pitchfork missed their "new site" rollout deadline

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

"We'll see you Monday, January 10th!"
became
"We'll see you Tuesday, January 11th!"

Is anyone surprised?

― rentboy (rentboy), Monday, 10 January 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

the company in charge of re-designing the site have a pretty dubious website design-wise (i see you want me to scroll text in a tiny box because the huge blurry photo on the left is more important - hmmmkay...) so no

― Stevem On X (blueski), Monday, 10 January 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

I think they should do this all year, or at least up until April 1.

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Monday, 10 January 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

I actually like that other site except for the size of the news box.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 10 January 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

I for one am OUTRAGED!

― suicide_girls (rentboy), Monday, 10 January 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

are you really the editor of suicide girls?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:17 (twenty years ago)

Can I have a Suicide Girls password if I give you free advertising? OMG DELETE POST.

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)

i for one would never hire a design firm that did double-duty as an IDM label.

― vahid (vahid), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:36 (twenty years ago)

Isn't the first word of the thread title misspelled?

― Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:42 (twenty years ago)

i for one would never hire a design firm that did double-duty as an IDM label.
-- vahid

What about Tomato and Underworld?

― Mark (MarkR), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:50 (twenty years ago)

progressive house labels are completely different, my friend.

― vahid (vahid), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:52 (twenty years ago)

i for one would never hire a design firm that did double-duty as an IDM label.

Why not?

"Hey we'll give you guys a couple of 9.2s if you do our site."

Conflict of Interest? Who cares!!!

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 10 January 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

It's more like spacey post-rock, actually.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 10 January 2005 21:59 (twenty years ago)

http://www.mogulsoft.com/k-pax/images/k-pax_02-burst2.jpg

― miccio (miccio), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

"And my number one single of the year is...

..Chewing Gum!"

― Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

Wait a minute. You said post-rock, so that doesn't quit work.

― Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:11 (twenty years ago)

(Because it's flavoriciousness is working overtime!)

Unless we remember that old time classic "Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor On The BedPOST Overnight?"

― Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:14 (twenty years ago)

i for one would never hire a design firm that did double-duty as an IDM label.

Hey guys, here's your new website!
http://namm.harmony-central.com/SNAMM02/Content/Steinberg/PR/Cubase-SL-large.jpg

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

check plus

― Nick Sylvester, Monday, 10 January 2005 22:28 (twenty years ago)

we should have put a gif of Ryan doing the ashlee simpson jig on the front page today.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

there's still time.

― Hari A$hur$t (Toaster), Monday, 10 January 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

There's still plenty of time...

Missing deadlines is nothing new for p'fork but to explain the site is only 85% complete surprises me. They were never going to meet yesterday's deadline so we did they continue to advertise it? Smacks of the amateurism that pervades much of the indie-web, no matter how flash-y and design-y the frontend may (one day) look.

― Mike B, Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:06 (twenty years ago)

WE COME TO YOU WITH OUR HANDS

― Hari A$hur$t (Toaster), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:10 (twenty years ago)

Thanks for gloating.

And as far as I understand it, we were very close, but to put it delicately, were let down by the programmer. I've worked in software for ten years, with far bigger companies than Pitchfork, and this kind of delay is not exclusive to the indie-web.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

Speaking of disappointments, Mercenaries for the XBox was supposed to ship yesterday, but now I hear it's coming out Thursday. So, Pitchfork's not alone.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:24 (twenty years ago)

but see in the real world people lose their jobs (or at least limit their careers) by these kinds of failures. but it's your advertisers who really get the f*ck-end of the stick, so nevermind a few whiny readers. we're just enjoying kicking you guys while you're down.

however, i think it'll be a lot more difficult to charge premium ad rates when you don't deliver on deadlines and commitments in this fashion. this "hey it's indie so no one expects it to actually operate properly" bullshit grows increasingly tiresome, especially when coupled with the "hey we're not the only ones fucking up". (and a hint: neither one does you any favors in the long run)

better luck next time.

