Forum: base
Page 14044
Subject: ESPN's new frontpage...

  Posted by: Sludge - Sustainer [113368] Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 21:20
SUCKS!
 
1Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 8119166
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 21:27 		Agree.
 
2blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 22:14 		Disagree.
 
3Skidazl
      Leader
      ID: 4039259
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 22:17 		Agree, with mike and sludge, not BH...
 
4Farn
      Donor
      ID: 7822711
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 22:19 		i think the page is great
 
5Ender
      ID: 13443221
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 22:27 		Why does it suck? I like the new colors better myself, and the shadowing effect is nice. Heck, it loads way quicker than it did before on my poor 56K modem. Of course, I'm not going to upgrade media player just so I can sit an dwait forever for the footage to skip frames and be unwatchable :) I'll stand pat, and I do like the changes.
 
6Rogue Nine
      ID: 3319162
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 22:40 		Is it just me, or is the writing for each baseball writer in The Rotation all messed up? Its out of alignment for me.
 
7blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 22:57 		How so, Rogue Nine. I might know somebody who can fix that.

Glad Ender likes it on his 56K, and you might actually like the video component. At least try it out. They have a decent model for it.

As for you other guys, be more specific. There have been a zillion "it sucks" comments, but the only legitimate beef I've heard is that you can't right click on headlines.
 
8Mike D
      Donor
      ID: 8119166
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 23:06 		The old front page was simpler, IMHO. I don't like the dominating video box. I liked the PIC and the easy to find categories.
 
9biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 23:41 		Less than 10% of the screen now has useful information. The rest is links and fluff. I assume you aren't going to keep it that way.

How long as that search engine been there?
 
10azdbacker
      Donor
      ID: 36122112
      Mon, Feb 17, 2003, 23:45 		I love the ESPN Motion, that's the coolest thing I've seen in ages.
 
11beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 29145419
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 00:20 		Reminds of foxsports.com. Too much graphics on the frontpage. I don't mind graphics but not on the initial page. I also don't liked to be scared out of my seat by that music. Cut the music, it's lame.
 
12Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 371171511
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 00:28 		Got a page that I was using a non "standards-compliant" website. I guess the programmers are too lazy to slow down all their graphics for Netscape 4.7 users like myself.

pd
 
13beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 29145419
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 00:44 		Actually the new search option is great. Before it really sucked.
 
14Makisupa
      Donor
      ID: 501281021
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 00:57 		I just had to uninstall the Live Motion software because it was crashing my browser (IE). Once the alert icon appeared in my system tray, trouble began. I could open a page, but it would freeze up after one click.

I echo biliruben's post...there is an overwhelming amount of wasted space.

Why isn't there a PTI section of the website? Come on, at least pimp out Mr. Tony's corner of the site!
 
15¤ Mario LeMoose ¤
      ID: 3217180
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:07 		Jeez, where's the warning about photosensitive epileptic seizures?

Haven't liked ESPN.com's appearance since it took on the msn look, and the incessant pop-up advertising (especially Orbitz) convinced me to switch my "home page" to another site. I bookmarked a link to the fantasy games page and seldom visit ESPN.com for sports news anymore.
 
16¤ Mario LeMoose ¤
      ID: 36116180
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:16 		Can't have Mr. Tony without Andy Polley! Andy Polley!
:-)
 
17blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:21 		Either Makisupa is blind or a dumbass. Did it ever occur to you to use the new search tool to search for "PTI"?

Obviously, PTI is the perfect content to offer to insiders only.
 
18blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:22 		And Biliruben... 10% is a BOLD statement, especially for someone who usually knows what he's talking about...
 
19Rogue Nine
      ID: 3319162
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:24 		Not sure what it is Blue Hen, but it looks like its just me. I've changed my brower's fonts, so maybe thats the cause.

In any case, the writing and the pictures for each writer is farther off to the right than it should be, and the far right ones are overlapped by the right bar of stories.
 
20Razor
      Donor
      ID: 411149818
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:42 		Not a fan of the fact that the headlines to the right of the main picture can't be opened in a new window. Open in a new window is a power surfer's best friend, especially one on a 56K. Read one page while the rest load.
 
21Makisupa
      Donor
      ID: 501281021
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 01:47 		Thats old crap henny. Insider is junk.

 
22Makisupa
      Donor
      ID: 501281021
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 03:38 		Curses on free image hosters. Resolution isn't so good, but I can't let the last 30 minutes go to waste. All in good fun.


