|
jpearl
Mar 20, 2005, 6:12 AM
Post #76 of 205
(12093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
What the f*ck is this? What the hell does a monkey have to do with rock climbing? Monkeys climb trees. When's the last time you saw a monkey climb a mountain or a cliff? Seriously, go scour National Geographic and won't find one. Heck, they should've at least made a logo of Biscuit the climbing dog.
I don't like this redesign. I love the site, but I don't like the new look. Some things shouldn't change and the old look was classic by virtue of the fact that it was one of the original sites and it should stay that way.
And what's up with the brown? Is it some sentimental Pantone, is it supposed to mimic an outdoorsy color or the color of a monkey's butt?
Aaarrrrrggghhhh! I'm so pissed, I think I'll let of some steam by flaming some noobies in the community forum.
Grrr! :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
corankinrok
Mar 20, 2005, 6:21 AM
Post #77 of 205
(12093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 34
|
This is my last on this topic, basically cause it won't matter.
Hate the monkey!
Like a background more toned down than WHITE, the white you stare at evrey &$%#ing day at work. Don't care what, what just not white.
|
|
|
|
|
pk
Mar 20, 2005, 6:32 AM
Post #78 of 205
(12093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 459
|
My last post on this as well! Did you actually have a web developer do this or somone who said that they would wihout knowing what they could do?
The site structure is hideous now. Who ever developed this site, I assume you are on this site my god! How many years exp do you actually have! This is the biggest amature piece of shit I have seen in the past 10 years on a site with soo many users.
If it was your first attempt which I kind of assume it is from the structure and look of the site, take a look at the comments and suggestions. This is about as bad as you can get for a revamp of the site.
The site was about 2 years out of date, as far as code etc. Who ever wrote the new shit and messed it all up structure wise basically took rc.com back 4 years ( no not 2 years as you were but 4)
It's hideous! ( not look wise but how this site fuctions now )
P.K.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Mar 20, 2005, 6:35 AM
Post #79 of 205
(12093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
In reply to: ... you gotta' fix it up for IE - it looks aweful!
Doesn't everything?
Seriously though, while I do think the implementation was a bit premature, people need to give the changes a chance. With some work (a fair bit of it in my opinion) a facelift could be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
cpaclimber
Mar 20, 2005, 6:36 AM
Post #80 of 205
(12093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2004
Posts: 14
|
the color is fine but the monkey is fuckin retarded it looks like the sticker junkie mascot soon you guys will allow penis enhancing pop ups too
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Mar 20, 2005, 6:39 AM
Post #81 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
In reply to: The site was about 2 years out of date, as far as code etc. Who ever wrote the new s--- and messed it all up structure wise basically took rc.com back 4 years ( no not 2 years as you were but 4)
I'm not sure what exactly you're basing this on. While I do agree that the design isn't very professional and there has been a loss of user-friendliness without the left nav menu, but how much of the code has really been changed?
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Mar 20, 2005, 6:45 AM
Post #83 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
yeah that happened for me too
guess theyll just have to change the site back to the way it was before :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
pk
Mar 20, 2005, 6:48 AM
Post #84 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 459
|
In reply to: In reply to: The site was about 2 years out of date, as far as code etc. Who ever wrote the new s--- and messed it all up structure wise basically took rc.com back 4 years ( no not 2 years as you were but 4) I'm not sure what exactly you're basing this on. While I do agree that the design isn't very professional and there has been a loss of user-friendliness without the left nav menu, but how much of the code has really been changed?
I write this as the code really was not changed at all just re aranged and organized. The person that re did the site really did not have much coding knowledge under his/her belt. The site WAS NOT REDONE it was just reformatted.
It's pretty pathetic if you as me as a devel!
P.K.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Mar 20, 2005, 6:50 AM
Post #85 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
It is beyond me why someone would see the need to take a perfectly practical, functional title page format and try to change it. Sure RC.com wasn’t without its problems but it’s like we’ve gone and exchanged our good ol’ Ford pickup and exchanged it for a shiny new Pinto. As a area manger for British Columbia I’ve gone and dedicated a lot of time and effort to improving the BC section to what I thought was a better. In the end, users of RC.com told me what they thought of the changes. Many they liked and some they didn’t, and despite not entirely agreeing I changed it to what the majority of wanted.
