-
When in Rome, March for Life
May 14, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Paul Ryan Preview (Hi, Barney!)
May 8, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust
April 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Catholics and Human Trafficking
April 18, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Finally a Republican Talks Back — Rep. Pompeo Shows How
February 26, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
You may have noticed we’ve revamped our site a bit — streamlined the look, removed some clutter, added more lead graphic possibilities — in part so that some deserving stories have a longer shelf life than one day. This will also make it easier to post important stories throughout the day, just so you know our morning lineup won’t be all you have to look forward to. You will let us know what you think?
View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Wlady Pleszczynski
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/12/major-announcement
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Boys and Girls
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Sean torkelson| 9.12.11 @ 3:22AM
To whom it may concern:
It was fine the way it was. Why do all of you media people feel compelled to incessantly alter what works? Think Wall St. Journal.
I am just about ready to cancel my subscription to WSJ (trying to become a neo NYT) especially after that Lib editor and his wife from the Viet Nam era ruined its broad sheet look. Now you fweel yoyu have to have a new "look".
Who the hell are these folks that supposedly "ask" for this? I like the old look. It was soothing to the eyes and viewed more smoothly than this iteration.
PCC| 9.12.11 @ 4:17AM
The changes, thankfully, are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and the overall appearance seems cleaner, sharper. Well done.
Lawrence Boccardi| 9.12.11 @ 6:27AM
I think you should stop carrying articles from that closet Lib, Ben Stein!
A. James van Hine| 9.12.11 @ 8:46AM
Why do folks dislike Ben so much? His column is a diary, his daily observations. I much appreciate his writing style and enjoy reading about those things that he picks up on throughout his day. Does it really matter if you agree or disagree? I'm about 50/50 myself, but can you deny that he is a good American at heart? I would thank God if Ben were my friend.
Steve| 9.12.11 @ 7:07AM
What PCC said. Well done.
beebop| 9.12.11 @ 7:09AM
I would like to suggest that you not send us to websites -- like the AFLCIO -- via links in articles. Can you not find a different manner to convey the article? I don't want to visit the NYTimes. I don't want to visit CNN. If I did? I would go there on my own. Thanks for considering this ....
Zilla | 9.12.11 @ 7:09AM
I think it looks good, cleaner, easier on the eye. Are the fonts bigger too? It really does seem easier to read, maybe because it's less 'busy', either way, good job.
Indy| 9.12.11 @ 8:34AM
Maybe I've overlooked it but where are the archives? Also, the large advertisement streaming in the middle of the page is distracting.
Greg Williams | 9.12.11 @ 4:43PM
Indy, thanks for the feedback. RE: archives, our plan is to append our standard archive page: http://spectator.org/issues to The Magazine tab.
In the meantime, to access Archives, click News & Features in the top navigation, then Browse by Issues.
A. James van Hine| 9.12.11 @ 8:41AM
I love the layout, I hate, HATE the ad in the middle that follows you down the page. Its like the stray dog that taunts Ralph and I on our morning walk.
Bob K.| 9.12.11 @ 8:46AM
It is new window dressing for the same articles, most of which which do not have the life span of Burke's "Flies of a summer." Indeed, most are gone, like May Flies on a trout stream, in one day. They are here only long enough for the readers to respond in the comments section by calling each other either anti-semites or anti-americans or to call for the nuclear bombings of the countries in the near east. There is where you should have done some revamping.
J.C.Eaton| 9.12.11 @ 10:01AM
Like it...a lot!
Tish | 9.12.11 @ 12:48PM
I was so startled by the changes I thought I had the wrong website for a moment. But me likey much!
Marianne| 9.12.11 @ 1:50PM
PLEASE get rid of the ad that floats in the middle of the page. It's annoying and very distracting.
SpiralArchitect| 9.12.11 @ 2:06PM
Yeah!
It seems not only modernized yet refreshing to view.
The recently added pics (mugshots) of the contributors was a nice addition.
Stalking adds are never appreciated, advertisers aside.
Good job.
Hopefully this will last for a few years as a familiar look makes thing seem confortable, a place we can call home, right?
LC Jack | 9.12.11 @ 2:21PM
I'll toss in my 2 cents worth. It's not bad, not too bad at all. It DOES look cleaner and that's important to me with a high-end HD monitor. With that said, I don't see why it was necessary at all. I know that Site Developers are always tinkering with code snippets and what-nots and just love for us to Beta test their new pets...LOL...
Robert Nowall | 9.12.11 @ 4:02PM
It'll take getting used to...but the ad that sticks to one position on the screen while sliding up and down? That's an eyesore...
Al Adab| 9.12.11 @ 6:16PM
Agreed.
c. j. acworth| 9.12.11 @ 6:24PM
All you folks complaining about some ad floating in the middle of the screen are seeing something I'm not. No kidding, I've got no such ad on my screen at all. I know nothing about computer stuff, is it possible my pop-up blocker or something is working better than yours?
Quartermaster| 9.12.11 @ 6:54PM
I have that stupid ad as well. I use Google Chrome after Mozilla went bonkers for some reason. That ad is distracting and annoying.
Greg Williams | 9.12.11 @ 9:10PM
Hearing you loud and clear on the floating ad, folks. Thanks for the feedback. Anyone who's not seeing it, we're talking specifically on the homepage. Admittedly, it is a somewhat desperate attempt to improve click through rates on banner ads--rates that continue to fall industry-wide. Rest assured, its days are likely numbered...