 
23Tree
      ID: 22052618
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 07:01 		i actually like the new page, and i think it will grow on me more.

i liken the current change to every time they changed the intro montage to SportsCenter. It takes a bit of getting used to it, but once you do, it looks pretty cool.

i like the graphics. i like how after i choose "my" headline, it automatically goes to the next one. it's like watching sportscenter. and for someone like me - who just got rid of cable to save some cash, it lets me see some highlights - but if they go to some sort of pay format like CNN does, they can bite me.

additionally, the box that says "more from espn...you're looking at the newly designed blah blah blah" is kind of annoying - but obviously - hopefully, this is temporary, and that space will be used for headlines....

peace,
Tree
 
24blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 10:05 		Razor - you're not alone there. I think that will be the first fix that's implemented.

Tree - you're right. That's actually the standard twin top for when there are two big stories. If there's only one story, it goes away and the headlines move up.

Makisupa - that's funny! Just for that, I'll overlook the fact that you asked for something and it was RIGHT THERE, albeit insider. I guess you have yet another reason to sign up for insider.

You guys probably don't know this, but Motion has been available to insiders for several months now.

Rogue Nine - that's definitely just you. Nothing has changed there. Messing with fonts is always dangerous.
 
25Sludge
      Sustainer
      ID: 113368
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 10:18 		Maybe I ought to elaborate. Any page that automatically starts blaring music out of my speakers without asking me first SUCKS. Save the music for glurge like personal webpages and 9/11 or Columbia tribute pages. Also, any page that requires me to install the P.O.S. Media Player 7 or above SUCKS. JKP tells me that the newest Media Player isn't bad, but I have yet to find out for myself. I'm scared to after installing, and shortly thereafter uninstalling, MP 7.
 
26KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 2618189
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 10:37 		I don't care for the new look. Too much fluff and not enough content, which is what a sports site should be about.

Here's my experience of the web site...

1. First thing I get is a popup with "Syntax Error". Line 273, Char 3 on http://msn.espn.go.com/main.html

2. Orbitz pop-up hiding content (if there is any). Content value: none.

3. MSN toolbar at the top, pushing any content that may be available further below the "fold". Content value: none.

4. ESPN Golf Schools (or Fantasy Racing) ad taking full width of content, and much more vertical space than MSN toolbar, pushing any content that may be available further below the "fold". Content value: none.

5. Some ESPN "quick links" and ESPN programming info. Content value: minimal.

6. Logo, wrapped in an ungodly huge rounded rectangle for no particular reason. Some quick links and date. Content value: minimal.

7. Big ad for ESPN motion. No content, but could lead to content. Content value: average.

8. Quick links on the side for each sport, but I can only see to Women's Basketball (I'll get to more on that later). Content value: average.

9. "More from ESPN." Self-promotion with no real added value. Content value: none.

10. Headlines. Finally some real content, only now I can barely read it. Blue on gray? Is ESPN trying to make some sort of Civil War statement? The colors blend too much and should be separated a bit more. Content value: high.

And that's really all I can see. Now if I scroll down to put the top of "More from ESPN" at the top of my browser, I can suddenly see far more sports links, headlines, a poll, some links for Stein and Stark, and even the beginning of a story about Tyson. The content value just shot through the roof. And if I scroll further to put the top of the left side menu ("NBA") at the top of my screen, I get even MORE content, including great stuff like Page 2, ESPN Mag, and Fantasy. Granted, there are "quick links" to those at the top of the page, but having content versus having a "quick link" to the section are two completly different things. I also now see "Insider," with a tease about it's content.

I don't like the new frontpage at all. It looks as if it was thrown together with an emphasis on selling stuff, instead of providing superior content, and then selling even better content ("Insider"). CBS.Sportsline only hits me with a medium size ad to the right and some of their own ads to the right of their logo. Beyond that, I count no less than 14 links to actual content, with actual content also being displayed in text form, not just links. Same thing at Yahoo. More content, less selling of themselves and advertisers. I won't even begin to get into SI.com since they now blow ESPN.com out of the water. Their quick links, sports links, headlines, and other content are all above the "fold."

Right now I'm on 1024 x 768. I can't even imagine looking at ESPN.com on 800 x 600 and getting any worthwhile information. While 800 x 600 has been passed by 1024 x 768 (though not by very much) as the most common screen resolution, if you design for 800 x 600, then both sets of users benefit. If you design for 1024 x 768, only one group benefits. The funny thing is that if I were a novice, I might actually think that ESPN.com tried to comprimise and design for 800 x 768, but that just doesn't work. Not at all.

