Thank you for your comments on the new TimesDispatch.com. We appreciate your feedback and want to keep the conversation going in this forum.

Login and share your comments about the new Web site. Let us know what you like, what you don’t like and which features you find most useful.

Thanks again. Enjoy the discussion!

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( Diogenes ) on November 23, 2008 at 10:46 pm

How many people did you use in your “focus study” before you lauched this monstrosity? I thought so.

You list opinions, op-eds and columnists by the title of the enrty but do not show the author. Is that so we must read them all to find ony the ones we want?

If your publishers ever ask you why you think they are losing readers and business, tell them to take a look at this web site.

Posted by ( missgc ) on November 23, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Sorry to jump on the bandwagon but this site is horrible. TOO CLUTTERED!!! Cut out the junk and just post the news. Keep to the basics. Thank you!

Posted by ( MEllis13 ) on November 23, 2008 at 9:29 pm

This new website sucks…. Please go back to the old setup… This way makes me NOT want to look at the Richmond news EVER AGAIN on here!

Posted by ( gustav looming ) on November 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm

hate it, hate it, hate it. Why do you assume your readers have the attention span of a 3 year old and feel the need to change the focus of the page every 3 seconds? I barely had time to read the listed stories before it changed to the next section let alone choose one to read. Why would you change something that worked? I come to the TD page to read the news, not to be entertained by a slide show. I’m willing to work for a lot of things, but reading the Richmond news paper is not one of them.

Posted by ( carol ) on November 23, 2008 at 6:40 pm

I hate it!!!!

Posted by ( troyb43 ) on November 23, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I like the old site better, as I could find the metro section, the AP wire for the state, and the sports section as well.

Posted by ( Larry Lanberg ) on November 23, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Please check out The Charlotte Observer online. Right away you’ll see a modestly-trimmed page full of updated local news stories. What do we have here on the ‘new’ Inrich.com? A 2-day old video of some ethanol plant plant in Hopewell. That’s a magazine story, not a news story. Oh, and there’s the captivating video of Michael-Paul Williams’ mug—also posted 2-days ago! This is our front page.

Where’s all the news stories—stories NOT video clips that freeze-up the PC—that occurred over the past 24 hours? Like the accident late last night at Broad & 1st, that injured a police officer. What are the details? Why did it occur? Was it a high-speed chase? Give me an easy to find list of breaking news stories, not Youtube and NOT news from 2-3 days ago.

Posted by ( jones203 ) on November 23, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Regarding Thomas E.‘s comments about “follow up” comments, a word to the wise: Be sure to UNCHECK the “notify me of follow-up comments” box before sending a comment. I frequently use the TriCities.com website, another ratty MediaGeneral company, which has the same format. I didn’t realize what I was getting into one time in the summer and was flooded with nasty comments, even though I tried my best to make a constructive comment on a hot local issue—bad move!

Posted by ( agolfer75 ) on November 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm

One of the worst sites I have ever seen.
I have attempted to bring up Ross MacKenzie’s poignant article in today’s
(Sunday) Times-Dispatch and have not only
been unable to do so, but when I conducted a “search” using MacKenzie’s
name that drew a “blank,“ too.

Posted by ( NB ) on November 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Michael Fibison, do you even look at your own website? Do you look at other newspaper websites? If so, surely you recognize how terrible this site is. Take a look at the Raleigh News and Observer if you want to see what a well done new website looks like. The RTD is just plain sad.

Posted by ( BAC ) on November 23, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Yep, won’t be coming back here too often. Not user friendly any more. What is wrong with these web weenies?? I live out of town, have ties to the area and liked the RTD.

Posted by ( Thomas Erhardt ) on November 23, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I posted a polite commentary on the bad look and functionality of the new site, earlier this morning.

A couple of hours later I received this very creepy message, via email, that disputed my position. It informed me that it didn’t matter what I or others liked or more importantly disliked because Corporations like Media General had already done their homework on what the average “Joe” would respond to, in terms of media. How could I be so ignorant as to have overlooked this fact?

The return address was listed as noreply@something.com and just struck me as all wrong. Perhaps I can send creepy emails in reply to anyone else’s posts here, I don’t know and don’t care.  Perhaps I can send creepy emails in reply to anyone else’s posts here, I don’t know and don’t care.

I have most certainly un-checked the “Notify me of follow-up comments as I didn’t realize my email addres would be available to “mystery” senders!

Posted by ( DMiller ) on November 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I registered just to post this one comment: It’s Sunday afternoon I have been trying to find a story about the VCU- Rhode Island game that was played last night. I’ve been looking for 20 minutes and now I give up. This new format is the WORST I have ever seen. You can’t find anything you want. Is there another paper in Richmond? Guess I’ll get my news somewhere else because this site is too painful to use. Who thought this was a good idea?