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

well chris, it seems that a lot of the advertisers post here too?

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:00 (twenty years ago)

tell us more about the "real world" rentboy! esp. anything about flying cars, circuses, pain and suffering, and children playing. thanks!

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:02 (twenty years ago)

I remain astounded that critics are often incapable of taking shit.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:03 (twenty years ago)

those are all my favorite things mark. what would you like to know?

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

hey rents, if you makes you feel any better the freelance programmer who worked until the 11th hour with no indication that he was going to up and fuck off and drop off the face of the earth was 'fired' and won't be paid. and thanks for being so smug and pleased about it all.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:05 (twenty years ago)

I remain astounded that critics are often incapable of taking shit.

You can say whatever you want about my writing.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:06 (twenty years ago)

But not your site overhaul? Is that like a low blow or something?

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:09 (twenty years ago)

i'm not smug and i'm not pleased, scott.
but face it, if you were in any other position, you'd be able to see the humor (hilarity) of having the first two weeks of the year grace a site with a histrionic placeholder announcing your new site and its cold and hard deadline, only to have that deadline come and go with a whimper.
i find great humor in the fact that business acumen appears difficult to come by these days. but i guess that's a sore spot for y'all. eh?

(ps: lighten up, i'm not trying to attack you, merely having some fun with the situation)

x-post

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:11 (twenty years ago)

Dweebs
USA, CBS (Peter Noah Productions/Warner Bros), Sitcom, Colour, 1995
Starring: Farrah Forke, Peter Scolari, Corey Feldman
When beautiful Carey Garrett takes up the job of office manager at Cyberbyte Software she is determined to befriend her all-male staff of dysfunctional techno-nerds. Although they are all bona-fide geniuses (except for the office boy, Todd) they have no social skills, and experience great difficulty in forming friendships, especially with women. The series followed Carey's attempts to entice the men out of their shells and into the real world.

The simplistic stereotyping of Dweebs (all the men were like grown-up classroom swots) may have made for easy laughs but it seriously limited the scope of the show. There was no real depth of characterisation: all the men behaved like social losers, and although each had his own particular idiosyncrasies - Warren was inarticulate, Morley was strange, Vic was wild - collectively they were as one. The trendy settings - high-tech office, internet café - also somehow undermined the old-fashioned nature of the show, with its moral espousing that 'nerds are people too'. While it served up plenty of bytes, indeed, it sorely lacked bite. CBS deleted the show after just seven episodes.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:12 (twenty years ago)

I saw the pilot of that! Had to find out if Corey maintained his precocious charm. He hadn't. It turned into a goatee.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:13 (twenty years ago)

USA, CBS (Peter Noah Productions/Warner Bros), Sitcom, Colour, 1995
Starring: Farrah Forke, Peter Scolari, Corey Feldman

peter scolari wonders how tom hanks became the famous one!

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:16 (twenty years ago)

this thread is like flytape for the self-satisfied. to be honest whether pitchfork opens this week or next makes little difference to me. it's a website delay people, it happens all the time, "real world" or otherwise, maybe get some perspective?

(haha xpost as if on cue.)

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:16 (twenty years ago)

Replace "this thread" with ILX or Anywhere A Rock Critic Would Possibly Dwell

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:19 (twenty years ago)

maybe get some perspective?

-- mark p (mark.p****...), January 11th, 2005.

i hope you're including yourself in that "self-satisfied" group of flies

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:20 (twenty years ago)

ok, rents - fine, apologies. that's the first time I let my frustration get out and I probably felt more comfortable doing it to you because I like you. I still think an ashlee simpson jig would have been great. And you're right - as I just told another officeworker, the thing I'd like to stress to Ryan about all of this is not announcing crap on the site in advance of it actually happening. The advertisors would still have been pissed off but the readers would have never known. Unfortunately, Ryan's enthusiasm overwhelms him and when he's excited about the fruits of 10 years of work taking another tiny step, he jumped the gun in telling his readers.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:20 (twenty years ago)

