Ugh... New TH look?

If I wanted to read a newspaper, I'd read a newspaper. This looks cluttered, busy, and distinctly un-techie. When I visit a website about computers and technology, I want the website to look like the developers are concerned with computers and technology. CNN's website looks more "techie," for crying out loud. How can we get the old Tom's look back, or at least improve this one?
31 answers Last reply
More about look
  1. I wanna lite version of THG!!!!

    :cry: :cry:
  2. this is just insane.... chock another one up for Best of Media....
  3. Well I hope the finical crisis make them listen to us...
  4. Well, it has less ads. Actually, I don't think I saw any ads on the main page, although I see the word "ads" there so I assume they just haven't ad-ed them yet. And yes, I did disable Adblock plus to check :p
  5. It just keeps getting worse.....everytime they change, it only gets worse.
    I do like the way more of the forums latest posts are showing.....but it either doesn't update very often, or people have simply stopped posting.
    I think it may be the latter.
    This new look simply put is an eyesore. Like amdfangirl says, it looks like a newwpaper page. Ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly and my god it's ugly.
  6. Yes, its changing, but when did I say it looked like a newspaper... meh?
  7. Is it me or since 1-2 weeks (since the new look), the site is completely broken? Sometimes it would load with the good look-and-feel, but other times it seems as if the CSS didn't load at all. The site gets slow, sometimes I get timeouts, some of the page elements gets misplaced, ...

    I'm a daily THG reader (forum and all), but for a week now I find my THG experience painful. I can bet that most people who come for the first time since last week won't be coming back.
  8. I thought it might have been me getting my ADSL profile changed that was causing loss of connection errors at night, but that doesn't seem like the case, since others are having the same problem.
  9. Hmm, I'm having the same problems too
  10. No, all of you guys are right (you too Echo :) ). There are ISP issues, not to mention general dissatisfaction with the "new look". Personally, I don't like what BoM has and is doing to Tom's ... I can complain through channels, but that's about it.

    I think threads like this are good - I have something to point the site developers too.
  11. All other sites work fine though, it's just this one. It seems to be only the US mirror (haven't tried the UK one). The french servers are fine.
  12. I'm told it's an ISP issue - perhaps with the USA servers. It's happened before.
  13. I see, well it's still happening and it's not night now. Connection timeouts usually. BOM should start sueing :kaola:
  14. randomizer, buddy - I'm yelling and insulting as many people as I can. Maybe it will help, maybe not. ASAP to BoM often means a month!

    You can try writing/emailing to their address. But posting here is good - they look at these threads.
  15. It would be nice if they responded to these threads too, so we know they've seen them ;) Yell that too :lol:
  16. Hi all,

    I just an FYI, I have seen this thread. I realize that some of you might not like the new header layout of the site. However, I thought I should outline one of the primary reasons that it was done.

    As you probably know, there are problems with pages on Tom's Hardware loading slow. We are now expending great efforts to reduce the "page weight" so that these pages will load much faster. I have been told that the new design was necessary in order to help reduce this page loading time. If it really works (and I care about it just as much as you guys), I think the change is more than worth it.

    I realize that if it doesn't work, then its a waste of time. However, I am assured, that soon this will have a dramatic effect in loading times.

  17. It does seem faster than the old layout IMO, but my Aussie internet is probably crawling compare to some. It's definitely alot faster in FireFox than IE7. My main problem is the connection timeouts and zero sized replies (the latter which I only just got 2 minutes ago for the first time). If it's an ISP issue then not alot can be done though.
  18. Seriously plez get an Australian server/mirror... plez... it constantly times out and etc.

    I wish for a simple interface. Nothing fancy, simple as fast as possible.
  19. I understand the need to reduce load and have been around this forum long enough to know that each change of look has been criticized. Personally, I don't mind, I just want something that works.