Posted by ( wbrooks1 ) on November 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I’ll bet plenty of money was spent designing and implementing the new web site. I’m sure your goal is to attract MORE visitors to your online presence. HOWEVER, for me, you grossly missed the mark. I am now more likely to get my local news somewhere else.

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( TDReader ) on November 23, 2008 at 11:18 am

PLEASE listen to your NUMEROUS negative comments and go back to the old format. This is ridiculous and HORRIBLE. We, the readers, are the ones that support the paper (online and hard copy) and it is obvious that the new format does NOT meet our expectations. Why try to “fix” something that wasn’t broken. We have lots of older readers and it is no sense in forcing them away. It is NOT going to force more people to go out and buy or subscribe to the hard copy paper! THANKS for listening.

Posted by ( Jeff ) on November 23, 2008 at 11:18 am

RTD: Breaking news story! The changes made to your website have been throughly condemned by your readers. In an unprecedented outpouring of consternation, your readers have spoken. But where’s the follow up story? Where’s the retraction or (more likely) dubious attempt at defense? Oh wait, maybe it’s there but I can’t find it amidst the advertising and the whirling AOL-esque nonsense at the banner.

Posted by ( cib258 ) on November 23, 2008 at 11:11 am

The folks at the Times-Dispatch are too kind to point this out, but, while this kind of feedback can be useful, BUT…

This is the Internet. The T-D crew has all kinds of tools which measure number of visitors, how long people stay on the page, what articles they are reading—it’s amazing what they can tell about what works and doesn’t work. They know, without a doubt, if the new design is more or less popular. If fact, they may personally agree with everything you’re saying here. But, numbers don’t lie.

This change wasn’t pulled out of a hat, untested. The Times-Dispate new web site format you see here is very similar to what has been working for Media General in Tampa, Fla. (TBO.com).

Having spent a couple of days with the new format, I’d recommend to those who like the old format to try scrolling down the home page: There you’ll find pretty much what you had before, and more.

Hey, it could be worse. One major southern city newspaper web site has discovered that nothing gets attention like celebrities and attractive women, so they feature them every day at the top of the home page, even if the people has nothing to do with what’s going on locally.

Posted by ( Thomas Erhardt ) on November 23, 2008 at 10:40 am

In was not a big fan of InRich when that happened but it was improving over time. I was simply stunned when the new format hit the web. The video herky-jerky at the top is just too much. As soon as I started to read the description of the lead article, it was gone. The descriptions of other video articles are so abbreviated that they don’t provide much of an incentive to dive into bad video. 

The format that exists on the remainder of the page is almost completely lacking in news. What is all that drivel scattered over the page? 

This effort by your company leaves one scratching his or her head. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the rooms where this bad decision was made. I’m quite sure there were those that tried to point out how horrible it was and am just as sure whoever they were met an untimely demise.

Posted by ( jwiltshire ) on November 23, 2008 at 10:37 am

I do not like this new format AT ALL! C’mon guys…take us back to the old. There’s a lot of wasted space at the right, in blue. It stinks. Are you changing because paper sales are down, and you want to frustrate the online readers so they’ll purchase a paper? I subscribe to the paper, and will not visit this site (my home page) unless it changes back or, at least, changes for the better! LISTEN TO YOUR READERS!

Posted by ( wandapc ) on November 23, 2008 at 10:18 am

Please go back to the way it was. I hate this site now. I don’t even read half of it anymore.

Posted by ( buffystanley ) on November 23, 2008 at 10:07 am

General Manager Michael Fibison - Your new website is not “complementing the newspaper’s organized presentation.“ In that regard (and others), your new website is pathetic. Please re-evaluate what you have done…..

Posted by ( jones203 ) on November 23, 2008 at 9:52 am

Thanks once again for destroying another Richmond company. MediaGeneral has paniced and slashed the newspaper staff and destroyed inrich.com. When you register at this site, now you have to provide your age, and once they find out people over 15 are logging in, they will panic and change the format again until only those under 15 are reading it.

Posted by ( km ) on November 23, 2008 at 9:10 am

i read the dispatch from the uk every day,i love it.whats happened to the old set up?i dont like the new pages at all.the old one was far easier to use.c,mon guys put it back to normal.

Posted by ( Paul ) on November 23, 2008 at 8:15 am

This is a perfect example of the transcendence of bad design to that of a painful assault on the senses. Not an ounce of grace here. This is exactly what you get when you don’t hire good people to do a job, have leadership which either doesn’t have an opinion, taste or the strength to lead. RTD: Take down that site!

Posted by ( Lily12 ) on November 23, 2008 at 7:18 am

Sorry, R-TD, I have to agree with everyone else. Your new format is not very user friendly. I, too, was trying to read a news article when it was yanked away. The “old” format was much more easily read.