I don't mean to absolve myself from responsibility either - it's not like a few weeks ago I said, 'hey, ryan, why not hold out on making an announcement until we're ready' because I trusted that all the parties involved would hit their deadlines; they didn't, and that's ultimately our problem and responsibility.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:24 (twenty years ago)

all my friends have been talking about this PFM delay, we're all pretty pissed about it

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

yeah, sorry if i hit a nerve scott... i like you too and don't want to pick on the wrong guy here. and i think it's kinda cute that ryan was so excited, but that's the kinda thing you keep internal to your operation, because (as everyone else in this thread has alluded to) this kinda delay is more the rule than the exception.

hopefully he'll have learned his lesson next time around.

in the meantime, i'm enjoying the mental image of ryan's headshot dancing on ashlee simpson's hoedown jig body. if i were not at work, with a bit more free time, perhaps i'd make an animated gif of it

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

It's that fucking acid reflux.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:27 (twenty years ago)

this entire thread is retarded

― the 'real' world, Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:27 (twenty years ago)

actually i think it's moving rather quickly

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:29 (twenty years ago)

me and my friends try to load PFM and when it has trouble we roffle ourselves silly and e-mail each other with the news of the load failure

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:30 (twenty years ago)

sounds like fun Gear! do you have ethernet parties too?

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:32 (twenty years ago)

gloating over misfortune is not cool*

*except if it happens to a !FREE! music news website!

― the 'real' world, Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:32 (twenty years ago)

you better work for pitchfork, "real world."

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

damn, everbody sure seems to be taking this thread on the chin

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

it's tickling mine.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:37 (twenty years ago)

and actually if this was merely a "music news website" I'd probably be all defending it and shit. But any site that has more than a quarter of a Brent DiCrecenzo review on it can deal with any flaming it gets.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:39 (twenty years ago)

Wait, people on ILM actually read pitchfork? The next thing you know you'll be admitting to reading MOJO.

― Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:41 (twenty years ago)

I have two issues of that mag, yes. One I bought for an REM history thing and one I bought for a Cure history thing. Plus I needed something to read at Taco Bell.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:45 (twenty years ago)

i have an embarrassing backlog of qs from the 90s.

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:46 (twenty years ago)

i can claim even worse. i signed up for a free subscription to Blender, and I keep finding myself reading it on the john

― rentboy (rentboy), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:47 (twenty years ago)

that sounds about right.

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:54 (twenty years ago)

I have quite a few more than that anthony, but I am a corny old fux0r.

M4n4ger'5 view of h4x0rs:
If we set deadline they'll be done.

― Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:55 (twenty years ago)

I get Blender! Easily the least shameful pop glossy out there.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:57 (twenty years ago)

(full disclosure: I get it for free since I wrote some stuff for them - but it'd still be the least shameful pop glossy out there either way)

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

the only issue i ever saw was the one where then-editor p3mb3rt0n panned my book for not being salacious enough!

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)

Maybe you shouldn't date so many people.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 16:03 (twenty years ago)

ILXer posted a snarky thread about a pitchfork slipup

Is anyone surprised?

― sleep (sleep), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

Of course we all read pfork. Haven't we established that they do have some good reviewers?
I like Tom B. and Scott P and others from time to time. No more fake shock and awe.

― deej., Tuesday, 11 January 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

I can't read Pitchfork. The general style grates on me.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

Wait hold up go back a second: Farrah Forke???

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 19:37 (twenty years ago)

So, can we like see a picture of Ryan Schreiber so we can all enjoy the simpson/schreiber hybrid image?

― Andre Roquet, Tuesday, 11 January 2005 23:39 (twenty years ago)

http://www.bartcop.com/forke1.jpg

Farrah Forke

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 12 January 2005 00:39 (twenty years ago)

seems like something's afoot...like there's a login for the site until 9 a.m. this morning (and it doesn't specify EST!)

