Here's what I would have done..
Here's what I would have done.
Keep the main page on each board the same as it is now, except instead I think you could fit more topics in the same amount of space.
When you click on a topic, you then get a page that shows you an overview of that whole thread, similar to the old Chowhound (but only that thread).
You can then click on the post you want to read and it's there (providing that you can be sent to the correct place in the next page). 2 clicks, no scrolling, and you've reached the post you want. Under the present system, scrolling through an entire thread EVERY TIME is an awful waste of time.
This keeps all of the advantages of the old system: Seeing slight topic changes, keeping subthreads, etc. In many cases, seeing an overview of the thread (like the old Chowhound) saves you from having to read a post or reply you don't really care about.
The big advantage of this over the old system: no long pages to load, the topics are kept fresher, and no scrolling.
Scrolling is evil.
I agree with Steve. The old system of clicking twice (once to open the thread and once on the desired post IN that thread) to read a post in any given thread is much better than scrolling, scrolling, scrolling...
(scrolling, scrolling, scrolling)
EACH time one desires to read the bottom portion of a thread containing posts that run off the screen.
This would be much better and easier to use as simply moving your mouse over a link and clicking, reading, then clicking back is a more efficient process than scrolling, finding, clicking, reading, clicking back and then scrolling and finding all over again EACH time before clicking again.
What you have done with the topic list is nice, though. If a topic sounds interesting, we can click on it to expand the topic to view the posts -- just not in the way they are currently displayed.
As Steve has said in his original post:
"This keeps all of the advantages of the old system: Seeing slight topic changes, keeping subthreads, etc. In many cases, seeing an overview of the thread (like the old Chowhound) saves you from having to read a post or reply you don't really care about."
And again, I agree!
I agree with Steve and Dave. And one additional advantage of the previous system is the ability to quickly scan the poster's names. Under the new format, the time and poster's name are in a lighter font color than the main text and hard to identify while scanning a page quickly.
Also, I prefer seeing the time of the post rather than "about 9 hours ago".
While the new look is much cleaner looking, I find myself much less likely to click on a thread than I was before. And sadly, I don't think this is a matter of becoming used to the new system -- the additional information under the old system (seeing each poster's name, posting time, and any slight subject changes) all increased my likelihood of opening a thread. Bookmarking users doesn't do the same thing for me.
Me, too. It was not at all uncommon for me to jump into a thread I'd previously ignored based solely on the contributors to that thread. That's far less likely to happen with this format since the posters' names are not easy to spot even if you are willing to scroll.
I'm also finding it very difficult to go back and locate a thread I'd read even just earlier in the day. Perhaps it's a matter of getting used to it, but is there any way to know without bookmarking that a particular thread is one you've dipped into and might want to check out again?
On the old site I found the time of the posts weird since it was hours off from my local time.
Totally agree. Having the whole text of every reply in a topic come up is wasteful, and a real pain to scroll through. Old format was much better.
re: Robert Lauriston
I thought the old site was very easy to skim and read ones I haven't looked at before.
New site: I have no easily distinguishable visual indication which posts I've read before. Once I click the thread I have to wade through the fluff to find the new. (I know, the new icon, but not effective IMHO).