Posted by ( Fitwit ) on November 23, 2008 at 6:51 am

I’m a subscriber. Hate the online format. Especially the pop-up to block what you’re looking at ads and the rotating news window at the top. These things are IN THE WAY, not contributing to a good user experience. Has anyone at TD noticed NO ONE is stating they like the format here?

Posted by ( slick ) on November 23, 2008 at 5:00 am

Kudos on a format which only serves to prove your growing irrelevance in Richmond.

This is just, simply put, poor web design.

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( Larry Lanberg ) on November 23, 2008 at 1:51 am

It is extremely difficult to find NEWS on here. My purpose is to catch breaking news stories, esp. local. When I click-on this site I am instead engulfed by garish, wildly blinking ads. The bombast make me very dizzy; often I leave the site immediately. WHERE’S THE NEWS? Just give me the news & facts. No junk!

I’d also like to comment on one other disappointment. I hear some very interesting things on my scanner, ‘live’ as it occurs. It takes usually 2 DAYS before RT-D announces it as “breaking news”!!! Are Times-Dispatch reporters using telegraph or something???

Posted by ( Life Evac ) on November 23, 2008 at 12:06 am

What a terrible website this has become. I subscribe to the print version and visit the site on a regular basis throughout the day. The changes are absolutely horrible. The pages are cluttered, way too busy, and the site is very difficult to locate what you are looking for and to navigate to it. I regularly read both newspaper and other media websites. The “new” RTD site is easily the worst one that I have seen. Please consider returning it to its previous format.

Posted by ( steveinnn ) on November 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm

I’d like to know who is the “knucklehead” who created this new webpage? Or is this new webpage a “camel” which is a horse designed by committee. 

This has to be one of the hardest to read, hardest to use, most hateful webpages in recent memory. I guess the plan is to loose electronic readers now? Please come up with a much more friendly page.

Posted by ( reader ) on November 22, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Ugh. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t have wasted my time getting to the log in screen to let you guys know this new “user friendly” site is TERRIBLE! Please go back to the drawing board. This is a painful way to navigate for news.

Posted by ( hsinva ) on November 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Wow, this new web site is horrible! I cannot believe that anyone with a background in web design would take the old site (which was OK, but not great), and then launch this site as “new and improved.“ There obviously was no beta testing or user acceptance test done on this site before launch. I agree with another person’s comments, that maybe this is the T-D’s way of trying to push readers back to the print version. And, by the way, their self produced videos are terrible. Leave video news reporting to those who specialize in that medium—T-D, you’re a newspaper, stick to what you are supposed to know. Please bring back the old site, ASAP. I will be seeking out my news elsewhere.

Posted by ( avidreader ) on November 22, 2008 at 7:30 pm

I enter the website. A news item on a screen captures my attention. I look at it, and voila! it disappears. A new item pops up. While I attempt to adjust my eyes to the new item, my focus is suddenly jolted to the far right, where an ad pops up. Oh my gosh, I’m getting a migraine! Sorry - can’t cope with it, can’t read it.

Posted by ( rchmondgrl ) on November 22, 2008 at 5:52 pm

One additional content, as I am reading other reader comments I could not help being distracted by the blinking, video and bold letters and colors of ads for (one one page alone) Vonage, Sprint, evite, deal values, at&t, featured homes, contests…seriously, change it back, PLEASE!

Posted by ( rchmondgrl ) on November 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm

The new format is horrible. There are more ads than news! How could ANYONE think this was an improvement??!!!!

Posted by ( CryAmandla ) on November 22, 2008 at 5:26 pm

I HATE this new format. Please change it back. It was hard enough to get adjusted to inrich.com. This page is too busy and has too much going on. It makes me not want to go to the site at all. I’m very “tech savy”, but this page is difficult to navigate.

Posted by ( ducky1 ) on November 22, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Thank you for the opportunity to let you know that I really don’t like the new format at all. I live in NC now, but I still have ties to Richmond, so I usually go online once a day to see what is going on. The previous format was much better. Please consider changing it back.

Posted by ( abeachlover ) on November 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm

The new website is way too “busy” and not user friendly - don’t like it! Life has gotten complicated enough without this! Why did you change it?
Thanks

Posted by ( dguidry ) on November 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Dear Gods, you have to jump through hoops just to leave a comment! This has to be the worse website that I’ve ever seen.

Better fuctionality? That’s very debatable. It takes eons just to find something, the drop down menue is essentially worthless, and current RICHMOND news is difficult if not impossible to find. Besides all of that, this is the third time this year that this site has been changed. Just put it one way and leave it.

