njb51
Well-known member
hehe, night!
FM Homepage
- Thread starter njb51
- Start date
B
Big Swordsy :O)
Guest
I think Matt's just nailed it
I would agree with Mark, unfriendly and not welcoming for the community that has been built here on FM.
The page still looks too commercial to me.
The page still looks too commercial to me.
GrahamM
Managing Editor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 1
Matt - anyone, what would you do to reflect more the community feel of the site? And to also let new visitors to the site know that there is a lot more beneath the skin?
Peter, apart from the ads in the margins, what makes the page look too commercial? That wasn't there before, that is?
Peter, apart from the ads in the margins, what makes the page look too commercial? That wasn't there before, that is?
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Going against the grain somewhat I quite like it (there again I've been sat here for 5 minutes trying to remember what the old one looked like and can't, must be getting old).
Apart from the big white gap in the middle which I assume will fill in time its alright. I would like to see more photo's or links to articles in the middle main bit or maybe a link to the threads of the week on the forum, the trick is to display something that appeals or triggers an interest in everyone so they click and before you know it they are in and trapped for hours !
Apart from the big white gap in the middle which I assume will fill in time its alright. I would like to see more photo's or links to articles in the middle main bit or maybe a link to the threads of the week on the forum, the trick is to display something that appeals or triggers an interest in everyone so they click and before you know it they are in and trapped for hours !
GrahamM
Managing Editor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 1
Thanks Mark, at last, someone who likes what we're trying to do! And Ed said last night that he liked it as he got stuck into his ninth helping of not so crispy duck.
But seriously, keep the constructive criticisms coming, they're all appreciated and helpful.
Mark, that white gap is to do with your screen resolution. It disappeara at 1024 x 768 and greater, so I believe.
But seriously, keep the constructive criticisms coming, they're all appreciated and helpful.
Mark, that white gap is to do with your screen resolution. It disappeara at 1024 x 768 and greater, so I believe.
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Yep your right Graham, upped the resolution and its gone, looks a lot better now.
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
Back in April it was redesigned and quickly redesigned again for the same reasons I am stating now. Articles disappear into the archive far too quickly (unless I am missing something?). If you only come on here weekly or fortnightly then you've missed out unless you start trawling the archives. The links to the beginners stuff have gone from the front page where they did the most good. For every compliment you're getting more criticism. And it is scrappy!
Heading towards Mr Angry the second!!!!!
Heading towards Mr Angry the second!!!!!
Graham,
The old version had far more articles in the various sections that almost filled the home page. Therefore it looked like a "members" page and was IMHO 'welcoming' and it prompted one to search for more articles as well.
This version has the Latest Tackle and that huge Review panel as well.
Then as I scroll down there is the Categories Tackle Centre in addition.
In the trial version there is only space for the last 6 articles whereas before there was the reference section as well as a lot more current articles.
I fully understand the necessity for advertising space as we do not contribute to the running of the site, but to be honest, I would far rather contribute an annual or monthly fee and not have so many adverts.
Or, as someone said to me last night in an e-mail:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
The old version had far more articles in the various sections that almost filled the home page. Therefore it looked like a "members" page and was IMHO 'welcoming' and it prompted one to search for more articles as well.
This version has the Latest Tackle and that huge Review panel as well.
Then as I scroll down there is the Categories Tackle Centre in addition.
In the trial version there is only space for the last 6 articles whereas before there was the reference section as well as a lot more current articles.
I fully understand the necessity for advertising space as we do not contribute to the running of the site, but to be honest, I would far rather contribute an annual or monthly fee and not have so many adverts.
Or, as someone said to me last night in an e-mail:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
E
ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)
Guest
Let's not go down the 'paying fees' road .....I think if you did you would lose half (if not more ) of the members right away ...........
Matt Brown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Johnny, When the site is viewed in 800x600 in IE7 the DIV (I assume it's a DIV) containing the John Wilson Rod segment is pushed way down (500 pixels or more) by the DIV above. Likewise with the Beginners DIV.
Graham, the community side of FM is why many of us come back time and time again and yet the links (Latest Reviews & Forum Hot Threads) are pushed a couple of screen lengths down. All the important stuff needs to be 'above the fold' - ie. so it can be seen on an 800x600 screen without the need for scrolling down.
I appreciate the advertising is cruicial and that a balance has be created but I think the balance is wrong.
Graham, the community side of FM is why many of us come back time and time again and yet the links (Latest Reviews & Forum Hot Threads) are pushed a couple of screen lengths down. All the important stuff needs to be 'above the fold' - ie. so it can be seen on an 800x600 screen without the need for scrolling down.
I appreciate the advertising is cruicial and that a balance has be created but I think the balance is wrong.
Ed,
I was not advocating a paying site merely stating my preference versus (IMHO) too many adverts.
For what it is worth I sincerely hope that FM stays the same as it is today for many, many years to come.
Personally, I think what makes FM the very best Fishing oriented website on the Internet are the contributors, our diversity and indeed our size in membership.
I was not advocating a paying site merely stating my preference versus (IMHO) too many adverts.
For what it is worth I sincerely hope that FM stays the same as it is today for many, many years to come.
Personally, I think what makes FM the very best Fishing oriented website on the Internet are the contributors, our diversity and indeed our size in membership.
Matt Brown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Just looking at the column on the left and there's lots of unecessary info.
Under Shopping Partners - Why does it say "From Bait to Bivvies...." It's not necessary. It's the same with almost all the other box outs.
The Offers box isn't really what it says it is. Fishing Getways, as used on the 2nd line, down would be more apt.
I forgot to mention on my previous post, on any screen res (I'm running 1600x1200) there's a large white space between the Latest Articles and Latest Tackle DIVs.
Under Shopping Partners - Why does it say "From Bait to Bivvies...." It's not necessary. It's the same with almost all the other box outs.
The Offers box isn't really what it says it is. Fishing Getways, as used on the 2nd line, down would be more apt.
I forgot to mention on my previous post, on any screen res (I'm running 1600x1200) there's a large white space between the Latest Articles and Latest Tackle DIVs.
njb51
Well-known member
1600x1200! Christ man! You need binoculars to see it?!?!
njb51
Well-known member
unfortunately, the white gaps seen around things viewed on different screen resolutions is not controlled by me, or Graham. Its just the way the site has been set up.
Pain in the arse? Yes!
The site is now best viewed in 1024x768.
We shall keep playing and moving things around.
thanks for the input lads!
Pain in the arse? Yes!
The site is now best viewed in 1024x768.
We shall keep playing and moving things around.
thanks for the input lads!
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Having looked at it for a while and having at last remebered the old one I really do prefer it, and I'm not just arselicking either. Give it a while and it grows on you, use it and you'll see its easier, use it like someone new would or an infrequent user (not like us that are on every other day and just blink at the homepage before going to the forums)and you will realise the changes are for the better.
I'm running 1152 x 864 (apparently just above the national average according to the AOL optimum performance check) and its sock on, no gaps, lines or holes.
I'm running 1152 x 864 (apparently just above the national average according to the AOL optimum performance check) and its sock on, no gaps, lines or holes.
E
ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)
Guest
so does that mean you should be changing the resolution on your screen for every different page or thing you do on your computer ???
njb51
Well-known member
have you changed yet ED?
You'll see that everything is better!
You'll see that everything is better!
"We shall keep playing and moving things around."
Try moving things back to where they were Jonny
Mark H, sorry I simply don't agree. I really do think that the old style page was superior. More 'friendly' and 'inviting'
Try moving things back to where they were Jonny
Mark H, sorry I simply don't agree. I really do think that the old style page was superior. More 'friendly' and 'inviting'