All my ESPN.com bookmarks have been changed to CBS.Sportsline. Scoreboards that are just as good (if not better in the cases of MLB, NHL, and NFL) and much easier to reach content. The rollover sports links' popups provide even MORE hidden content that's easy to retrieve, view, and select. Nothing about ESPN.com is easy anymore, including all the browser crashes.

 
27PGunn
      ID: 520212611
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 11:10 		KrazyKoala just bashing ESPN cause he didn't get hired by them?


 
28KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 2618189
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 11:19 		PGunn, not at all (FWIW, I wasn't not hired; I ended the hiring process myself). I just find that their web site is becoming increasingly more difficult to use the more times they change it. Rather than making progress, they seem to be going backwards each time.

If I WERE there, I would have vehemently opposed the current front page beginning, and certainly not ending, with the reasons I listed above. Why blue hen is defending it, I do not know because there's really nothing about it to defend. They've pushed content further down the page in favor of self-promotion. When content is king, the move to push it further down the page is a bad one.

 
29beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 3531815
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 11:35 		Espn should take a lesson from google.com(who was recently rated #1 brand of 2003 beating out the likes of Coca Cola), simplicity is sometimes the best. People don't go to sports sites to look at graphics or hear corny music, they go there for information.
 
30culdeus
      Donor
      ID: 4171112
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 11:55 		I didn't even know the fp was switched until I saw this thread. I've been bookmarking interior ESPN pages for some time page2/nba/etc and saving the effort in clicking the tiny little links on the side. The frontpage has never had any content to speak of, this is no change.
 
31PGunn
      ID: 520212611
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 11:56 		They have definitely improved their online poll. Click the submit button and instant results
 
32PGunn
      ID: 520212611
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 12:03 		There is alot of wasted space at the top of the front page though.
 
33beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 3531815
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 12:03 		Espn lite

This is a much quicker load and much easier on the eyes.
 
34blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 12:12 		I don't summarily disagree with KKB. I think there are many valid points in his post. I just have a couple comments.

1. The blurb in More From ESPN is clearly temporary. That's really just the same twin top that's always been there. When there's no second story, the headlines simply move higher on the page.

2. You always have the option to view the TopStory instead of Motion, with one click, clearly marked, at the top of the page.

3. MSN and Orbitz are exactly as they were, unchanged. This is unfair to lump this into complaints about the redesign.

I can't say that I like the new look. But there is some new functionality there, and I'm glad ESPN is setting the wave of the future.
 
35KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 2618189
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 12:25 		1. Sure, but at the moment, there's still a clear lack of content. Not a good way to start the new frontpage.

2. Why do I need to click to see the top story? The top story should be just that: the TOP story.

3. It's not unfair because it's still a complaint. The new frontpage didn't get rid of them, so it's still fair to complain about their existence in the first place.

If you think ESPN.com is setting the wave of the future with the new frontpage, then the future is far from bright. No matter how many new media and multimedia advances make their way onto the internet, content will always be king. To get rid of true content on your frontpage in favor of flashy ads and cutting-edge video is not setting the wave, it's drowning in the sea of thinking that what the company thinks is great is what the public thinks is great.

 
36Rogue Nine
      ID: 151551813
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 15:07 		Until "Orbitz" goes away, ESPN will never be one of my favorite sites. I now load up ESPN, wait for the Orbitz box to popup, and right-click/Close the Orbitz box before it even has a chance to sell me its crap. Very annoying.

I recognize the fact that popup boxes force people to at least look at the add for 1/2 second, whereas page ads can be ignored, but that doesn't make it right. There was a very good reason why people were ignoring page ads...
 
37blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 17:03 		By referring to it as an Orbitz ad means that it's serving its purpose successfully.
 
38Rogue Nine
      ID: 151551813
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 17:09 		I never said that it wasn't successful. Its just damned annoying.
 
39J
      Leader
      ID: 49346417
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 17:27 		and if we think of "Orbitz" as annoying...how is that good for Orbitz?
 
40Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 17:47 		Perhaps it is a successful ad for Orbitz - at least in terms of creating name recognition - but I know it is costing ESPN some customers. I hope the Orbitz fees are enough to complensate for driving some users to Sportsline and other sports sites.