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( Michael Fibison ) on November 22, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Some thoughts on the redesign:
1. We actually brought back TimesDispatch.com and have separated it out from inRich.com. In so doing, we moved to a more robust content management system. In addition to the ability to modify font size on the articles you are reading and unfettered space to comment on stories, we have increased page load time and provided a new entertainment calendar that we find is the most robust locally.
2. We’ve added pull-down navigation so that you can find what you are looking for in a quicker way.
3. We’ve emphasized video because it fits with our continuous news and multimedia offerings. More of our users are clicking on and reviewing our video. We feel we provide much more than you can find on our broadcast counterparts, and we want to continue developing news on demand in a video format so that you have additional choices in the market.

In any event, your comments are very valuable to us, and we will be incorporating this feedback as we evolve the site moving forward.

For those who prefer simple delivery of headlines, please check out our enhanced RSS offerings: http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/rss/cat_local_news/

Please keep the conversation going.

Best,
~Michael
General Manager inRich.com/TimesDispatch.com

Posted by ( racefan3 ) on November 22, 2008 at 1:10 pm

The new site is too cluttered and is difficult to navigate. I usually embrace change, but this change is not for the better.

Posted by ( pcar ) on November 22, 2008 at 9:22 am

This is not an “improved” website. It is not user friendly and visually not appealing. Please go back to the “old” format. Thank you.

Posted by ( LS6man ) on November 22, 2008 at 8:43 am

What a horrible site…Is it any wonder people don’t read the paper any longer??? I mean seriosuly…between this sorry layout which bombards you with ads, and MPW’s always racially biased comments, where any “no” for a minority is “bigotry.“ Guess he forgot we have a black President elect…

My head hurts from trying to find the news among the ads…

Where’s the Tylenol ad?

Posted by ( J ) on November 22, 2008 at 7:19 am

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.“ I think this, as do most of the responders, is a phrase RTD and Media General should live by. Why in the world did you change this website… to torture your readers?? Guess I’ll read the news somewhere else.

Posted by ( catlady ) on November 22, 2008 at 5:32 am

Ye gods and little fishies. This electronic version is a mess. Is it your attempt to force readers to buy print copies?

Posted by ( JoeyT ) on November 22, 2008 at 1:31 am

This site looks like it was slapped together by a $8 an hour 15 year old who has been through a one week html training session. Only two types of people would visit this site regularly: those with an aversion to class and intellectual dwarfs.

Jump off the RTD’s ship before it goes the way of the Lusitania! It was nice while it lasted by the RTD has officially jumped the shark.

Posted by ( marclips ) on November 21, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Dear God in heaven this website sucks! Rather than point out everything else that’s already been said, let me note something new: Where the heck is the “Opinion” page? I can find the Columnists page, which consists solely of Jeff Schapiro and Michael Paul Williams (I’d be happy if Ross McKenzie left but I hope Bart Hinkle is still employed with T-D) - but it seems to be literally impossible to read the editorials or the national syndicated columnists online.

Is anyone really surprised by the heavy advertising presence, though? Look what Media General did to Brick Weekly - it took a fun, whimsical, informative publication and turned it into useless crap with advertisements guised in the cloak of articles. Brick’s “reviews” of restaurants are utterly ridiculous - as best as I can tell they have yet to say a bad word about any restaurant, ever. Some of their reviews don’t even actually mention what the food tasted like; they only focus on decor and who the chefs and owners are. You’d think it’d be tough to review a restaurant without tasting their food but Brick manages to pull it off.

Posted by ( veron ) on November 21, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Please fix the layout.It is so confusing and extremely cluttered. I am not sure what is news, what is an ad.

Posted by ( r u kidding me? ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:59 pm

I will offer a prediction - this redesign will end up as a case study in stupidity, extreme disregard for consumer functionality, and leadership asleep at the wheel. Why don’t you just close your doors instead of lurching around for a way to go out of business. For of your griping about elites in ivory towers, you have shown the ultimate product of those who are out of touch…this stupid site.

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( eagle86 ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:58 pm

It seems as if all the news websites are using the same online format and to me it’s very boring. Couldn’t you guys be different? This site totally sucks.

Posted by ( HDouglas ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:02 pm

The new Times-Dispatch and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette are two of the worst sites I’ve yet to read.

Posted by ( ihatethissite ) on November 21, 2008 at 7:43 pm

This site is terrible. It’s hard to manuever through, the videos on the front page are too large and it is not appealing at all. 

I guess I will get my news from the local tv stations’ websites from now on.

Posted by ( NB ) on November 21, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. I read a lot of news websites and this is the worst format I’ve ever seen. Note to all: Many firewall products such as Kaspersky can be set to filter advertising content and block the annoying ads.

