Baretta Neos .22lr is a done deal. However….I keep looking for a .22 calibre semi-auto that can handle magnum magnum ammunition. Thinking I can keep the cost of plinking way down, while being able to take on brown bears.

        16. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Nope, not me. I have my own classic .22LR pistol and don’t recall voicing a desire about any newer ones. Likely was someone else.

        17. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Apologies to both of you for my error in memory. OTH, there’s always room for just one more good .22LR in the stable… .22’s are like Lay’s potato chips…hard to stop at just one.

        18. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I posted a very simple, vanilla comment stating that it wasn’t me. Yet it was flagged for review for some reason, and it still isn’t here.

          That was hours ago. I’ve had dinner and watched a full movie with Mrs. Haz since then. What’s going on?

        19. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          @Haz

          Don’t know. Last week I had several comments go directly to “Awaiting Moderation”. Like yours they were pretty bland…never showed up on the site.

          Could these random glitches be connected to the imminent “upgrade”?

        20. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I posted a very simple, vanilla comment stating that it wasn’t me. Yet it was flagged for review for some reason, and it still isn’t here.”

          Have seen a whole buncha more notices, “You cannot read the email at this time” that at any time in the past. Not sure why it happens, or what it actually means….like if the comment will pop up at a later time without an indicator it couldn’t be read earlier.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Very good recommendation!

      A dollar a month would be a good subscription rate, though.

  58. avatar Biatec says:

    I appreciate you going back to the old site. Thank you.

  59. avatar Listen to the readers says:

    Seems pretty unanimous. No one likes the new design. Please listen to your readers instead of trying to find yet another way to cram the new design down our throats. No one likes it. There’s a lot of options out there for gun news. The old format TTAG is among my favorites. I couldn’t make heads or tails of the new format and was found my news elsewhere. Like the old format, I’m back, for now.

  60. avatar Matthew Johnson says:

    Very rarely do I comment. But I will not be checking in of the “new” format returns. Very very busy and difficult to tell where the new articles are. Add me to the negative list

  61. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    I’ll make it simple, you bring back the new look and I will delete the page book mark and walk away.

  62. avatar JIM ABRAHAM says:

    Keep the old site look.

  63. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Thank you ever so much for forcing a change on us that we didn’t ask for. Are you a Democrat?

  64. avatar Huntmaster says:

    Now all you have to do is allow us to search and access the archived gun and equipment reviews. Why would you do away with one of the most useful features of your website.

  65. avatar SCW says:

    I found it hard to make sure I was seeing all the new posts with the newer format. I like the current format b/c I can just scroll down and see everything in order.

  66. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Long story short, the new look will make a reappearance once the naughty little gnomes fix those problems…”

    Why? What problem are you trying to fix? Because the ‘old style’ is extremely easy to digest. New article is at the very top. 2nd most recent… right under it. 3rd, below that, and so on. That’s it- about as simple as it can be while still being what people need.The ‘new’ one is worse in every way… from a reader’s point of view.

    Look at what yahoo’s search engine looked like when it launched in ’94 and then what google’s webpage looked like when it launched, 2 years later. Notice anything? Google was simple, uncluttered, fast, and imminently readable. Yahoo, on the other hand, was a mess with links everywhere to stuff that 95% of people weren’t looking for and a search bar hidden somewhere in there. One of these two websites ended up being the biggest one in the world. The other has now changed its own webpage to be like it.

    1. avatar NEPAdam says:

      ^^^☝️💯

  67. avatar NEPAdam says:

    The new layout is terrible. Hopefully the changes you’re making are good, bc if it looks anything like the first go round I’ll just read about the same topics on AR15.com / firearmblog while I’m already there.

  68. avatar enuf says:

    “Simple Machines” forum software works much better.

  69. avatar Huntmaster says:

    Give us the ability to search gun reviews. That was the single most valuable feature this site had.

  70. avatar Joseph says:

    Why fix what isn’t broken? Your audience is conservatives (those people don’t like other people mucking about for no reason). Are you trying to “New Normal” us?

  71. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    The new site sucks. Not that anyone cares, but I’m going to stop reading/visiting this site once it’s reformatted for good.

  72. avatar SouthernShooter says:

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! Keep the old format!! So mu-ch better.

  73. avatar Wayne says:

    New site sucked. I stopped looking for a few days. Tonight the old it back and so am I. Not interested in the new site. I will delete from my favorites.