So, to who ever it is who’s responsible for the recent changes, please listen to the overwhelming majority of users who see it as a bad thing, and change it back to the way it was.
This change has been an overwhelming flop.
Please don’t be discouraged buy this criticism, I’m sure it has taken you a lot of effort to make these changes, I would encourage you to focus these efforts on fixing or simply improving on the old format, and Route Data base. (Being able to link photos to specific routes would be a huge improvement on the current system of only being able to link the photos to the wall/crag)
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Mar 20, 2005, 6:53 AM
Post #86 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Well don't you worry, with this much groaning we'll see a different version soon.
|
|
|
|
|
cliffhanger9
Moderator
Mar 20, 2005, 6:54 AM
Post #87 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 2275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The site was about 2 years out of date, as far as code etc. Who ever wrote the new s--- and messed it all up structure wise basically took rc.com back 4 years ( no not 2 years as you were but 4) I'm not sure what exactly you're basing this on. While I do agree that the design isn't very professional and there has been a loss of user-friendliness without the left nav menu, but how much of the code has really been changed? I write this as the code really was not changed at all just re aranged and organized. The person that re did the site really did not have much coding knowledge under his/her belt. The site WAS NOT REDONE it was just reformatted. It's pretty pathetic if you as me as a devel! P.K.
Well I'm confused then. If it was two years old, it got messed up back to 4 years old and now you are saying it didnt really get changed at all? :wtf:
|
|
|
|
|
pk
Mar 20, 2005, 6:56 AM
Post #88 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 459
|
With this much groaning I do fear the different version! The person who actually spent this much time on this new verion obvously doesn't really know what she is doing!
P.K.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Mar 20, 2005, 6:58 AM
Post #89 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
This is kind of funny, I was just on the BC page for the first time in quite a while and was thinking about how it looked really bloated and annoying. Funny thing about perceptions, huh?
I don't like the current design either, but there's already a whole thread or two devoted to that.
While I'm being inflammatory, would you mind toning down the BC page a bit? Stacking those two photos and then putting all that extra space between your color-coding legend makes it a pain in the ass to scroll down to get to the actual routes.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Mar 20, 2005, 6:59 AM
Post #90 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: With some work (a fair bit of it in my opinion) a facelift could be a good thing.
FACELIFT!!??
If by facelift you mean "hit in the face repeatedly with a mettle pipe" Then ya' RC.com has never looked so good.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Mar 20, 2005, 7:01 AM
Post #91 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
slavetogravity: you only read half of that line.
|
|
|
|
|
pk
Mar 20, 2005, 7:09 AM
Post #92 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 459
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The site was about 2 years out of date, as far as code etc. Who ever wrote the new s--- and messed it all up structure wise basically took rc.com back 4 years ( no not 2 years as you were but 4) I'm not sure what exactly you're basing this on. While I do agree that the design isn't very professional and there has been a loss of user-friendliness without the left nav menu, but how much of the code has really been changed? I write this as the code really was not changed at all just re aranged and organized. The person that re did the site really did not have much coding knowledge under his/her belt. The site WAS NOT REDONE it was just reformatted. It's pretty pathetic if you as me as a devel! P.K. Well I'm confused then. If it was two years old, it got messed up back to 4 years old and now you are saying it didnt really get changed at all? :wtf:
I challege you then to go back 2 years and find it!
On another note you are getting off topic. Get back on topic!