BH - I'm just curious if you can comment on what ESPN's strategy is for ESPN.com. Do they want the site to be independently self-sufficient from a cost standpoint? Do they consider it a form of advertising for the TV network? Is the sports news portion of the site primarily a "hook" to try to get people to sign up for the "Insider" content and/or fantasy games? Are they trying to increase users, or increase revenue? Why are they evidently so willing to drive away some people?

I only ask because lately it seems that the trend is toward making the site more irritating. KKB raises some of the issues above, including excessive use of graphics (I definitely think twice about going there when I'm using a dial-up connection, and sometimes I simply give up), the perpetual pop-up ads, and noticeably slower responsiveness many times (pages loading slow or completely hanging - which I surmise is an east coast phenomenon, as none of my west coast cronies seem to experience this - perhaps there is a mirror server on the east coast that is the culprit?)

 
41blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 18:56 		Guru, you hit it pretty close. There's been an emphasis on being financial stable outside the support of ESPN TV, and ESPN.com is one sports website that's been able to do that. But they've done it through innovation and being at the front of the pack. Obviously things like Gamecast set the bar (which may have been raised beyond ESPN at this point) but even in other areas, ESPN has been the igniter.

For example, we were criticized for the MSN deal, but then Fox went and signed a worse deal with Lycos, a worse company. There are bigger problems with ESPN than MSN.

Rob Neyer is another example of something other sites can't offer. While some might not care for his work, he's a writer who made his name specifically as an internet writer. Peter King is a great read, but he was never exclusively an internet writer. Brandon Funston's another guy who was specifically a dotcommer, but now is branching out into other mediums (although he had help from the Mag).

So ESPN Motion is another attempt to stay at the forefront. While 56k users might complain, it's a simple fact that the number of such users will go down, not up, in the coming years. And ESPN is aggressively using the technology. Did you know that full PTI episodes are available to Insiders? You can even choose your topic! And no, that's not .com using TV for its benefit; it's a merging of the two mediums.

Typically, I stand right beside KKB on most of these issues. However, outside of the ad right at the top and the fact that you can't right click the headlines (already scheduled to change), this page is no different than the old page. The tabs and poll are better, and the gallery is also more accessible. The page does not load slower. I try to pick my battles when defending ESPN, but this is one instance where I can't bash the new front page (much). The previously-discussed server issues remain, but the new front page is not at fault in that regard.
 
42Beetski
      ID: 206282522
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 19:03 		anyone know what orbitz sells?
 
43Razor
      Donor
      ID: 411149818
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 19:20 		Yes.

And can anyone say they would've heard about Orbitz without the ESPN ads? The only reason their TV ads are even remotely memorable to me is because I remember saying "Oh, this is the company from the ESPN site."
 
44KrazyKoalaBears
      Donor
      ID: 266182910
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 20:04 		blue hen, my main complaint is not the video. I think the video, just the video, is definitely a step in the right direction. My main beef is with that huge ad at the top. You've shoved so much content below the fold that I can't imagine who at ESPN.com thought that would be a good idea. "Hey, let's make our content, which we're not only trying to sell, but also try to show is so much better than every other site, less visible."

My second biggest complaint is that the video is the default display, not the TOP story. A minor issue, which may be changed once the newness of ESPN Motion is over, but an issue none the less.

And after that comes the new "logo." I hesitate to use the word "logo" without the quotes because I'm not sure shoving your parent company logo into a rounded rectangle qualifies as an actual logo, or just a quick attempt to somehow fit it in with the new "drop-shadows-everywhere" look. Why not blend it into the red like before? I always thought that was a nice effect and now it looks like some amateur got ahold of it. "I don't know what to do with this thing, so I'll put it in a rounded rectangle, put it over the header and main sections, and slap a huge drop shadow on it and it'll look perfect." Not quite.

I keep looking at this new frontpage and can't help but scroll down to the top of the ESPN Motion (or main) area and see how much content COULD be displayed and shake my head when I scroll back up and see how much ESPN.com has chosen to display.

 
45biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 5310281417
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 20:32 		Re: BlueHen 18.

On my screen, the only thing I find useful, given that I am on a 56 modem the the links to actual articles. That's about 2.5 by 2.5 inches. rp 6.25 square inches of area. The entire viewable area of the fp, without scrolling down, is about 10 by 14 or 140 square inches of area.
6.25/140 is about 4.5%. I was being generous when I said 10%. Pathetic.