  74. avatar Thomas c Steadman says:

    Bring back the old gun review format.

  75. avatar airbornecpa says:

    Bring back the old gun review format.

  76. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

    The new layout will be fine, people will get used to it.

    Could you start doing (say) monthly meta posts for people to talk/complain about site stuff though? It’d be nice to have a regular forum for that type of discussion since it would otherwise clutter up actual story discussions.

    1. avatar JB says:

      Dont talk for me son

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Yeah what he said….

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      The new layout will be fine, people will get used to it.

      Says the individual living in the Great “Kommie” Northwest where “New Normal” is the norm and either you are a black clad basement dweller in your mommies house or you live in fear of them…

      meta posts for people to talk/complain about site stuff though..

      Or we could start a drum circle and you can bring the talking stick… Truth is if the “new” format returns in the same basic condition that it was when it left I WON’T get used to it because the strain I had to put on my eyes just to see it would require that I change everything about the way I view my computer screen (currently on a 42 inch Vizio smart TV at about 8 feet away) and that is NOT going to happen…

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Yeah, you’ll get used to it. Not only that but when they change it in the future you’ll complain the same way, threaten to stop visiting if they don’t keep it the way you’ve become used to, and continue to visit anyway.

        This is what happens *literally* every time a website changes their user experience.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Actually… not every time. There’s a site I haunt for the forums where they make changes only incrementally and after opening a thread to discuss them. And they never makes changes that make the forums more cluttered or hard to read.

          The one thing they did when there was a change built into the software that was high on two counts — added clutter and added revenue — was to make a “Supporter’s Club” for anyone who donated $50 or more; Supporters don’t have to deal with banner ads and also get a special forum where complaints about the website are aired.
          I’d be up for a TTAG Supporter’s Club if a $50 payment would get rid of the background ads permanently!

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          @Roymond I mean sites big enough to have both a decent sized audience and actual developers – Facebook is actually the main example I was thinking of as they changed their layout years ago and people threatened to leave them, but of course didn’t. Niche sites might trickle in and/or revert updates on a time-available basis by the owner but that’s an entirely different thing.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          The site I talked about gets thousands of visitors a day on the forum side.

        4. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Not only that but when they change it in the future you’ll complain the same way, threaten to stop visiting if they don’t keep it the way you’ve become used to, and continue to visit anyway.

          YOU and some of the others might do just that, I will not be here to see any future changes because I (apparently unlike you) have a life, need TTAG a lot less than they need readers/participants AND actually have principles which include saying what I mean and doing what I say…. You might enjoy being on your knees begging your liberal masters “Please sir, may I have another?” every time they kick you, but we do things a little differently in “REAL” America…

          Facebook is actually the main example

          I’ve NEVER had a presence on FB, Twitter or any other social media site…

  77. avatar Dave says:

    What happened to being able to look up gun reviews by the manufacturer?

  78. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    I already pay for some content at Patreon, I can tell you that if you go to the new format on Patreon or other subscription collector I won’t be following. The classic format works fine and if a post is interesting, I will read it. What you tried earlier this week was cluttered and hard to read and without merit, even the comments were hard to read. Miner49er and his ilk make the comments less interesting and if you go to a subscription service they will count against any value TTAG has to me.

  79. avatar Tom Worthington says:

    I have never been a fan of change just for the sake of change. I’ll keep visiting, but I’ll always miss the way it was.

  80. avatar Chip Saunders says:

    Thank God. The new crap sucked!

  81. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

    Definition of “upgrade” ” Remove old bugs, insert new ones.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Definition of “upgrade” ” Remove old bugs, insert new ones.”

      Repeat endlessly.

  82. avatar WhammerJammer says:

    New look is AWFUL……that is all.

  83. avatar Lies says:

    “we got a lot of passionate feedback on the new look and feel of the site that appeared earlier this week. Some of it was complimentary”

    No it wasn’t.

  84. avatar Bil says:

    So…everyone hates it (me included)…and you want to go back to it? Why? If it’s for ad revenue, you’ll lose money instead of making it…because you’ll lose viewers and page hits. If it’s change for change’s sake…don’t fall into that trap. Look, I’m an early adopter of tech and gadgets. I like new stuff that works. The issue is…if it doesn’t work, or makes a simple thing (like viewing your site for new articles) tedious, I’ll dump it flat. You’re heading down that road. There are a ton of crappy gun sites out there with cluttered formats already…and they don’t enjoy much viewership. Hell, there are some that were daily reads like TTAG is…and I don’t even have them bookmarked anymore, let alone look at them. Please don’t go down that road. You’ve been a great site for my daily reading…don’t change it.