Posted by ( toxic avenger ) on November 21, 2008 at 4:45 pm

If you look at potomacnews.com, dailyprogress.com or timesdispatch.com, it appears all three are the same, just more local stories seperate the three. No originality and totally classless if you ask me.

Posted by ( dicky waters ) on November 21, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Ia addition to what I said berore, once you do figure out how to e-mail an anrticle to friend in the message space, it will not let you type anything in there.

This is a huge farce all the away around and heads should run for letting this train wreck be printed.

Posted by ( dicky waters ) on November 21, 2008 at 3:44 pm

The old format was much easier to read and to navigate. And the e-mail for a friends was much friendly-eailer.

Chauck this one to if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

Posted by ( citycynic ) on November 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Other than allowing Michael Paul Williams space, this is by far the worst thing the RTD has ever done. This site is one big advertisment that is almost impossible to navigate. And judging by the other comments, all of Richmond agrees. What a joke.

Posted by ( SC ) on November 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm

I have to agree with the comments already given. I too find this site difficult to navigate. I like the old one better. I miss clicking on a link to take me to the specific area I need. It takes too long to find what I’m looking for.

Posted by ( Dmom ) on November 21, 2008 at 12:44 pm

This new website design is TERRIBLE!!! I am so glad I am not the only one who thinks so, I wont even be coming to the site to check news anymore unless it is changed, I want to pull up the page & all the news is right there in front of me, I dont wanna have to find it. It really is a BAD redesign & sadly I agree with alot of the others saying whoever designed it should be fired but also whoever approved the design should be fired too!!!

Posted by ( cbusiness ) on November 21, 2008 at 10:19 am

Your web site update has missed the mark. It makes navigation very difficult and is way too busy. I will no longer be using your site as my primary source for local news information.

Posted by ( BJones ) on November 21, 2008 at 10:11 am

This new webpage is awful. Half the boxes don’t resolve, manuvering through it is chaotic. I usually go here several times a day, forget it, I will go to pilotonline.com for news,
geeshh you already messed up your printed paper now this!!!

Posted by ( trlbldr ) on November 21, 2008 at 9:42 am

It is a shame, but your new Web site is incomprehensible. It is confusing and difficult to navigate. Frankly, I am surprised the design got past QA, unless the QA people have no regard for user experience and its application to human-computer interaction and interface design.

Shame.

Posted by ( NCIC_OK ) on November 21, 2008 at 9:41 am

Its terrible! Who ever did this should be fired!

Posted by ( Jeff ) on November 21, 2008 at 9:11 am

What have you done now? It’s bad enough you lost Holmgren, decimated the staff and tarted up the front page. Now this. I used to read timesdispatch.com every day; I’ll certainly be seeking an alternative now.

Posted by ( dpstewart66 ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:34 am

You have seriously got to be kidding me! This is one of the sites that I look at EVERY morning….I won’t be doing that anymore. I can’t believe that this design got approved. It’s nothing but a huge page of advertisements and a little bit of news. Its horribe to navigate. I agree with the many other posts that state that the individuals responsible for this should be fired. This site is absolutely ridiculous looking! I hope to see it changed back in the very near future. And I just started the Sunday paper not long ago. I’ll be stopping that. I am not giving you ANY more of my hard earned money to pay whoever created this disaster of a site.

Posted by ( Rayzor ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:27 am

I just read all five pages of comments and there isn’t a single positive statement made by anyone. People don’t like to “work” to get through a web page, and this site makes finding the news an arduous task. I hope the powers that be at Media General read all of these comments and do something about it.

As for the deluge of ads, insiders know that the quantity of actual news is and always has been inversely proportionate to the number of PAID advertisements. Text doesn’t pay. Haynes ads do.

Please do something with this site! We can’t even go to Richmond.com anymore since Media General owns that now too. Sadly, Style Weekly, the best local source for news and quality journalism hands down is only a weekly publication.

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( muellermonica ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:21 am

This is the worst format I have ever seen. It is so blah and lacks any interest or luster. It no longer has the “feel” of an online virtual newspaper. The way you have your articles set up does not entice to click further to read them completely. If you want your online viewership to increase change it back immediately if you want to loose viewers keep the current format. Sorry I’d rather purchase the paper now and please don’t go changing that format either.

Posted by ( NCIC_OK ) on November 21, 2008 at 8:01 am

It sucks really bad! I don’t like it at all…..

Posted by ( andym ) on November 21, 2008 at 7:21 am

I agree with the vast majority of the comments. The new site is just too busy with ads. I understand that the it costs $$$ to run a web site, but I think RTD is trying to make up lost subscription revenue with web advertising revenue.

The Drudge Report is a perfect example of how a news web site should be designed… simple and effective.

