Can we stop pitching fits every time something on the internet changes?

"TheOnelectronic" (theoneelectronic) 11/07/2013 at 18:19 • Filed to: None

1

17

Please? It's unnecessary. You want to gripe because the new Kinja has a horrible layout from a design standpoint? That's perfectly valid. You want to bitch about the fact that the new post editor looks different and has all these scary new buttons? That's just silly.

If someone can explain to me one thing you can do with the new editor that you couldn't do with the old one, I'm all ears. I have yet to find such a thing, however.

Leadbull > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:22

2

I think the point is that Gawker feels the need to change their layout every 5 seconds. Like seriously, can we get at least some stability? Change is good, but perpetual change with no benefits and frequent drawbacks is not good.

911e46z06 > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:24

0

Also, I don't care how many notifications you have. Or if you can't log in. Grown ups do something else and try again in an hour. Also, get off my lawn.

TheOnelectronic > Leadbull 11/07/2013 at 18:27

0

But, for example, the new editor has little-to-no drawbacks and several benefits.

Even the new Kinja layout has some benefits. I actually really like the sidebar articles. It allows me to see posts I might have missed otherwise. The new sharing functionality means that if someone writes a stellar post on Oppo, but titles it "Butts" or something, the Jalopnik editors can still share it to the FP in an acceptable-for-major-internet-site format.

I don't know why Gawker keeps changing things. It would be nice if they'd at least explain why they do things in a way that isn't soaked through with PR bullshit.

I liked Ur-Jalopnik. 5.0 was pretty bad, but acceptable. The "new" Kinja rollout was, in my honest opinion, the high-point. The simple formatting and large pictures made gawker sites look really nice .

But then it started going downhill again.

TheOnelectronic > 911e46z06 11/07/2013 at 18:27

0

I'm always amazed because these catastrophes never seem to last more than a few minutes.

911e46z06 > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:28

0

I know, it's almost like it's not a huge deal.

dogisbadob > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:29

1

Can websites stop changing shit for no reason? Kinja, YT, and Facebook are run by 15-year old girls or something!

Maybe you can thank Obama for it, you know, change we can believe in

Look at Craigslist and Reddit. Their layouts are just fine and they haven't been changed for a long time! Just stick to what works!

YSI-what can brown do for you > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:31

0

Once I figured out how to use it, I pretty much liked it.

Leadbull > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:35

0

Yeah, it was best in August of this year, after they finally ironed out all the kinks but before this nonsense hit the FP.

MtrRider Just Wants Doritos > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:38

0

Hell no! The new Kinja works terrible in Netscape Navigator!

TheOnelectronic > dogisbadob 11/07/2013 at 18:42

0

Craigslist and Reddit are both abysmal sites with some of the worst design on the internet today. They DON'T work, they just have a large enough monopoly on their respective markets (internet memes and used hookers, respectively) that they don't have to worry about competition.

And just because YOU don't see the reason, doesn't mean there isn't one. Both Google and Facebook only exist because of Ad money. Ad money that they're desperately trying to get more of. The reason Google wants to merge all of its services into a single account is to be able to show you ads that you might actually want to see. Facebook needs to keep streamlining its design to avoid seeming dated, and yes, to better display and target ads. If you want to bitch about the ads, keep in mind that they're the reason you don't have to pay a monthly fee for either service.

Adapt or die is the law of nature. Things can't just stay static and unchanging or they're bound to die out. Hell, most of the features on Kinja, Youtube, and Facebook are things that weren't even possible in their first iterations. Youtube channels? Nope. Posting statuses to facebook? Nope. Being able to sign into Kinja using existing accounts, thus cutting down on the number of accounts you have to manage, and preventing another "gawker got hacked, time to change every password ever"? Nope. Trust me. My email got hacked because of the gawker hack, and I had to do a lot of damage control.

Meanwhile, if you want to stick to what works, here's a site for you: http://www.drudgereport.com/

TheOnelectronic > Leadbull 11/07/2013 at 18:43

0

I'd go back earlier, to the first rollout. Every single post had nice, full-width images. It really encouraged writing "nice" posts. At least it did for me.

Leadbull > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:44

0

I did like the big images, but it was very buggy in the early stages.

TheOnelectronic > Leadbull 11/07/2013 at 18:45

0

I seem to be immune to the bugs. They almost never strike me. *shrug*

Leadbull > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:46

0

You must eat a well balanced diet with plenty of Vitamin C.

Victorious Secret > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 18:49

2

Bitching about change is cool and here on Oppositelock there is the 12 year old mentality of bitching for the sake of bitching even if the changes were beneficial.

I swear to fucking god these kids would bitch if you told them you had a cure to all known cancers.

dogisbadob > TheOnelectronic 11/07/2013 at 19:19

0

Being able to sign in with another account is cool, but even better, Kinja does NOT require you to actually have an account on Facebook, Twitter, or Google. You see, Kinja has a burner option for those who don't use any of those services. And as a side note, Yahoo should be one of the options.

Fine, sites can't be static and need to avoid being dated, but they do NOT have to update as often as they do. By the time anyone gets used to the changes, they change it again!

Yahoo does the integration much better than Google. (OK fine, this one isn't about site design itself, but rather Google's mandatory G+ for YT policy). Yahoo, for example, doesn't require you to have a Yahoo Answers account, nor do they require you to have Flickr. However, if you choose to use those, or other Yahoo services, all you have to do is just ask or answer a question or upload a photo. Then your account is automatically created after only a few seconds. No asking you to use your real name over and over after you've already said no 403786934 times, no tricking you into creating a profile you don't want. In fact, I wish Yahoo would either create a full-fledged video-hosting site or buy an existing one (like Vimeo, Dailymotion, or another such service). It would most likely be MUCH LESS oppressive than Google's YT policies, and probably kill YT within months.

TheOnelectronic > dogisbadob 11/07/2013 at 19:31

0

Yahoo? The company that's rapidly circling the drain? Doubtful.

I don't have to use a G+ account to use youtube. I have a Google account that just happens to apply to Gmail, G+, Youtube, and any other google sites, in addition to Chrome.

Calling youtube's policies "Oppressive?" That's humorous. Maybe it's just because I remember what the internet was like before Youtube was around, but considering what you're getting from the service, they could ask for a hell of a lot before it became "oppressive."

Nothing will "Kill" youtube in the short term because youtube already has a massive advantage in the amount of content, promotional options, and established channels. The majority of youtube users probably don't even have an account, since you only need one to comment or upload.