[insert men at work .gif here]

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Thursday, 13 January 2005 13:56 (twenty years ago)

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Authorization Required error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

requiring credentials is the new credibility!

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:00 (twenty years ago)

wont it most likely be CST? arent they in chicago?

― peter smith (plsmith), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:03 (twenty years ago)

yeah, obvs. but where's the "fun" in that? xpost

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

xpost:
So they got them one more hour as of now? 45 minutes really.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

it's up! (and it actually said EST in a different login message when I passed by earlier)

― lurk, Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:28 (twenty years ago)

Still looking it over ... one thing I do like is having the writers' names attached to the review before you actually click on it. Most of the time, I'd click on a review and then immediately scroll all the way to the bottom to see who wrote it. I'd also probably miss some reviews by my favorite writers because I wasn't particularly interested in the band.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)

Looks like there's some font issues...

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)

The new Pitchfork is.... nothing great (and the old one was better, actually). I know how painful that can be from experience, but it's true.

― Sorry 2 Tell Ya, Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

Why'd they make such a big deal out of this?

― concerned pfm analyst, Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

haha it's already crashed

― rentboy (rentboy), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:46 (twenty years ago)

You said that already.

― dolly madison, Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

still screen resolution issues, i.e horizontal scrolling - that leads to poor web usability.

They could easily do a 3 column design to fit 800*600 screen resolution.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

I think ILM should relaunch and send out press releases to all the other music fans who're rightly seeking an alternative to the limitations of commercial radio and MTV.

In typical indie rock fashion, of course.

― concerned pfm analyst, Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

Love the horrible new ads for Suicide Girls (sucks) and Neighborhoodies (boring).

Put together this face and this shirt:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/chris/ad/neighborhoodiesnewleader1.gif

and see if you don't want to smash her glasses.

But adspace = money, so I understand.

― Sorry 2 Tell Ya (slight return), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

what's amusing is upon adblocking the flashing banners, it leaves these big white gaps that show you just how much of the screen is devoted to ads

― rentboy (rentboy), Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:57 (twenty years ago)

I hate having to scroll down for the news. I'd argue their news product is much more useful than the reviews.

― BlastsOfStatic (BlastsofStatic), Thursday, 13 January 2005 15:11 (twenty years ago)

the nav menu could be bigger and links stand out more - it looks okay tho

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 15:15 (twenty years ago)

Looks to me like there's more space dedicated to ads than to content, as compared to the old format...

― cdwill, Thursday, 13 January 2005 15:44 (twenty years ago)

OTM

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:23 (twenty years ago)

The new format is fine. The old format was fine. It's all good, man. And with any luck, there will be a suicidegirl password-sharing thread starting in the very near future. I'll be watching for it.

― Salmon Pink (Salmon Pink), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:29 (twenty years ago)

I keep waiting for the Suicide Girls to kill themselves. Maybe that's how they drain your wallet.

― Tuna Taco, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:31 (twenty years ago)

It wasn't going through the first time I tried to look at it, but it's working now and I think its alright. After seeing the other someoddpilot stuff I was worried there'd be in-screen scroll bars and cluttered shit like that. But there ain't. So rah.

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

the Mars symbol with the arrows within is a pretty good representation of passive-aggressive macho bullshit a.k.a. indie guys.

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

Pfork's old design was pretty terrible, but this new one is nice.

It's about freaking time they put the writers names on the reviews. Now all they need is a page with info on the writers to help newcomers judge whether they'd agree with a reviewer.

Somethingawful did an excellent job on the design. I'm very impressed with the splattered paintish blue background and logo. Assuming they had to be there, the ads really are nicely implemented into the page. Of course I use Adblock, but still... The content is layed out logically. My only complaint (thats actually not a complaint) is, was it really necessary to use Flash (I'm assuming) for the menu. You get the cool watery effect when you scroll over the name, but thats it as far as I can tell. A fairly similar effect could have been achieved other ways. I prefer Flash, but I have a high speed connection and have everything installed.

The site really does look much more respectable now. Good job guys! I was pleasantly surprised.