P.K.
|
|
|
|
|
wolfman31
Mar 20, 2005, 7:10 AM
Post #93 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 22
|
The new look is absolutely horrible. It hurts your eyes to look at these colors for too long. AFAIK text works best on white backgrounds. I can get over the monkey even though it doesn't relate but the puke color has got to go. Sure the style is nice for a single page site but that is it. If you want to keep readers for over 3 minutes this will not work. How would you mix in other colors like red and blue banners. Trust me on this white is the best background for a site like this. Also white will mix with any photo.
|
|
|
|
|
akclimber
Mar 20, 2005, 7:15 AM
Post #94 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 609
|
As stated by evreyone else. No sidebar. Sorry, but I give a thumbs down. :deadhorse:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 20, 2005, 7:15 AM
Post #95 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
So, are we getting our sideways vagina logo back--or not?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dancesonrocks
Mar 20, 2005, 7:20 AM
Post #96 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 82
|
First off I have to say that I'm a graphic designer and I've gotten flack for my color scheme at rockgrrl.com (dusty pinks) -- so I sympathize with you when folks complain about your tastes and hard work.
However... I have to put in my vote in for the old scheme or another redesign. I didn't see the old scheme as outdated at all. I thought it was more along the lines of a timeless look. The funky logo kept it from looking too old, and the color scheme coupled with the fabulous featured photos gave it a professional touch.
This new look feels like it wants to only be for certain types of climbers. I think the monkey is a nice graphic illustration -- but I don't think he's a good mascot for this site. If your goal is to take the site into a new direction featuring only current climbing then this new look is fine. But I liked how the old design seemed to encompass all types of climbing by placing the emphasis of the front page on the featured photo -- which always changed of course -- so it ended up showing us all types of climbing and all "moods". This design just seems to only be about a "playful" or "hip" factor, and the color scheme and layout de-emphasizes the amazing photos contributed by the community.
I also agree with others that the navigation was easier on the old site.
Anyway, keep up the hard work, as I said, I'm a designer with my own climbing board and I also admin a large non climbing related board so I know how it is working with a volunteer staff and getting feedback from all sides ;)
|
|
|
|
|
f_thomas
Mar 20, 2005, 7:22 AM
Post #97 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2003
Posts: 139
|
Get this monkey off my back! The old logo was fine. Desert brown ????
How about a login on the main page?
|
|
|
|
|
pk
Mar 20, 2005, 7:22 AM
Post #98 of 205
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 459
|
I assume most of the poeple here are posting about the look. I could care less about it. The functionality of the site in what I'm posting about which most people either don't care or don't know! Take some time and look about I've already said part on it, I'm done! It's pretty ridiculas.
P.K.
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
Mar 20, 2005, 7:23 AM
Post #99 of 205
(12094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
In reply to: The safari version looks great, but you gotta' fix it up for IE - it looks aweful!
Maybe Microsoft should release a browser that follows recognized standards.
I was going to mention something about the two css files not validating, but one of the two things that is not valid looks like its an Javascript autogenerated thing. (that being moz-border-radius).
Anyone else care to check (with a browser other than firefox, I don't feel like changing my user agent). Stylesheet number one here, number two here.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Mar 20, 2005, 7:32 AM
Post #100 of 205
(12094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: My last post on this as well! Did you actually have a web developer do this or somone who said that they would wihout knowing what they could do? The site structure is hideous now. Who ever developed this site, I assume you are on this site my god! How many years exp do you actually have! This is the biggest amature piece of s--- I have seen in the past 10 years on a site with soo many users. If it was your first attempt which I kind of assume it is from the structure and look of the site, take a look at the comments and suggestions. This is about as bad as you can get for a revamp of the site. The site was about 2 years out of date, as far as code etc. Who ever wrote the new s--- and messed it all up structure wise basically took rc.com back 4 years ( no not 2 years as you were but 4)
So, as you're siting here (not as a supporting partner) complaining about the site - I don't see you volunteering to help fix any of the supposed issues you have with the site.
In reply to: I challege you then to go back 2 years and find it!
Rockclimbing.com, January 18th, 2002
Personally, I prefer January 9th, 1998
In reply to: I assume most of the poeple here are posting about the look. I could care less about it. The functionality of the site in what I'm posting about which most people either don't care or don't know! Take some time and look about I've already said part on it, I'm done! It's pretty ridiculas.
I believe you said you were done about 4 pages ago... Now shut up already.
The moral of the story: If you're not willing to DO something instead of bitching, then shut the hell up.
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