YeloStalyn| 9.13.11 @ 3:04PM
Maybe click through rates are falling because ads are becomming increasingly annoying, in your face, and often take you to wonky websites that try to open a million pop-ups?
No! Couldn't be that!!
Al| 9.12.11 @ 10:03PM
I have asked my Congressman to do this for more than two decades. I need to see the income levels to know if Huntsman has it right. I believe most people in the 25% bracket only pay around 10% in total taxes today after deductions.
george nugent | 9.13.11 @ 7:49AM
the ad next to the article headlines occupies too much of the page and is very irritating. Dump it. Thank you. Geo nugent
Mary Mayes | 9.13.11 @ 8:49AM
I like it much better!
Dave | 9.13.11 @ 10:52AM
As longtime, regular reader/poster at A.S. , I've always enjoyed the writing and content. Having said that, I'm unfortunately stuck with one of those simple, low budget dial-up modems. But it's not from lack of desire to move into this current century; only that my limited, fixed income only budgets for what I can afford. As of today, I don't have the ability to tax "the rich" in order to fund a faster ISP connection.
I realize most reader of this link will probably and say - "ehhh, tough luck, grandpa." I guess the adage "Only the Strong Survive" still applies.
In the meantime, the remainder of folks like me; floating around in the dial-up dingy might have to reduce our A.S. log-in time.
FYI: for the web folks who track this stuff ... your new design now takes twice as long for my service to fully load. And, sadly, your site's now relegated to "check in when I have spare download time."
In closing, I suppose that "other" old adage wasn't applied here : "If it ain't broke - don't fix it."
Dave
Greg Williams | 9.13.11 @ 11:41AM
Dave,
Sorry to hear about the slowdown. We'll take a look specifically at optimizing download times. In the meantime, don't miss out on content!
Check out our RSS feed at feedburner, where you'll find a text-only version of everything posted at Spectator throughout the day:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/amspecfull
Dave | 9.13.11 @ 3:01PM
Thanks, Greg. The FeedBurner link works for me.
Al Adab| 9.13.11 @ 12:05PM
Today there are so many functions running, ActiveX being one, that my state of the art machine is slowed to frustration by the things on each page that I do not want. Very slow to load now. Worse than yesterday.
JGR | 9.13.11 @ 1:16PM
Your new site is hard to read and makes it difficult to find articles. Change is not always good. See Obama 2008. The site is now more cluttered and difficult.
Jeff Smith| 9.13.11 @ 2:56PM
I like it. Easy on the eye and type size and style is attractive.
YeloStalyn| 9.13.11 @ 3:07PM
The layout is nice... wider margins in the comments is a plus. Makes it seem less scrunched and easier to read. And I like the new red... it pops and looks a lot cleaner.
However, I keep getting a slow down in IE saying that a script is having trouble running and if I want to stop it. I click yes and eventually it smooths out.
Greg Williams | 9.13.11 @ 3:12PM
IE script error is a specific ad being delivered by an ad network. We're hunting it down now...
the permanent newbie| 9.13.11 @ 3:16PM
I like the new look. A lot. Please leave it like this for a while.
shermbodius rides again!| 9.13.11 @ 5:51PM
I like it.
Rod Stanton| 9.13.11 @ 6:52PM
I am still adjusting to the new look. Confused at first but I think I am starting "to get the hang of it".
TSW| 9.14.11 @ 6:57AM
Drop the flash banner at the top! If not, at least put ALL the stories below so we can ignore it.
Why do so few web designers understand the diference between motion and progress?
If would be nice if your site designer coded for your users and not other web designers.
Anthony| 9.14.11 @ 9:42AM
Cleaner and sharper, I'll second that. Thank God for TAS, one of the few sane voices in America!!
Remain clean and sharp!!!
Pecos Pete| 9.14.11 @ 9:42AM
The rotating content banner at the top of the home page is terrible! The lead article flashes by so quickly that it is difficult to click.
And, I too am on dial-up due to being in a rural area. Page loads are slow. I generally click the stop load button, once the article appears, thus avoiding most of the advertisements that are causing a slow page load.
Otherwise, I'm not overly impressed with the new design. From a user's standpoint, there was nothing wrong with the now deceased design.
charles parlato| 9.14.11 @ 11:20AM
Wlady, Here's what I think. For some reason, Rick Santorum has done you dirt, and you ain't gonna let him forget it. The pundits and Fox have decided what candidates are worth our consideration. Get off it.
Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to tell us the policies, positions and character of the candidates. We are to make the decisions. You do not need to tell us who is up and who is down, and on that basis, decide who is to be reported on.
So, the Conservative Pundits Association will be under fire after this election b/c it failed to do its assigned job, and instead decided to become an association of sportscasters.
David H Dennis | 9.14.11 @ 12:57PM
I don't mind the chasing banner as much as I used to mind the constant begging for money whenever I first landed on the site.
I would like to see slightly less whitespace in the articles. It just seems like it's not quite balanced relative to the other elements of the page because it doesn't line up with the headlines or graphics for the same article.
I like the type size. It's big enough for me to read, which is a significant problem with many sites I visit.
Hope that helps.
D