― nibb, Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:12 (twenty years ago)

Somethingawful did an excellent job on the design

It's Someoddpilot, not Somethingawful.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

although it might be pretty interesting to see the 'Fork redone by the Somethingawful people. i'd expect a little more photoshopped scat than the average indie fan could stand though.

― jonviachicago, Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Actually, I don't know if this is a problem on my end or what, but the whole page is really BIG -- I have to scroll right to even see the Weekly Feature and Track Reviews at all, which just makes the ads in the left gutter seem that much more prominent.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

I *really like* the new look, but there are definitely some layout issues that need to be worked out.

The nav should be widened and made non-flash (there is absolutely no reason that nav should be flash!). Some of the text should be made one shade darker (especially titles). The wider nav would also make the logo bigger which it needs to be. Also, once the wider nav is in place, then the top leader banner needs to be aligned left next to the logo. Right now it just looks like they wanted to keep the watermark arrows.

The main problem is the width. It seems optimized for 1024, but there's virtually no breathing room at that width and there's not really room for the vertical scroll bars. Ultimately, I think they're going to have to shave off pixels from the content column widths (since the skyscrapers on the left are of standard size and I do like the division into three content columns).

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:32 (twenty years ago)

We waited for this?

Way to make everything look unimportant (except for the ads.)

― American Apparel and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:36 (twenty years ago)

cool, it looks like stylus now!

― Haibun (Begs2Differ), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

The intro paragraph from Ryan is so pained and confessional, it's hilarious! I wanted to say, "dude, don't worry about it".

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:48 (twenty years ago)

They really did a great job with it. I'm impressed. The ads are still pretty oppressive, but you have to do what you have to do to pay the bills.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:49 (twenty years ago)

For the record, I've hated the last n versions of the site design, going all the way back to the one they launched for the Kid A reviews (which were my introduction to the site).

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:50 (twenty years ago)

Of course we all read pfork.

We do?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:52 (twenty years ago)

The main problem is the width. It seems optimized for 1024, but there's virtually no breathing room at that width

People still have their monitor resolutions set to 800x600? Nuts to that. 1024 should be the standard now (if not 1152).

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:53 (twenty years ago)

it may be more that stacking so much width-wise just makes it look TOO busy. i don't mind scrolling vertically at length that much.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:55 (twenty years ago)

People still have their monitor resolutions set to 800x600? Nuts to that. 1024 should be the standard now (if not 1152).

Laptops, AOL, small cheap LCD screens that come with Sony VAIOs plus the fact that most people aren't designers = 800 x 600 is here to stay (or 777 x 580, is more accurate).

― Milton, Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:57 (twenty years ago)

Yeah its an improvement.

xp to ned i think most ppl on here do; as i said, scott and tom (for example) are both great writers.

― deej., Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:57 (twenty years ago)

i think most ppl on here do

'Most' != 'all.' Pfork does have good writers but frankly, fuck 'em.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

it's really no improvement ///advert/// especially the now
even wider ///advert/// screen width and increased intrus///advert///iveness of the advertising. Maybe it'll improve over time, adding features but right now it's hardly different from the old layout. Except it's a little less linear.///advert///

It's no AMG but I expected a little more change than just (at present) another cosmetic makeover. And yes, flash menus really suck.

― hmmmm, Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:01 (twenty years ago)

Looks like an expensive junk sale.

― 57 7th (calstars), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:04 (twenty years ago)

Oh wow, yeah, I set my monitor to 1200, and it looks great!! Much, much better.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:07 (twenty years ago)

advertisers must be beating off with happiness at this re-design.

― don weiner, Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:43 (twenty years ago)

I'm not so much impressed by the layout as I am that they removed a lot of worthless sections and improved the color scheme / iconography.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:47 (twenty years ago)

Adblock for firefox is your friend. It leaves a lot of whitespace in the new design.