Posted by ( Vanfield ) on November 21, 2008 at 7:07 am

Wow. Let’s see….I stopped delivery of the TD because it was 90% ads and 10% content. I reduced the regularity of my visits to inrich.com because i found it wasn’t getting updated regularly enough for my taste. Now I guess I’ll stop reading the site altogether, because I can’t. You have just thrown up on your readership, congrats. I’ve never seen a company strive so hard to be so repellent to its consumer base. It’s simply astonishing. I presume you’ll be satisfied when the TD is only remembered in case studies in J school.

I can stunned if this redesign survived a focus group. How could ANYONE find this a useful means of delivering information?

Posted by ( M.A. ) on November 21, 2008 at 7:02 am

Before I could quickly see the most recent headlines. Now I can’t find anything easily. It’s too much to look at. I’ve decided to stop looking at the Times Dispatch site. I’ll look at InRich or other local new sites until there is a re-design. I need something I can pull up at work and quickly see the most recent headlines.

Posted by ( Gretbuster ) on November 21, 2008 at 5:05 am

Gret job, boyz - you never disappoint.

Posted by ( eddie ) on November 20, 2008 at 11:28 pm

I am actually blow away by how bad this site is. First of all just to post this comment I had to register, check my email, find the article again, log in, and then post. 

This site is now a GIANT ad with tiny bits of news in between. Is it not supposed to be the other way around?

I am a website developer for a living and I think this site is just awful. You guys make it hard to read the news.

Posted by ( thoughts ) on November 20, 2008 at 10:04 pm

It really can’t be read with the microscopic font size… and that was with the large font chosen. Waaaay too much hassle now.
The website wasn’t great before, but it was usable. This isn’t. Sorry, but until the small text issue is fixed it can’t be used.

Posted by ( JamesDean ) on November 20, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Someone ought to be fired immediately. Additionally, I am looking for investors who are interested in opening a quality, major news publication because it is clear to even the average reader that RTD has reached bottom. I know high school students who could make better websites and write better articles than half of the staff. Have any of the RTD staff seen a quality newspaper or is it a requirement for the staff to be McCain supporters, who are incapable of thinking? Why don’t you do Richmond a favor and close your doors? Times Disgrace indeed! Not even a mention of the teen who was shot today! Newspaper or political agenda rag?

Posted by ( Teacher ) on November 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm

This is worse then the inrich.com site.

Posted by ( jprmidlo ) on November 20, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Please don’t overload the page content with ads.

I also recommend Ad-Block Plus if you are using the Firefox browser to view this page.

Thanks.

Posted by ( whynot? ) on November 20, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Congratulations! It’s now easier to read the comments than the news! Earlier comments cover pretty much everything, but I would like to ask WHY did you change the name (address) FROM “timesdispatch.com” to the vaunted “InRich.com” only to change it back to “timesdispatch.com?“ And why—now that you’re back to the newspaper’s name, do you lead with video rather than “print-ish” news stories?

The home page really is about a 3-to-1 ratio of ads/promo to news, which is bad enough, but the clunky attempt at using the iTunes features panel only further slows down the pursuit of actual information. It’s as if you’ve totally given over and are an advertising site that also has some news.

Really can’t think of an uglier, less useful newspaper/news/compiler site—and I look at a ton of them. This is the worst yet—but at least you didn’t give it a cutesy URL this time.

Posted by ( SodaWater ) on November 20, 2008 at 7:16 pm

OK, I am missing the outdoors page too. The Weekend section needs to make a comeback too. Why hide/delete entire sections online?

Posted by ( Kathy ) on November 20, 2008 at 6:59 pm

The old website was bad, but this is worse. Way too cluttered, have to click through to find local news - which is why we are here instead of a “national” paper, by the way. Too much text that is the same weight of type, hard to pick out what is new or old, important or incidental. The only good thing I see is the prominent weather forecast. Think about why people come to this site and make it easy to find what they are looking for!

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( mikeson ) on November 20, 2008 at 6:51 pm

re: new website design

This is just a one day joke, right?

Posted by ( SodaWater ) on November 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm

While I can’t disagree with the over-done advertising, I don’t think this display is that bad. Seems to me that there are many more pages that need to be fixed, but complaints always come when there is change. I like the video player much better, but I could do without the drastic changes to the TD.com home page. Download time was less than desirable, but that’s usually a problem for me. Good luck, you’re going to need it.

Posted by ( Karen ) on November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Horrible…I can’t really understand how this format even gained approval. We have already stopped our paper subscription because of a change in quality (including consistent and timely delivery)and now we get to navigate this mess? Forget it - I’ll get my news elsewhere…

Posted by ( gizmo ) on November 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm

I must register my disapointment with the re-design. As a design professional and a frequent user I can barely navigate this mess. Hire a designer who can allow information to be accessed instead of this
tangle of stuff. It looks like you hired the Sunday circular designers to create a pizza of bland ads and babble. I will be sticking with the New York Times from now on.

