Our Blog Looks Different Today

Two months ago, we migrated this blog away from nytimes.com, where it had lived for three-plus years. The migration was generally a success, but not totally. There were some early technical difficulties (servers issues, caching issues, and other things you don’t care about), but those were fixed relatively quickly. The bigger problem was that we weren’t crazy about our redesign — and, you, dear readers, were even less crazy about it than we were. It was too grid-dependent, photo-dependent, not readable enough, etc. So we’ve spent the past several weeks re-doing our re-do, and you can see the result as of today. The overall look of the blog isn’t radically different, but hopefully it’s better on many dimensions — fonts, layouts, architecture, and functionality. Please keep giving us feedback, and thanks as always for reading.


Jaime Alvarez

The fixed width parts still make it hard to read on blackberries...

G

Hi Jaime,
Thanks for the feedback. We’ve just finished installing a mobile plugin for the site. Hope that helps you and other Blackberry readers.

AJ

I've always been one for content over form!

Megan

I'm a feed reader, so keep up the excellent content and I'll be happy. :) That said, now that I'm here, I do like it.

Tim Whalen

You say, "servers issues, caching issues, and other things you don’t care about". I beg to differ. I am both an IT and a Freakonomics nerd. Please keep up the good work pointing out the pithy logic behind the seemingly random world.

Josh

The re-redesign is great. Subtle changes, but much easier to navigate. Nice work!

Joe Clark

You haven’t done anything remotely special. You still have HTML validation and semantics to look after, and your slugs suck. And I suppose nobody ever told you that blue and orange match as well as red and green.

Stephen J. Dubner

Dear "Joe Clark": are you really my Uncle Ray? But: thanks!

Maneater

Love the new layout, the one before was more newspaper like and hard to read.

Martinerary

I love the blog but don´t really fancy the new font. It just doesn´t seem to fit in with the rest.

sam

much better. now it is more of a scrolling blog where you can at least read parts of previous posts in the order they were posted. well done.

VB in NV

IMO, the default setting for previous entries should be "LATEST," not "POPULAR."

Stephen J. Dubner

That's what we did to start off, but it was redundant for anyone reading the blog's home page, as those latest posts were visible in the main column. That said, the default setting *is* "latest" posts on all other pages on the blog (home page, radio, etc.) where that widget appears. Advice?

VB in NV

I usually come to the latest story from the RSS feed. I understand your point for those who get here via the home page. Your "popular" items are from March 3, April 26, and March 23 respectively and all are contests which have now terminated.

Here is my suggestion:

Move the "follow/feed/listen/like" block to the bottom.
Below "Previous Post" and "Next Post" put "Latest Three Posts"
Remove "Popular," and put the remaining "Tags, Latest, Comments [in that order]" below "Freakest Links" and above "Naked Self-Promotion"

Owinok

You unwittingly set up a nice experiment to see whether new format gets more readers here and whether it affects time spent on the page. It may be trivial but tell us about this in the future.

Neela

Can you fix the www.freakonomicsmedia.com and www.freakonomicsmedia.com/blog so they redirect to www.freakonomics.com etc. that maintenance mode error message is a pain...when you decide to change your URLs it's helpful to add redirects so bookmarks don't get orphaned....

Nick

The Mobile reader is greatly appreciated.

Matt

Here's something that hasn't changed... that banner. And while it's a fine on its own, it doesn't play that well with Google Chrome's font size increase functionality - particularly for you Mr. Dubner. My laptop has a pretty high DPI 1440x900 12" display. As a result I usually increase the font size on most websites, which in Chrome at least also generally scales images by a similar percent. If I do 2 size increases at full-1440-pixel-width (press Ctrl-+ 2 times) the banner still just fits. But if I do a 3rd size increase then boom, away goes your smiling mug, completely off the screen. I'm not sure if this is related to the aforementioned "fixed width" issues, or if there's any design that accomodate this (short of increase the default font size on your site for everyone, probably not something you should do). But maybe you at least want to discuss with Mr. Levitt regularly rotating which side each of your faces is placed on that banner?

Now granted, at this font zoom the right nav column is also affected (it's half cut-off the edge of the screen), but since I follow your feed on twitter already I'm usually not browsing that to look for any articles I may have missed. Also while maybe most people do not increase the font size this much, I figure there are many people with small-screen laptops that are only 1200 or 1080 pixels wide, who only likely need to increase the font size one or two steps before this effect happens.

Read more...

Enter your name

I'm very happy about the death of the grid format.

Andrew

Don't see what's so bad. A lot of my friends read this book, so I bought it, and loved it. Found the blog, and it's just as good. As someone else said, content above all else.