― Jeff-PTTL (Jeff), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:48 (twenty years ago)

I'm of the opinion that the color and text look great, yeah.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:49 (twenty years ago)

i found the four blinking ads distracting. adblock to the rescue. other than that... i don't know what was so bad with the old design and what's so good about the new design. I guess I was never really paying that much attention to them.

― gspm (gspm), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:51 (twenty years ago)

i do like the overall "feel" of the site better than the old one, but damn those blinking ads are annoying as hell. if only my Firefox wouldn't have just up and quit on me last week. stupid programs, teasing me by being really kick ass to only stop working two weeks later.

― jonviachicago, Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:04 (twenty years ago)

it's too bad they can't redesign the content.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

Zing!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

ROBBLE

― American Apparel and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

I actually scanned that On Fillmore review until the guy started talking about his dog and then it was all "oh that zany Pitchfork" and closed the tab.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

Also, the guy should have just saved some time and said "Jim O'Rourke's backing band".

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:14 (twenty years ago)

how did you find that review? all i see are ads and flat-blue-nothing.

― American Apparel and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:15 (twenty years ago)

My free food is too salty.

― darin (darin), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:24 (twenty years ago)

your free food is too salty

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

D'oh!

― darin (darin), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:29 (twenty years ago)

;-D

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:30 (twenty years ago)

GYGAX WINS THE INTERNET, SHITTY FREE FOOD AND ALL

― American Apparel and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:35 (twenty years ago)

I think it looks a lot better. Apart from the ads, it's a lot less busy and easier to read. And the critic names on the main page means I don't need to click on most of the reviews.

― C0L!N B--KETT, Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:36 (twenty years ago)

Frankly I kinda wish the whole site looked like the frontpage w/ Ryan Fork's note on it.

― mcd (mcd), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:39 (twenty years ago)

Frankly I kinda wish the whole site looked like the frontpage w/ Ryan Fork's note on it.

It would be cool if each page had one article and a NEXT and PREV link, and as you clicked NEXT you'd go deeper into the archive until 6,000 clicks later, you'd have Ryan's first review.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:46 (twenty years ago)

as an fyi: the amount of ad space is exactly the same as it always was. There is actually one less ad on the front page than before; plus, most of the ads have been moved from above the fold to below (and/or off to the side). I suspect that the reason the ads seem prominent is the white space behind the copy (+ the lack of dynamic art for both features and the news today).

I think a few suggestions here and elsewhere are worthwhile, e.g. considering a darker shade for text, linking to a review from the subhead as well as the header, restoring the bullet points on the content page sidebar links, etc. Thanks for those.

Ideally, the most striking and welcome thing about this change will be the increase in content. There should (again, ideally -- no more guarantees about what will be done and when ;) ) be six additional featues/week, daily rather than sporadic updates to the track reviews, and from here on out things like list features (there will be half-00s single/LP lists in a few weeks) will reside in the 'weekly feature' section alongside regular daily updates rather than be the sum total of the site's new content for three days in a row, as was the case with the 70s LP list, etc.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:50 (twenty years ago)

I like the new look for the most part. The blank white ads are very nice! It coordinates very nicely with the new color scheme. A few tweaks with the text color would be nice.

― buck van smack (Buck Van Smack), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:05 (twenty years ago)

Band websites are all cool looking and have flash, so we'll put in a Flash navigation control for no particular reason!

I think my biggest bitch is that if this was three columns wide, it'd be a really awesome design. As it is, I like to have my web browser take the majority of my screen, but I had to expand it a little wider to not have horizontal scrollbars.

Three columns, nav at top (and a smaller banner), and secondary pages THAT ACTUALLY WORKED would be great. For instance, I wanted to see a listing of all recent reviews, so I clicked "reviews." It gave me a page that just dumped all the reviews in one center column, and it jumped from 01-11-05 to 12-17-04. For the love of all that is holy, they've done one thing right (the url: /record-reviews/ is a good identifier) but the page should show *all* recent reviews, starting from today. This isn't a blog, you're allowed to show all reviews on the review page, not just ones that have expired off the front page.