    As I now understand what they are trying to achieve, maybe it's time for constructive criticism/suggestions. I don't know what is causing the load time, but could reducing the amount of information on the home page help in any way? They could open a poll and ask people what they want on the homepage. I personally only care for the following sections:
    Latest articles ("Features")
    Latest News
    Latest Forum questions/Last active forum thread (whatever it used to be)
    Top menu to go to the other sections
    And on that points 2 and 3 could be replaced by an RSS feed and probably take some load of the server. Probably easier said than done, but still a suggestion (making a lightweight page doesn't seem to be that easy to do either :P).
  20. Zenthar,

    I just asked about this. There is supposed a new version of the user profile page coming out. On that page, you will be able to select what you want to see. You will also be able to move around the blocks. This personalized user homepage could substitute for the "homepage" customization which you are talking about.

    Good idea!
  21. Oh that's cool
  22. Don't like it...(my $0.02)
  23. The 'site has been screwed up for far more than a few weeks, the design was mutilated what, a couple years or 3 ago?

    Would you kids please not put the silly looking pictures in your sig? It just makes a bad thing worse. The last thing needed is non-content, redundant clutter that makes everyone scroll 3 times as much just to find tiny bits of content inbetween excessive avatars, text under them, and links to things nobody ever clicks from the forum pages. Please get rid of the kindergarten stylized icons too, boring plain text would even be better unless catering to 3 year olds who don't know how to read yet.

    There are so many different forum packages, and so much wasted space, surely this can't be seen as acceptable? The only thing that isn't, aww, screw it and goodbye.
  24. You've been able to disable display of signatures for as long as I (no pun intended) can remember.
  25. Why should I have to? That's ridiculous, never assume someone has to make even a tiny extra effort to overcome ridiculous things as a solution. Make it opt-in if someone wants a simple thing like a text conversation to be bloated beyond reason, not opt-out.

    At the risk of being offensive, you are part of the problem. A avatar, and grapical sig, is a shallow senseless waste of space, if you want something personalized then let it be the decor in your home, not every single post others have to look at. It's called consideration of others.

    Do whatever you want, just know that I and others consider it senseless, a sign of lower intelligence. Children need senseless icons to try to fit in and convey some image of themselves. Grown adults let their realtime thoughts convey that. Redundant non-applicable anything, text or graphics, is just stupidity.
  26. I should apologize for my last post, it was more offensive than originally intended, and yet, I will leave that post intact because there is still a point to be made, that even if we are individuals, there is a reasonable limit on how much that individuality should bloat what could otherwise be a streamlined, lower bandwidth, smaller page size, progression of the pertinent information on a topic.

    In other words, minimalizing these things, increases the SNR, which is a good thing.

    Someone discussing any particular subject, gains nothing in seeing avatars, sigs, etc. There is no useful purpose, it is only bloat.
  27. I, there is a better way to communicate your opinion. I can see you are upset and frustrated. But by risking offending users who are actually the bread and butter of this site is not the best way to handle it. Without users, BoM would shut down this site. I actually agree with your reasoning and have removed my avatar. However, you posts have left a bad taste in my mouth.
  28. You make a good point. The main reason for having a sig is just to have a sig. I can't think of anything else other than "just because I can." Avatars provide a second "identity" than your username so they do at least have more purpose than signatures. I have removed my sig but I'm still keeping the kitteh :D Removing the avatar wouldn't reduce my post height much anyway as there is a minimum for each.
  29. I said:
    Someone discussing any particular subject, gains nothing in seeing avatars, sigs, etc. There is no useful purpose, it is only bloat.

    Dude, I totally agree with you. Avatars are a minor distraction so long as there is size restrictions (which I think I've defined) - but I have seen sites, forums and groups where the actual text (content, discussions) is totally overwhelmed by graphics ... some here know exactly what I'm talking about.

    We used to have minimum banner sig sizes, but now we seem to be getting "sig size creep" again. I think I'll start some Moderator conversations about this.
  30. Jake - Turpit would be a good place to start! I already blocked Toms efforts.. ;)
  31. personally I think this place is going downhill like a first time skiier on a double black hill, and what's with the 2 year old news in the borders?, and the things that I hear about flash games, WHAT IS GOING ON
Ask a new question

Read More

Website Opinions Computers Tom's Hardware