Posted by ( hiker ) on November 20, 2008 at 5:56 pm

An additional question/complaint to add to your growing pile: Where is the Outdoors content? I’ve searched the sports page high and low and it doesn’t seem to be anywhere. It’s not part of the drop-down menu. It’s not in the middle of the page with the other subject headings. All I see is a link to the Outdoors blog, and when I clicked on that none of the categories worked. What gives?

Is the Outdoors for print readers only?

Posted by ( karoll ) on November 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Others are far more eloquent than I. Suffice it to say that if it were up to me I would fire the person responsible for the redesign. Until the website is fixed I will not visit it and I will also not be subscribing to the newspaper.

Posted by ( billywilly ) on November 20, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Just think, several employees approved this design! I am guessing none of them surf the web. I started using this site because the three local TV channel sites were bad. Now this.

Posted by ( Tullius ) on November 20, 2008 at 5:33 pm Most user-unfriendly news site I’ve been to. Horrible.

Posted by ( southpawjo ) on November 20, 2008 at 5:08 pm

What in the world were you thinking? Now the sports area is almost impossible to navigate. The articles are buried in the middle of too many ads. You missed the mark completely with this new design. Go back to the drawing boards, possibly fire your tech design department!

Posted by ( Old Grump ) on November 20, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I assume the “new” timesdispatch.com is a product of the same innovative mind that concocted the celebrated “half page” that soured print edition readers. Would someone please show him/her the “help wanted” section (that is, if anyone can manage to navigate to it). Bah humbug early!

Posted by ( anne ) on November 20, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Guys, this is so, so tragic. What did you do? It was bad enough before, but now it’s worse. I’m also in my 20s, have a college degree and consider myself pretty web-savvy. What the? I can’t figure out anything on this site.

Posted by ( jamesriverapt ) on November 20, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Seems like EVERY single other person posting here about the new design accurately reflects my thoughts as well… I don’t like it. Too cluttered, to much reliability on advertising (even on the page used to create a login account!!), and the inability to browse the ‘big’ or ‘breaking news’ stories quickly.

I too will be looking elsewhere for a new internet home page to catch the news with throughout the day… too bad for InRich.com. Change is welcomed, but usually if it’s an improvement… that isn’t the case here though.

Posted by ( graphicdesigner ) on November 20, 2008 at 4:20 pm

UGH. This layout is so confusing! I am extremely distracted by the mass amounts of advertisements. Secondly, the placement of the “latest news” box is placed poorly. I think that object should be move higher up on the page (or at least ABOVE the silly advertisement…). 

This page just appears to be overall cluttered and overruled by ads. Fix these things and perhaps others & myself will have a better experience visiting inrich.com on a daily basis…

Posted by ( Anonomous ) on November 20, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I thought I was directed to the Overstock.com website….. I guess advertising is more important than news. I encourage RTD to look at pilotonline.com or dailypress.com to see how news should be displayed.
The RTD.com is terrible!

Posted by ( Mystic T ) on November 20, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Great. I stopped reading the Cville Daily Progress online because the design was so poor and it was so difficult to navigate. Now this newspaper has cloned that website. Guess I’ll have to find something else.

The following comments were posted on “The new TimesDispatch.com.“

Posted by ( iherebyresign ) on November 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm

The redesign is horrid. I loved the old design where I could quickly review the latest news, and have other prominent stories lined around it. Now, the breaking news section is HUGE, and only contains 12 of the latest stories!! RIDICULOUS! And to agree with other readers, the advertising space has grown dramatically. I can’t even read in peace without some massive ad taking over the screen. Also, half the stories I click on now take me to some other website outside of inrich.com (i assume websites they have purchased recently) In the past, I visited this site 3-5 times daily for the latest news; I will now think twice if it is worth all the effort.

Posted by ( 1twenty13 ) on November 20, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Are you serious? Newspapers are struggling to compete with internet news sites and this is what you come up with? It looks like you’re trying to report the advertisements rather than news. 75% of the visible page is ads! What business are you in: banner ads or news reporting? Take a lesson from DrudgeReport.com. Probably the most user-friendly news site out there! I can see all the headlines on one page and make my own decision about what i want to read. i cant tell if i’m about to click on an article or an advertisement…so i’ll go elsewhere for my news. Thanks anyway RTD…

Posted by ( doe ) on November 20, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Gee, there’s only room for one big headline and three little ones? That might be due to the PROLIFERATION of advertisements! Without even trying I count 15, 16. Ridiculous.

Posted by ( Mel_J ) on November 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm

This new design is terrible!
It is very difficult to use and I cannot find articles. The old site design was much easier to use and better organized. It is also extremely cluttered with advertising and obnoxiously loud audio on ads.
Sorry guys, you really missed the boat on this one.