Did the design company do any usability testing at all? I might be talking from a more corporate standpoint here, but it's mandatory on all the apps/sites I've worked on.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

I'm obviously outing myself who actually cares about the content and reads pf by saying this stuff. But I really do think it's essential and that they'd do really well (and have a leg up on "traditional" publications) by having really good usable design.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:13 (twenty years ago)

I'll say this much: it beats the living snot out of the AMG redesign.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:15 (twenty years ago)

mcdonalds also beats a shit sandwich nine times out of ten.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:16 (twenty years ago)

i'd like to be able to click on the reviewer's name and bring up everything he or she has reviewed along with the review date and the numeric grade, sortable by each. year end lists and features too. computers are good at this, the writers would like it, most people wouldn't notice at all, and i'd be able to find dominique's reviews more quickly.

― dan (dan), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:28 (twenty years ago)

Clearly, the most common complaint on the thread is the width. Again, I really think each of the content columns need to be shrunk a bit.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:42 (twenty years ago)

dan:
http://pitchforkmedia.com/cgi-bin/search2/search.cgi?terms=leone

not sortable, though.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

Leone on Rollins!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

That's unsettling slash fic, Nabisco.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

Also, I still don't understand why the menu was done in flash at all. The only thing I can see is that the color of the text changes in a wipe, but to needlessly add flash to everypage of a site simply to do that is *****INSANE!!!!******

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:53 (twenty years ago)

Animated .gif's people!!! Animated f*cking .gifs!!!!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:53 (twenty years ago)

Here let me try putting it a different way. Animated .gifs in the menu would be much more... indie. They have much more cred.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:55 (twenty years ago)

I want to know more about the grappling with indie purist issues.

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

'Speaking of disappointments, Mercenaries for the XBox was supposed to ship yesterday, but now I hear it's coming out Thursday. So, Pitchfork's not alone.'

It shipped on Tuesday but only to some retailers (EB, Gamestop, etc.) Hope you like it.

― Scott Warner (thream), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:29 (twenty years ago)

i'd like to be able to click on the reviewer's name and bring up everything he or she has reviewed along with the review date

I emailed them a long, long time ago about this and got scott's suggestion to use the search. Nice, but what if the reviewer just gets mentioned in another article? I have the impression that no one wants to ever change the pitchfork database or do more than very minimal web coding, so all we'll ever see is facelifts like the last couple changes. And maybe some more random banner advertisements.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:29 (twenty years ago)

love the overall look/feel. the new menu is fine by me,
but do adverts really have to flash about .. is that what attracts people ? cos they realy effing annoy me. off to see if this is viewable in Lynx ..
also, the heavy presence of suicidegirls makes the site non-work friendly as any casual bossalert will attract undue attention ..
still .. if someone offered me suicidegirl banners i would have a lotof thinking (and research) to do before making my descision ..

― mark e (mark e), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

So is that rumour about Ryan S's run-in with the law true or not?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:36 (twenty years ago)

'Speaking of disappointments, Mercenaries for the XBox was supposed to ship yesterday, but now I hear it's coming out Thursday. So, Pitchfork's not alone.'

It shipped on Tuesday but only to some retailers (EB, Gamestop, etc.) Hope you like it.

Mercs dev team represent!!

― bchan (bchan), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:46 (twenty years ago)

daily rather than sporadic updates to the track reviews, and from here on out things like list features (there will be half-00s single/LP lists in a few weeks)

haibun gets runner up then for stylus comment upthread.

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:59 (twenty years ago)

http://www.mackron.com/random/youvebeenpeteburnzd.jpg

― donut christ (donut), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:00 (twenty years ago)

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:06 (twenty years ago)

I'm sick and goddamn tired of websites being redesigned for no good reason. Just pick one style and stay with it forever, goddammit!

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:13 (twenty years ago)

Mercs dev team represent!!