Just about the only thing I use on ESPN these days is their stats and Neyer. I would read sickles, but his stuff is mostly pay these days. I used to peruse the general articles much more than I do now, but I am increasingly going to other sites for general sports news. Considering that 5 years ago ESPN would be nearly the only site I would visit, that says alot.
 
46Tree
      ID: 22052618
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 20:33 		Razor - as a frequent newspaper reader and traveller, i've been hearing about orbitz for quite some time.

as a traveller, it's a resource, although i don't find their prices any better.

as a newspaper reader, they've been in the news quite a bit for possible price fixing issues....


on another note, in regards to dial-up vs. high speed. the reality is that dial-up is this year's Beta, and high speed is the DVD. it's that far apart. it's a reality that in a couple short years, many many sites will require high speed.

peace,
Tree
 
47blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 20:48 		Good analogy Tree, and while I tend to think that such a big site should stay true to the fogies, you're right about the future. Of course, I was still buying tapes as late as 1994.

biliruben, you exaggerate. Most users find use of the Page2 link, the Radio link, the left nav sport links, and even the gallery (the third tab) quite useful. That's slightly more than 2.5 inches squared. Plus, users do scroll down. Yes, it's a bother, but apparently some do it.
 
48Farn
      Donor
      ID: 7822711
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 20:56 		I have to agree with KKB on a few points.

I use 800x600 and when the page loads I see very little content. I also get the Orbitz popup (I actually booked a flight with them long before they sponsored ESPN.com; that was also back when their flights were cheaper). But I just "X" that out and immediately scroll down. I'm just used to that. I could care less about having to do so.

The MSN tag at the top is useless, but they have a contract so its no big deal.

The ESPN Mag logo doesn't even load. The link appears to be dead, only showing the red "X" indicating the ad won't load.

When my page loads the first thing I get is the top story, not the ESPN Motion. Am I the only one that has that?

I personally love the ESPN Motion. Then again I am on a T3 and they suckered me in with the Jordan highlights. :) But either way I love it.

I have no problem with the linked stories not being "right-clickable". I just click on them as I have always done.

And I do enjoy the new instant poll results instead of being rerouted to the espn radio page to see the results.

I honestly overall love the changes. I may have an advantage from never having to use 56k but still, I love the updates.
 
49Steve Biz
      Donor
      ID: 101391018
      Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 21:20 		My computer doesn't work very well even though I'm on a fast line so the new page and "motion" don't even work. So, I don't like the new page at all. Also, I don't like the look of the interface. Seems to computery to me. Used to be much easier on the eyes.
 
50blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 40029714
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 11:24 		You can now open headlines in a new window.
 
51Donkey Hunter
      Sustainer
      ID: 55220159
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 14:40 		I didn't know you could watch PTI with insider. Is it the same quality as the motion videos? How long does each episode stay archived?
 
52RecycledSpinalFluid
      ID: 42121814
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 15:23 		ESPN motion will not work for anyone with Windows NT, since the highest revision of Windows Media Player available for NT is 6.4 and motion says it requires atleast version 7.
 
53Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 554192913
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 16:05 		I really like the quality of the picture in Motion, it's the nicest I've seen on the web. But then I saw that they run ads at the end of the highlight reel, disgusting! If they ever put the ads first, I'll never go back.

Bluehen, in your posts you sound like a cliche-spewing yes man. ESPN has seriously worked you over. "Ahead of the pack, Setting the bar, ESPN has been an igniter". Do you get a commission for Insider signups?
 
54Ref
      Donor
      ID: 100261311
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 17:13 		RE 41:

I had to figure out what PTI was, but once I did, why would I watch it online when I won't even watch it on TV?!?!

I miss the days of Olberman and Dan Patrick. Now everyone has catch phrases that are so annoying I can't stand to listen to it. Less is More at times. I only go to ESPN.com if i have something specific for which I'm searching (and can't find it elsewhere). That pop-up ad is too annoying.

I like innovation, but we should click to get to it and not have it thrown in our faces. But since I don't go there much anymore, it really doesn't matter to me.
 
55Fatal Image
      ID: 41143921
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 22:51 		Sheesh, Seattle Zen.. what is so 'disgusting' about ads at the end? I'd hate to see you in front of a television.

There's been a red X (broken image) right above the ESPN Motion box for a while now. When will that be fixed?

Ref I agree that SportsCenter anchors are all tools now, but PTI is not like that at all.
 
56blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 23:20 		Ref wants to click MORE? And up above, someone was pissed that they had to click ONCE to get to the TopStory? Sheesh, I guess you can't please everyone.

