Monday, October 08, 2012

Hot or not?


Views from readers on recent format changes to On An Overgrown Path would be appreciated. For the past six weeks a new experimental “active view” format was used giving easier access to archive articles and capitalising on the graphic element of the posts. Slightly questionable readership data from Google indicated that a significant uplift in site traffic resulted from switching formats. However my own crude testing highlighted possible compatibility problems when viewing the new format with browsers other than the native Chrome, although no complaints have been received from readers. So I have reverted today to the old-style format. Feedback on preferred format would be appreciated either via comments or email to overgrownpath (at) hotmail (dot) co (dot) uk. Changes were prompted, incidentally, by a new version of the Google Blogger editor used to create the blog. This “upgraded” version is one of the most flawed pieces of software I have ever had the misfortune to use, but backward compatibility of archive material and my ageing brain make a change to another editor impractical. And, it goes without saying, Google has no interest at all in feedback on their buggy product from a fairly heavyweight user. But it is function not form that matters - so some thoughts on what is hot and not.

Also on Facebook and Twitter. Any copyrighted material on these pages is included as "fair use", for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner(s). Report broken links, missing images and errors to - overgrownpath at hotmail dot co dot uk

11 comments:

P. M. Doolan said...

looks fine to me. Works using Internet Explorer.

Pliable said...

Thanks PMD. Did you had any problems using IE with the "active view" format that was used throughout September?

Andrew said...

I prefer this simpler layout, myself, but didn't have any problems using the active view in IE.

As for the blogger interface - I have endless problems trying to get fonts to match and pictures sit where they should. Surely Google can do better.

mahlerman said...

Both worked well with Firefox - but the Luddite in me prefers the 'old' way - less 'busy'. This from a confirmed lover of pre-April 1970 Radio 3, valve amplifiers, and drinking tap water (why do we need a 'use by' date for something that has trickled down through a fjord for centuries?)

Lyle Sanford, RMT said...

I'm on Safari 6.0 and it's all worked well - though I prefer how it is today in that I don't have to click a second time to see the whole post. Also, on the active view it wasn't always clear whether I was seeing the entire post or not. One minor point is that when it was on active view I always got spinning gears for a few seconds before seeing anything - the way it is now it came up right away.

Pliable said...

Andrew wrote about the new Google Blogger editor "Surely Google can do better" to which I can only add Hear, Hear!

Thanks for the comments everyone, and keep them coming. It looks as though the old-style format will stay, at least until someone comes up with an analogue interface.

However I do wish this format centred the headline - short headlines have a gap between them and the centred header image. There probably is a way to centre the headline if I delve into the template HTML, but that will have to wait.

Lisa Hirsch said...

I use Google Reader, so the style and formatting of blogs I read could change 200 times and I would not notice!

Re Invesp, do not assume their listings are either current or accurate. Two blogs in their supposed top 25 haven't been updated in the last couple of years, and Opera Chic is almost certainly in top three most-read music blogs. You may be much more or much less read than your ranking there indicates.

Mike said...

I've been using Windows Live Writer as an offline composition and editing tool for Blogger for several years. It's vastly superior.

To work around formatting issues in Blogger I generally use tables to keep text and images better anchored.

Dinos Zoumperis said...

The "new" format works fine with Safari 5.1.7. However i can't say that i clearly prefer the one over the other. I guess it's the content of your blog that matters mostly to i. Greetings from Athens, GR.

Robin said...

I much prefer the old style. I do not know whether it had anything to do with the change but my sense is there were none of the longer posts (much appreciated), where you stretched out a bit on a topic, while you were experimenting with the new format

Michael Strickland said...

I much prefer the "old" style. Thanks for going back.