I finally got it - drove through the sleet yesterday to pick it up. I like it a lot! I'm still coming down off of Half-Life 2 (which I grew to like more after I finished it than I ever did when I was playing it ... if that makes sense), but this is a good game to move on to.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Friday, 14 January 2005 00:02 (twenty years ago)

Big nod to the poster wondering about usability testing... because -- all other judgements about the site aside -- there are fundamental problems with the new design with regards to screen size, navigation and readability.

On a 800x600 display visitors see only two columns and three flashing adds.

Any designer worth their salt would realize a text-based site such as a magazine, newspaper, blog, etcetera shouldn't move beyond 748px width to ensure proper display on over 90% of all systems in use. Current figures put 800x600 users at 50% of the web while 45% of users display at 1024x768 or more. There is no paradigm-shift around the corner -- this is the way web-viewing is going to be for a while...

For all the JavaScript rendering and controlling the site, a simple detection script could calculate maximum screen resolution and load a user-specific stylesheet to ensure proper display for all visitors.

Pitchfork is not a Hi-res art project and it isn't a Praystation experiment, it's a music publication... ... perhaps traffic statistics for the site indicated a disproportionate number of +1024px visitors but those statistics don't mean a thing if the pfork's intention is to grow readership.

Staffers -- any idea want kind of directives Someoddpilot had in this regard?

p.s. Interesting to note that the staff page has been cut-and-pasted from the old design. Lazy is as lazy does.

― Mike B, Friday, 14 January 2005 00:11 (twenty years ago)

haibun gets runner up then for stylus comment upthread.

well, we both started them independently; staff members from pfm/stylus who are friendly with one another learned that the other site was planning similar lists weeks ago. Ryan and I talked about doing this before the ILx half-00s list began, if that matters. (it shouldn't - especially since it's obviously not the most unique idea in the world!)

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Friday, 14 January 2005 00:26 (twenty years ago)

I think rentboy's correct in assuming that this deadline scandal will ultimately cripple Pitchfork Media, the straw that broke the camel's back as it were. This is where the backlash against PFM begins, where their net-wide respect has dissipated, as this thread dedicated to PFM and its shortcomings makes abundantly clear. Yes, ILM's love affair with Ryan Schreiber has indeed ended badly and awkwardly.

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 14 January 2005 00:51 (twenty years ago)

I feel so empty.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 14 January 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

Tear.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 14 January 2005 01:48 (twenty years ago)

I love Ryan Pitchfork, and tonight, when you hit your knees, please ask God to love him too.
http://www.sacobserver.com/soul/images/billy_dee_williams.jpg

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 14 January 2005 02:15 (twenty years ago)

Hahah, should I be scared that I know that reference more from an MST3K episode than the real thing?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 14 January 2005 02:19 (twenty years ago)

haha, Haibun, I thought the same thing! it's the font of the headings, and 'daily feature/weekly feature'.

It's way too busy for me to look at. Most new websites are, though. I hate all the clutter, the absence of which is what I love about ILX. It's simply so unnecessary. The constant updates, too: how many different colour schemes have they tried now? i remember when i wrote news for them in 2000, getting asked to test out new designs every 4 months. there was a red one, and a black/tan one, dark blue, light blue, a series of teal... just stick with something that works, and be done!

i use 800x600, and rarely read pitchfork anymore just due to the sidescroll. again, it's not necessary! when did minimal design go out of style, and WHY?

― derrick (derrick), Friday, 14 January 2005 02:57 (twenty years ago)

when did minimal design go out of style, and WHY?

www.google.com

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Friday, 14 January 2005 03:35 (twenty years ago)

yes, bless Google!

― derrick (derrick), Friday, 14 January 2005 03:46 (twenty years ago)

when did minimal design go out of style, and WHY?

ahhh - music to my ears .. and spot on re one design and stick to it ..

www.ireallylovemusic.co.uk

then again i am seriously lazy.

― mark e (mark e), Friday, 14 January 2005 08:47 (twenty years ago)

Mystery Revealed: Ryan Schreiber in the flesh