The new layout for the Freep is a dumpster fire.

I click on sports, it goes to autos. I click on autos it goes to autos, I click on life it goes to autos. Good job Freep. Maybe next time you should Beta test your website before you roll it out.

It works for me. Are you on mobile, or desktop?

InTenSity wrote:It works for me. Are you on mobile, or desktop?

Desktop, I suppose websense could be f'ing with it.

Mine worked... but the layout still sucks.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Mine worked... but the layout still sucks.

Don't they always say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ?

Blue Wall

Jake from State Farm wrote:I click on sports, it goes to autos. I click on autos it goes to autos, I click on life it goes to autos. Good job Freep. Maybe next time you should Beta test your website before you roll it out.

I'm not impressed this after my 1st visit this morning, but then again I still hate SI's new layout.   Why do these people have to fuck with something that's working?

LooseGoose wrote:
I'm not impressed this after my 1st visit this morning, but then again I still hate SI's new layout.   Why do these people have to fuck with something that's working?

Programmers need jobs too!

Sounds like user error. Worked fine for me.

Nommad2 wrote:Sounds like user error. Worked fine for me.

I'm pretty sure it's websense f'ing with it. If I don't click on "sports" everything works fine now.

To those of you bitching about unnecessary change: Welcome to cranky old man status. You're gonna love it.

It's a shame Gannett is giving all of their sites the USA Today look. It's probably a lot easier to manage but they continuously seem to kill any local flair a paper has. It's basically the opposite of what they should be doing.

Giant Moose wrote:It's a shame Gannett is giving all of their sites the USA Today look. It's probably a lot easier to manage but they continuously seem to kill any local flair a paper has. It's basically the opposite of what they should be doing.

As soon as a I saw the layout, I was reminded that the Freep is a Gannett company. My local paper has the exact same layout, which is, as you said, the USA Today layout.

Turtleneck wrote:

Giant Moose wrote:It's a shame Gannett is giving all of their sites the USA Today look. It's probably a lot easier to manage but they continuously seem to kill any local flair a paper has. It's basically the opposite of what they should be doing.

As soon as a I saw the layout, I was reminded that the Freep is a Gannett company. My local paper has the exact same layout, which is, as you said, the USA Today layout.

Obviously it's more cost effective & efficient to run all the papers on a single platform. I suppose they could let them choose from a handful of templates, but that costs extra & newspapers don't have money to burn these days.

Giant Moose wrote:It's a shame Gannett is giving all of their sites the USA Today look. It's probably a lot easier to manage but they continuously seem to kill any local flair a paper has. It's basically the opposite of what they should be doing.

'local flair' doesn't really hold up on the world wide web. It's all about a massive communication/information tool that is shrinking our planet.

steveschneider wrote:

'local flair' doesn't really hold up on the world wide web. It's all about a massive communication/information tool that is shrinking our planet.

Local flair is the only reason to even visit a local newspaper's site. But they've downsized local staffs incredibly, outsourced editors/sales/etc. to other markets, and made everything homogeneous from market to market.

Local content that you can't get anywhere else is what they should be focusing on.

Giant Moose wrote:
Local flair is the only reason to even visit a local newspaper's site. But they've downsized local staffs incredibly, outsourced editors/sales/etc. to other markets, and made everything homogeneous from market to market.

Local content that you can't get anywhere else is what they should be focusing on.

My neighbor used to do local sports for the LSJ, they did away with his position a few years ago. Another guy I know did the graphics for advertising and other stuff there. They outsourced that to India or some other part of the planet.

Seems ok to me, at least on the mobile version. Of course, my expectations were pretty low since I read this thread prior to trying it out.

Giant Moose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

'local flair' doesn't really hold up on the world wide web. It's all about a massive communication/information tool that is shrinking our planet.

Local flair is the only reason to even visit a local newspaper's site. But they've downsized local staffs incredibly, outsourced editors/sales/etc. to other markets, and made everything homogeneous from market to market.

Local content that you can't get anywhere else is what they should be focusing on.

Knight Ridder tried that in the early 2000's. It was a complete fail.

Heat Miser wrote:

Knight Ridder tried that in the early 2000's. It was a complete fail.

I think it's a little unfair to compare 2014 to 2000. Newspapers handled online terribly at that time and often newsrooms were divided between online and print -- just straight up idiocy.

Today, Gannett should be better positioned to really own each local market  online but their strategy seems to be to push USA Today, which no one reads unless they are 60+ at a hotel.

I still go to mlive and the "local" was beat out of those papers...

tGreenWay wrote:To those of you bitching about unnecessary change:  Welcome to cranky old man status.  You're gonna love it.  

I've been moving into cranky old man status for 5-7 years now.

LooseGoose wrote:
I've been moving into cranky old man status for 5-7 years now.

really?

we never noticed..

Giant Moose wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

Knight Ridder tried that in the early 2000's. It was a complete fail.

I think it's a little unfair to compare 2014 to 2000. Newspapers handled online terribly at that time and often newsrooms were divided between online and print -- just straight up idiocy.

Today, Gannett should be better positioned to really own each local market  online but their strategy seems to be to push USA Today, which no one reads unless they are 60+ at a hotel.

Studies & history have consistently shown that local content is expensive & doesn't drive enough revenue to justify the expense. There's just not enough money in it, so the big boys don't put much effort into it.

It actually depends on the size of the market. In a really small market, local content is the main driving force. In really large markets, local is in demand. Its medium sized markets that have to go with generic national news to be even marginally profitable. I just made that up.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
really?

we never noticed..  

lol, my next step will be to shoot some young snot so I can be your hero.

Rocinante wrote:It actually depends on the size of the market. In a really small market, local content is the main driving force. In really large markets, local is in demand. Its medium sized markets that have to go with generic national news to be even marginally profitable. I just made that up.

It made sense to me.

Detnews has the exact same layout as well. Are Freep and Detnews run by the same company? I still find it hard to believe that there are enough subs to have 2 papers in Detroit.

InTenSity wrote:Detnews has the exact same layout as well. Are Freep and Detnews run by the same company? I still find it hard to believe that there are enough subs to have 2 papers in Detroit.

There's some kind of joint operating agreement between them. One or the other would have been out of business by now without it.