And if Ref doesn't even watch PTI, there's a good chance he's not in ESPN's demographic.
 
57RecycledSpinalFluid
      ID: 211013916
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 00:13 		Uhm, I don't watch PTI, and really had no idea what Makisupa nor you were talking about. Had to use the internal search to figure out what you guys were talking about.
 
58J
      Leader
      ID: 49346417
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 00:38 		PTI is perhaps the best show on TV. But its not worth watching if either Wilbon or Kornheiser are out.

And I like the current Sportscenter guys, although, where the hell is Kenny Mayne? I like the 6:00 guys - Scott Van Pelt & the other dude. There's one guy on late who's got an annoying monotone voice. I dont like him, otherwise, I like the latest crew on SC.
 
59C.C. SOLDIERS
      ID: 4001109
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 09:26 		I have not read all of the above posts but the new page loads slowly on my cpu. For that reason and that reason only, it's no longer my homepage. I now use cnnsi.com. I'm thinking that there are several of other users who are having problems with it.Is it worth it ESPN?
 
60Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 0059248
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 09:45 		Re #56: It sort of begs the question, then, doesn't it? What exactly is ESPN.com's demographic? Young men, of course, with non-dialup service and the latest browsers only, who don't mind limited front-page content.

Methinks ESPN.com is too toys and ads driven.

pd
 
61blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 40029714
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 10:19 		I disagree on the "limited front page content" part. Heartily.
 
62Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 0059248
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 10:29 		BH, to a large degree that question is one of both perception and percentage. What is limited and what isn't depends upon both how much is actual content and whether it is clear or overwhelmed by non-content.

Surely, however, the "sassier" the page becomes, the smaller the pool of possible users. By driving away dial-up users and those with non-standard browsers (or even standard browsers older than a year or so), together of which comprise the vast majority of on-line users, most people won't get a chance to see.

pd
 
63beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 29145419
      Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 10:32 		At work I don't have the latest browser and therefore can't load the regular espn page. I see no reason to load it so now I'll just have to visit other sites when I'm acting like I'm working.
 
64Sludge
      Sustainer
      ID: 113368
      Sat, Feb 22, 2003, 11:18 		Yeah, so I decide to visit ESPN and give the video a shot now that I installed all the software required.

After hitting the reset button because my computer locked up tighter than a drum, I uninstalled the ESPNMotion, and am officially waving goodbye to ESPN's webpage. Hello CNNSI, TSN, and SportsLine.
 
65APerfect10
      Leader
      ID: 407161410
      Sat, Feb 22, 2003, 11:44 		I am in the minority but I like the way ESPN is heading with their frontpage...

"I Like"
-ESPN Motion. Video on the internet is going to be very common within the next few years. I like how the video downloads on its own and alerts you when its ready. Atleast you dont have to push play and wait a few minutes to start watching it.

-Big, crisp clean images are unprecedented. While some may consider this a negative, I like it. I feel the frontpage should be just that, an eye catcher. The facts and stories should be located somewhere else, minus the top story.

-New polls are great.

ESPN needed to update their whole webpage. It was becoming outdated very quickly. This is a step in the right direction...

Dislike
-I am viewing with 1024x768. I feel you need to design towards the technology, rather than hold back and design for 800x600. If you dont push forward, no one will ever follow. However, even viewing with 1024x768, the top of the screen is WAY to big! Just shrink some of that stuff.

-While I like how ESPN Motion downloads on itself, there needs to be options for the E that appears in the taskbar. You should be able to right click and have some options, one of which is to NOT view the video. Currently, it doesnt matter what type of click it opens a new page going directly to ESPN Motion.

The BIG PROBLEM with ESPN's website is not their frontpage. Their problem is their scoreboards! I use CBS, as most do for up-to-date scores. You can leave their scoreboard open and it updates automatically via JavaScript. ESPN needs to have this same feature. Who wants to continuously hit refresh, or even have it refresh for every 30,60,90 seconds. This is the year 2003, the internet is in real time, not delayed. Get with the program. Your scoreboards are the absolute worst. Not only are they pathetic, the graphical design of them is annoying. The top is once again WAY TOO large and the sides waste space. Also, the scoreboards should be customizable. If i always want to view all the NCAA DI basketball scores, I can set my CBS scoreboard accordingly. The same cant be done with ESPN.

Does ESPN provide its coders with 21" monitors using a 1024x768+ resolution? This may be the problem that is causing such a huge top of the screen that is VERY consistent throughout the ESPN website.
 