Posted by ( Harold ) on November 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm

I don’t mind change but for those of us who don’t have super fast broadband the site takes forever to load because of the excessive amount of banners, video and images. Please consider decluttering it.

Posted by ( mesquaw8 ) on November 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Sorry guys - you missed the mark on the “improvements” - it’s cluttered, chopped up and not very friendly to use. I don’t have an objection to change, but this one was a big step in the wrong direction. Look at other newspapers in VA and take notes. Good luck.

Posted by ( ADBresponse ) on November 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm

What happened to the RSS feeds that feature content from other websites? For example, the sports page had a feed to hokiesports.com.

Posted by ( Chris ) on November 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

I agree with what others have stated. Before this I had one small place to get all the latest headlines, now its a clunky display that takes up way too much space.

The organization and navigation model is bad as well.

Please go back to your old design, have a new site with the new look available and work with your customers feedback to fine tune it before you drive away all of your customers with such a poorly executed redesign.

Posted by ( haycummings ) on November 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Very poor website. Too much advertising . . . hard to find things . . . keep it simple. Is this INRICH or TIMES DISPATCH. It’s simple guys, go to http://www.gazettejournal.net/ to see an excellent newspaper website or even The New York Times. Use your BANNER. Keep trying.

Posted by ( ckr ) on November 20, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Good feedback. FYI, you can adjust the font size on your own by clicking on the “small, medium or large” link to the upper right of this article page.

Posted by ( qhgirl ) on November 20, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I agree the site looks really cluttered. One reason is the ad space seems to be more pronounced. I am sure this is a result of declining subscriptions. The paper has to make their money somewhere. I did like the “breaking news” section from the old layout. It was easy to see what was happening right now. I guess we will all have to get used to the change! Just like when your favorite grocery store gets a face lift, you spend the first month or two figuring out where all your favorite products are displayed!

Posted by ( redskyatnight ) on November 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I have to agree with the comment about the small font size on the links. I’d rather go to a website that I can read.

Posted by ( Rayzor ) on November 20, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I hate the new site. It’s ugly, and it’s hardly simpler and easier to use. I wonder if this is just a lazy transitional phase while richmond.com is revamped…

Posted by ( spenbence ) on November 20, 2008 at 11:51 am

Visually and functionally atrocious. You have to work harder to access news stories, and the type is so small it’s hard to read (and I’m in my 20s).

Please, de-clutter your page some and post links in a logical format.

Posted by ( PaganLinq ) on November 20, 2008 at 11:09 am

Let’s see, before I had breaking news, both local and national, on a single page. Now I have to go to two separate pages for a “quick” look at what’s going on. That certainly is an “improvement!“

Hey Look!  RTD authored it’s first original article on the new web site!

The website is a joke. Now if I could just get this computer into the bird cage this website just may serve a purpous.

It’s not any better on day two!

Will any changes be made based on the comments?

You really need to work on the opinion-editorial-columnisst site to display the names of the columnists, op-ed writers.

Also FYI I feel like one of the Slowski’s as it takes forever (with all the ads trying to laod) to get around on YOUR new website. I feel let down by you.

Trying to be open minded, I’ve checked back a few times since my post on Saturday to see if any changes had been made to the “new” site look, and nada (except this discourse is now embedded in a forum).

Please, get rid of the guy scratching his ear on the first video - unless of course that’s supposed to be an inside joke at the RTD of “what do we do now that they hate the new website.“

No joke.  Clearly, your regular readers are very disappointed with the look of the new site.  The streaming stories down below are better than they were last week, but please, get rid of the badly filmed video streams at the top of the site.  They scroll WAY TOO FAST and they quite frankly do not meet RTD photography standards, much less broadcasting standards.

The site is way too top heavy on the ads.  Put something up there that will make your readers want to scroll.  It’s that what’s it really all about?  (Keep ‘em reading… hello!!!!)

After reading various posts including one telling us how robust the website is, I have to agree with the concensus. This change sucks. What is wrong with you people? Robust website? Please.  I work in informatics, this design is too cluttered, difficult to navigate, and just plain ignorant. You had a good thing going and you screwed it up. Usually when something like this happens, its to justify someone’s job or existance. The old venue was markedly improved over this poorly designed site. All I come to do is read the obituaries and local headline news. I can not even do that anymore. The daily obit list is gone. Perhaps you should add this new, robust site to the obit list as well.

Your new website is absolutely horrible!  I can’t believe that you actually paid somebody to create this monstrosity.  If you want an example of something that is user friendly, go to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.  I subscribe to the hard copy paper and will just ignore this atrocity that is one of the most annoying things I’ve seen on the web.