After years and years of anticipation and false promises of 'any day now' going back years, the 'Vanguard News Group' new website landed last week with a 'plop', like the sound of a human turd dropping on a San Francisco sidewalk. I honestly wanted it to be better, but it wasn't. In some ways it was worse. Why spend so much time to get it right, and then roll out something that is less functional and still has many of the problems of the old site?
The old site was bad and getting worse. It would load so slowly it would often time out. The site used massive RAM memory that would drain a laptop battery. The pages would skip while you were reading them, and then when you went back (if you could find where you were), the page would skip again.
Towards the end the site had some sort of virus/malware that would cause the page to spontaneously skip to unwanted ad pages, and it would replace the recent history with six steps of the same ad page address with the original address eliminated. Usually it was unwanted ads, or Bing, for some reason. A couple of times it was straight up porn. Without giving it in full the domain address it skipped to once began with "https://da.check-tl-ver-176-2.com/my-adult-video/ . . . ". This should have been stopped at once, but it happened 2-3 times.
One piece of good news, the new site hasn't spontaneously skipped to ads or porn or replaced the short-term history. It has, however, had the same loading issues and even said, "The site you are trying to reach is taking too much memory and is slowing down your browser. Would you like to leave?". It also still spontaneously skips text as it is trying to load text, and still does it again when you go back. Others have told me this was the worst part of the old site to them as well, and it's amazing DG rolled out the new site without fixing this.
Certain things about the new site are worse: It's too plain. While the old site had too much color, it would have been nice to have kept the old color scheme, just as borders and highlight, but it's just plain with no character. For some reason, the "Davis Vanguard" livery is replaced with "Vanguard News Group". Like so many things with the Vanguard, I'm sure this has some meaning to DG, but to the common person it's just confusing.
There is no ability to click on comments so you have to scroll through the whole article to reach them. Honestly, the so-called articles are so often dull and predictable and/or copied from elsewhere, so I'd often read the comments first or don't read the article at all. Having to scroll to comments, if there are any at all, which increasingly there are not, is just more than I feel like doing. In addition, there is no 'new comments' box, so you'd have to keep track of each article and keep clicking on it to see if anyone added a new comment. And again, that's more than me or most people are willing to do. And as people learn that no one knows they posted a new comment, they won't bother to post at all.
The banner at the top only hides one article at a time, and it moves at a weird rate, and it's too big and obscures to those not familiar that the most recent news is below. The articles are still repetitive crap on housing in Davis, how someone is going to sue on measure J, and on why cutting school costs actually costs money, and how more housing will save schools. And there are the usual copy articles on the evils of 'carceration' by the ACLU. And by the way, if you liked the ACLU of years ago, join F.I.R.E.. It's like the old ACLU without all the new utlra-progressive crap.
DG say: "The website highlights the various segments of the Vanguard. My focus will continue to be heavily on Davis issues and multiple commentaries each week." Let me guess: Recycled crap about housing in Davis, how someone is going to sue on measure J, on why cutting school costs actually costs money, and how more housing will save schools.
DG say: "we now have a team member who is working exclusively on grants which we see as part of the long-term financial sustainability for the Vanguard." It's good to have a team member doing this, so they can get grants that will partially cover their own salary :-| And bye bye Sparkplug Foundation: you exhibit poor judgement.
KO say: "I remember the days when there would be 50 comments by 9am. There were robust conversations. The fact now that comments often sit in the moderation queue for hours kills any chance of that ever happening again." Yup.
KO say: "Where are the several conservative commenters that used to post? Having diverse views used to generate more commenting. I thought progressives were supposed to be all about diversity." Diversity of skin color, not diversity of ideas.
KO say: "What you need are the Alan Millers, Ron Oertels, SOD’s and Frankly’s to return." Not to mention Rik Keller, that spacey woman who talked about space aliens, and that drunkard musician who doxxed RO with the global coordinates of his house.
And yes, bringing back Alan C. Miller would be the savior of the Vanguard. He is more interesting then the entire blog and its staff combined and can bring you joy and eternal life. Alan C. Miller says: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in my will never die!" [Actually Alan C. Miller does not say that.]
But it is true that bringing back the robust community comments would bring more clicks and more eyes. Apparently that doesn't interest the Vanguard. Having developers, H.A.L.'s, useful idiots, startup foundations and civil-rights lawyers fund the thing is all that matters in the new business model, apparently, and community engagement and discussion or even clicks really don't matter. Is that sustainable? Especially with a tax lawsuit to fight?
I would have gladly served as a site-tester for the new website, but no one asked me. Apparently DG never even had a normal person look at it, as surely they would have said, "Dude . . . "
Well, DG, your savior awaits. DG deep down knows I am the savior, that my comments are the best, most humorous, and most interesting and will save all blogs whom I touch. DG knows my terms. DG knows the real problem. But until he deals with it . . .