66Tree
      ID: 22052618
      Sat, Feb 22, 2003, 13:03 		it's funny. i consider myself ESPN's demographic. i have since i was a teenager, and my goal was to be the next Chris Berman.

but i don't watch PTI - in fact, i watched it once just before i got rid of cable last month because i was curious as to what the hype was.

i'm still curious.

i've never been big on reporters become celebrities. maybe i'm a tad old school - i was a sports reporter previously, covering local high school teams, as well as the Cape Cod Baseball League. When i left to persue other things, one of the schools i covered surprised me with a plaque honoring me for my efforts at covering their sports program - from the Super Bowl winning football team and top notch field hockey and softball teams to the not-so-great but refusing to give up tennis and volleyball squads.

it was during their football banquet, my last event to cover before i left, that they gave me the award, and i was stunned, and a tad embarrassed. i liked reporting the news, not being the news.

now, having said that, i LOVED the Sports Reporters when it started - it was innovative and new. but now, newspaper reporters being talking heads on TVs bore the tears out of me.

peace,
Tree
 
67biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 589301110
      Sun, Feb 23, 2003, 22:59 		I, too, I am getting Motion sickness, and thinking of moving on.

Perhaps, BH, you could suggest they make a low-bandwidth link which the video-challenged could bookmark, that has the headline up, instead of motion?
 
68blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Sun, Feb 23, 2003, 23:13 		Uh... lite.espn.go.com?
 
69beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 29145419
      Sun, Feb 23, 2003, 23:46 		Actually lite sucks. You can't access most of the site through it.
 
70blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 22100300
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 02:17 		What are you trying to access?
 
71The Left Wings
      ID: 6142019
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 05:17 		Two problems I have with the new look:
#1 Orbitz, 'nuff said.
#2 The title takes up 1/3 of the page. That reminded me of why I changed from 800x600 to 1024x768. Back then titles took up 1/3 of the page and I couldn't stand it. It's happening for the first time since I changed my screen resolution. I suppose it's time I change to 1152xwhatever?

Slow loading drives people away. That's a law. The ESPN scoreboards have always been THE slowest loading one among the best known sport sites. I've never ever considered setting ESPN as the homepage.

Yahoo used to have the fastest loading, most simplistic scoreboard, until they changed it last month. I hated the change cuz it took much much longer for it to refresh. Before it was instant, now it takes a couple of seconds.

Text webpages rule. Who cares about pictures? All we need is information that loads instantly. All I may care is that the fact Kobe Bryant had another 40-point game. Who cares how large he opened his mouth when he was going for a layup? Nobody!

Just get rid of ALL the pictures, and get rid of all the java crap, and go with good ol' HTML. That's the best.
 
72APerfect10
      Leader
      ID: 70412023
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 10:44 		I lied. My screen resolution is 1280x1024. While the top of the ESPN pages are fine, the page only occupies the left 2/3 of the screen...there is 1/3 of my monitor left useless.

How comes no other sites have these troubles?
 
73blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 40029714
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 14:57 		Left Wings, that's exactly what the lite site is!

Plus, Orbitz? Dude, nothing has changed with Orbitz for this redesign.

APerfect10 - because no one goes to other sites.
 
74biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 5310281417
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 16:12 		I appreciate the option of lite, but I'm not going to use something I can't trust the accuracy of. It is nice to have a quick-loading front page, but it just highlights all the more how little content is on the front-page, in either format.

On the first day of deciding to use lite, I notice the mens ncaa rankings in the lite version are all screwed up. I will be happy to continue to do your job for you as I find problems.
 
75beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 3531815
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 16:12 		All the top links don't work, they send you to that page where you have to upgrade your browser.

It took me 15 minutes to figure out how to get to a team's page.
 
76biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 5310281417
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 16:16 		The internal links back to (at least) the main page from the rankings doesn't work.
 
77biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 5310281417
      Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 16:17 		There doesn't appear to be a way to get to any sports beyond the 6 you highlight on the left.
 
78The Left Wings
      ID: 6142019
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 05:23 		I actually like the ESPN Motion a lot. I've never seen that kind of resolution on a video from the internet.

I still think the ESPN Lite site has too much unnecessary graphics.

If you are sick of the Orbitz popup, perhaps you should try programs like the Popup Killer.
 
80biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 5310281417
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 17:05 		Lite Problem (LP) #4: I can't seem to get to MLB statistics.
 
81beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 29145419
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 17:32 		bili, you have to go to a team's page then it'll take you back to espn's regular page style where you can find a link to the statistics.

BTW, it only took me 3 clicks to get to the fantasy section using espn lite, can anybody beat that?
 
82APerfect10
      Leader
      ID: 70412023
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 17:41 		It only took me one click to get to the fantasy section via ESPN lite :)

The links at the top of the page list "Fantasy", much like the normal ESPN frontpage...
 
83beastiemiked
      Sustainer
      ID: 29145419
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 17:46 		Well those didn't work for me today at work(I'm at home right now) so I assumed they didn't work at my home computer as well. I'm guessing there's no way I can get to the fantasy section using an older browser.
 
84APerfect10
      Leader
      ID: 70412023
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 18:04 		I think the point of Lite has been miscontrued...

Lite was implemented as a redirection for those visitors who do not have Flash 5+ installed, which the site uses frequently. Lite was not designed as a full webpage minus the "junk", so to speak.

Why would ESPN spend precious time and money to redesign their WHOLE webpage into a lite version? I'm not sure any website has done this...
 
85biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 5310281417
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 18:47 		Well looking at posts 67 & 68, an ESPN employee has misconstrued it's purpose then.

Fine. Lite isn't the answer I am looking for.
 
86APerfect10
      Leader
      ID: 70412023
      Tue, Feb 25, 2003, 19:01 		He just pretends to work for ESPN ;)
 
87The Left Wings
      ID: 6142019
      Wed, Feb 26, 2003, 10:04 		One problem with the ESPN Motion: The sound is too weak. I have to tune my stereo way up before I can hear any narration, and that means pausing my MP3s cuz they'd be way too loud.
 
88biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Feb 26, 2003, 10:07 		Any sound is too loud, if it's sound I don't request. Make the front-page the default and Motion a click away, and then crank it up if you want.
 
89blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 40029714
      Wed, Feb 26, 2003, 16:44 		For the record, that's the plan... to have the top story on top. They just want the buzz for motion now, I guess.

And everything on the right side is right clickable now, just about.
 
90biliruben
      Sustainer
      ID: 49132614
      Fri, Feb 28, 2003, 18:13 		Okay. Just got a sweet new machine attached to a T1 line. Carry on.
 
91Donkey Hunter
      Sustainer
      ID: 55220159
      Sat, Mar 01, 2003, 13:18 		Ok Almost all the links on the left side of espn are down and have been down since last night. If I try to click on NBA it takes me to the nba page from two aprils ago after the blazers lost game 1 to the lakers. The Sonics are nulling moving Payton, Baker, and Ewing this upcoming offseason.

But all the rest pop up as file not found so I guess NBA is lucky something came up.
 
92James K Polk
      ID: 51010719
      Sun, Mar 02, 2003, 22:42 		A few more technical thoughts on the redesign
 
93rage_22@work
      ID: 2842719
      Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 19:33 		Donkey Hunter,
I had the same thing just happen to me after I filled out a poll on the NBA index page, I was sent to a page whose headline was that Blazers-Lakers series. That's interesting.
 
94rage_22@work
      ID: 2842719
      Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:15 		Oh, I think I get it. It is redirecting to http://espn.go.com/nba/index/ for the NBA index instead of http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index
which is the current one with sports. appended to espn.go.com. Not that any of this really matters.
 
95Makisupa
      Donor
      ID: 282121010
      Mon, Mar 10, 2003, 11:23 		Best thing about ESPN.com??




Shockwave Shelfball!
 
96¤ Mario LeMoose ¤
      ID: 7457914
      Fri, May 09, 2003, 15:57 		So now we have the equivalent of "popup" ads on ESPN (Internet) Radio. Click on your tuner banner now....

The worldwide leader in sports has reached yet another level in "annoying."
 
97Tree, also @ work
      Donor
      ID: 599393013
      Fri, May 09, 2003, 17:01 		as much as i loved ESPNMotion, the trails it left behind actually started slowing my machine down dramatically, and i eventually uninstalled it, and don't bother. it's a great concept, but having to downloading something to special to view it ended up being a drag.

peace,
Tree
 
98SillySpheres
      ID: 58512252
      Fri, May 09, 2003, 19:36 		I hear you Tree, it was tying up a ton of bandwidth and processor time and often times it would be for a stupid clip like Women's Golf Highlights or clips of an interview with Mike Tyson. I uninstalled it after about 2 days.