  85. avatar NC DAVID says:

    Keep the old format..

  86. avatar BP says:

    First time commenting, but long time reader. I like to read your site daily, but really disliked the new format. It was hard to read and determine what was the new vs old content.

  87. avatar John says:

    New layout sucks

  88. avatar Redman says:

    If it aint broke, dont fix it

  89. avatar Nancy Pelosi says:

    The new layout was great!!!!!!……. Right guys???? 😉

  90. avatar Thomas J Holbert says:

    First time ever to leave a comment. Please keep the old format.

  91. avatar RustyBx says:

    Lurker here since nearly the beginning. First time poster.

    Classic design is clean and easy to find and browse new content. New design is a frustrating time suck in trying to see what’s new since last visit.

    I’ve given it a chance…if it returns, I won’t.

  92. avatar Mark H says:

    I could count the number of positive comments on the new format on the fingers of one foot.

    Seriously, a complete and utter disaster. Linear time based format is superior to any type of fancy splash page.

  93. avatar J.T. says:

    I have checked TTAG a minimum of once per day, sometimes two or three times, for the last 8 years. The redesign is hot garbage and should never return. If it come’s back, I’m gone. You will have lost me as a reader.

  94. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Hey TTAG Staff! You listening Zimmerman!? The people have spoken: DO NOT REFORMAT!

    You will lose massive amounts of long-time readers. Listen to your readers, or your site will suffer.

  95. avatar KreebleN'Krag says:

    Sometimes, the old ways are best.

  96. avatar OldSightBest says:

    I didn’t comment, but I have to say the new sight was a lot harder to read – font size. Navigation was a mess too.
    I really like the old sight better, and have to say that the new sight did probably reduce my browsing on your sight.
    Keep the old one… get a refund on the promises of greater traffic, etc.

  97. avatar Topspin says:

    Looooooooooooong time reader, first time caller.

    Old format – Good
    New format – not so good

    How about a poll and popular vote takes it?

  98. avatar busybeef says:

    the new look needs an option to present a feed based on chronology.

    or if that option exists, make it easy to find – cuz it was impossible.

  99. avatar Kyle says:

    I was good with either, but ya…I prefer the old style myself.

  100. avatar JB says:

    If you bring back that piece of garbage creation and abandon the work we know and use daily Im outta here. Gone. Forever. It really was garbage. And it appears you folks forgot who made this place great, the readers.

    If I wanted a new dashboard, controls, and format I would have left long ago.

  101. avatar Roymond says:

    With respect to the look and ad-blocking….

    TTAG’s annoying background ads are persistent: the Ad-Block Pro blocker for specific elements can remove the annoying things, but they’re back the very next time I’m here.

    I cringe every time I click to come here now.

  102. avatar Matt says:

    New look is trash and it makes me actually not want to visit the site.

    The simple chronological list that is the old look is nice and well, simple. 7 collapsed menus by topic is annoying.

  103. avatar AdamTA1 says:

    Gonna throw my two cents in here even though most others have said it. I stopped reading the site once the changes happened. They were ugly on pc and made the site completely unusable on mobile. I came back about a week later hoping the “update” had been removed and it had. If it happens again I won’t read the site anymore unless it’s usable on mobile and I can go oldest to newest on posts like I’ve been able to do since I started reading TTAG so many years ago. I like the content but it’s not worth my time to try and wade through horrific website formatting to find things to read.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      I’m coming here maybe a quarter as much as I used to because the site looks like something a seventh grader threw together at the last minute just to be able to say he’d completed the assignment. If I knew a fancy lawyer who’d take a case for free I’d be tempted to sue because all the visual trash tends to set off my anxiety disorder.

      Having the background filled with overlapping ads is about as appealing as having a postal delivery guy walk in the front door and dump the entire neighborhood’s weekly junk mail on the dinner table during a meal. It’s bad enough having the bloody Flakebook and Twitbird symbols in the corner; all this other crap is just that — crap. And besides triggering anxiety issues, its major result is like getting hit in the face by someone repeatedly so I never, ever want to see them again: I am less likely to buy anything from any company that’s involved in the offensive and irritating clutter on what was a great site to come to.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email