As you can probably see, we have given the site a make-over.
We’ve opted for the most simple possible construction of the site this time, with fewer of the gadgets, widgets and gizmos that were cluttering the pages. We’ve also made it a bit easier for our more mature readers, who, we understand, didn’t like the white-on-black colour scheme.
However, the move may not have gone as smoothly as we hoped. If the site isn’t working properly for you, please let us know in the comments below or through the contact form above.
We’re also keen to make sure that everything is working with our RSS feeds, etc, for people automatically linking here, and using blog-reading web-apps, such as Google Reader.
“We’ve also made it a bit easier for our more mature readers…”
You’ve obviously been reading Monbiot’s recent article, claiming that all us global warming deniers are senile (and myopic) wrinklies trembling before the Grim Reaper. Too right, and thanks for the change. Here’s hoping that my eyesight will hold out for several more decades of fascinating articles.
Clicking on the banner goes to non-existant page “/test”
I find that the new look is perhaps more “friendly” (don’t know what that means), but it’s uglier. Your previous look seemed more conspirationist, more underground. Perhaps that’s what you are trying to get away from. Well, I always read you guys from Google Reader, so it doesn’t matter much.
What is important is that you make a better tagging system for your blog. I have a lot of trouble finding key posts of yours when I’m on billboards trying to make a point. For instance, the post about WWF funding, and others, I had to go through the entire 2009 database, I couldn’t remember where it was. And no system of yours helped!
I hope this is on your radar.
Luis,
Thanks for your points.
The last design was intended as you described. The problem was, in designing it, we somehow stopped search engines from properly indexing the site. This problem was made worse by the plugin we used to list our archive – readers using IE would have to wait ages for the site to load because of the way IE handles the code that the plugin generates.
Tagging is something we’ve struggled with too. We started by attempting to tag each of our posts with one or more of the 17 points that we started from. But this soon proved to be an inefficient way of organising things. Then we went through each of the posts, re-tagging them. But what ought to be the extent of the tagging? Every proper noun used in the post? Every organisation mentioned, or claim debunked? We’ll think about it, but any ideas you have about how to organise tags would be appreciated.
If you like, we can send you a .txt file with the entire blog’s. That way, you can simply use notepad, or similar, to locate any word.
We had a more comprehensive site re-design in mind, but studies, work, life, and money all stood in the way. The most important thing, we felt, was to get a user and search-engine friendly site up and running.
Very much better, thanks. The previous layout was all right, just took too long to load.
…although perhaps the Home/About etc etc buttons should be shifted to the right, to allow subtext to be read.
Arydale,
Sounds like you may have discovered a problem… the menu bar (home/about, etc) should not be obscuring any other text.
What browser are you using?
Your “About” page now only lists 16 statements, as opposed to the 17 you had originally. I do hope that you’ve not missed anything important off…
I’ll make a play for the 17th here as its something I was hoping for an article about (personally it is one of the funniest and most ludicrous things I’ve read in ages):
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=5239 (note the ironic place I’ve linked to).
17. Climate change is basically a religion with the same aims and goals – i.e. control over what we do, what we think and how we live our lives
I know there have been various posts about this and you generally disagree with this statement (I think), but this court decision does raise a very interesting point.
Keep up the thought provoking articles.
I like the tidying up aspect. My criticism would be that it looks like a lot of other climate blogs now.
Excellent redesign, thank you, look just great!
Like Geoff, I agree that the new look is easier to read – my middle-aged eyes are very grateful, although I did quite like the underground, light-on-dark format as well (best viewed on Google Chrome, to avoid the lengthy “countdown”.) Long may this thought-provoking blog continue!
Redesign looks good. Keep up the good work.
Suggestion: maybe have a list of the most-visited and/or most-commented-upon posts, underneath ‘tags’ or suchlike? Or keep a list of your “key” posts where you make the most hard-hitting analysis or revelations? I agree with Luis that this is blog is a key resource for those of us who are critical but lack the time/ resources to do the thinking, writing and website coding ourselves. So thank you for all your hard work.
Thanks for your comments.
We will have to work out a way of making tags work. If you know of any sites that have particularly good systems in place, please let us know.
The site design seems a little more “pedestrian” than the prior incarnation, but as long as the wonderful analysis continues I will take what comes.
Absolutely love the re-design. It looks professional and if one wants to be taken seriously by moderate, ordinary folk (or those rare media people who have an open mind), professionalism is important.
I’ve become a faithful reader and regularly promote your posts on Twitter (http://twitter.com/NOconsensus) and elsewhere.
I, too, feel an indexing/improved tagging system would be massively helpful. I think Google has a widget that can be inserted which will automatically search the entire site. Not a perfect solution for a large site, but a step in the right direction perhaps.
Please keep your solid, sensible analysis coming. Some days one feels as if one must be losing one’s mind. You two help provide reassurance that this isn’t the case. Cheers!
Donna, just to say I think Twitter is becoming an excellent communication tool, and one that appears to be currently under-used by those of us of the sceptic persuasion. If 350.org and Greenpeace can send messages instantly to thousands of followers and mobilise support for their various campaigns, logically so can AGW-sceptic sites and blogs such as Climate Resistance. (I’m now following NOconsensus, by the way.)
My eyesight’s pretty bad and I always found the high contrast/low glare combination of white-on-black particularly easy to read. I realise experiences differ here.
However, if you are trying to be friendlier to weaker or older eyes, why such a small typeface? Combine the size of the type with the use of various shades of grey in some of the text styles (most importantly, the one used for quoted text) and the result is small text with low contrast which is pretty hard to read.
Mark, I have increased the text size by 10%. This was the most I felt I could increase it by, without detracting from the design.
Please let me know if it is enough, an if it has caused problems elsewhere.
Most browsers allow you to expand the web page by holding the control button, and rolling the middle mouse wheel.
Thanks for the quick response, and that 10% makes quite a big difference.
I do realise that there are things that I can do with font sizes on my own browser. But – without wanting to sound too militant – I think that accessibility should be the publisher’s concern, not the reader’s, at least within reasonable limits.
I shall now go back to praying for the end of the current fad for grey text on a white background, and its eventual disappearance from standard templates. ;)