There is a short story in the NYT today about a small, but vocal, group of Netscape users who don't like the new, more interactive, Netscape. The story explains that a petition has been started to change the new Netscape back to the old Netscape where we (AOL) programmed the experience.
There is one piece of misinformation in the story: that we tried to silence the folks doing the petition by not letting them vote up negative Netscape stories on the new Netscape--that's simply not true. We've had a dozen negative stories about Netscape on the home page--just like DIGG has--and we understand that part of running a social news site is that your user base will use the site itself to talk to you. In fact, any negative story on AOL, Netscape, or myself immediatly goes to the number one position.
That's the price you pay for letting folks take control--they actually do it!
I think some folks don't understand that there is a window in which a story can remain on the homepage (just over a day). We do this so the news stays fresh (i.e. when you come back 24 hours later it's not the same self-propogating list stuck at the top level).
I respect the fact that a group of folks liked the original home page better, and they don't want to participate in the new social news site--it's not for everyone. However, this is a very small percentage of the over millions of unique users who come to Netscape, and for AOL there is a very strategic reason for evolving Netscape.com. That reason is we already have a professionally programmed portal in AOL.COM! Also, we told the users about the change for a month, but some folks I think ignored or missed the messaging. That's a big take away here: over communicate with your members (oh wait, I put this in a recent post--I guess I need to take more of my own advice). If I were to do this again I would put a message that blocked users from visiting the site until they had read a note about the upcoming changes. Live and learn.
Additionally, the fact was that the majority of users were not sticking with the old Netscape. A quick look at the stats (not Alexia please--it doesn't count the Netscape browser--where a large percentage of our traffic comes from) shows that Netscape lost 1/3rd of its audience over the past year.
So, we lost a third of the audience by not changing the site, and now by changing we're going to lose a very small percentage, but be back on a growth path.
Look at it this way: if Geocities could change itself to MySpace before losing it's marketshare to MySpace you would do that right?
Same thing here, we're in the middle of paradigm shift from top-down control to bottom-up participation, and when you make a radical change like that you're gonna get pushback. In fact, I'm really excited to see the pushback because it let's me know we are on the right track.
Any new service is gonna get folks who don't like it. The more radical or forward looking an idea is the more folks are gonna be shocked by it--and this is a radical (but soon-to-be established) concept.
We anticipated in our projections that a large percentage of the audience might not like the new portal (double digits) and we're well below that (single digits)--so, I think we did a good job. When you change the menu at your restaurant some folks are gonna like the old menu better... we understand that and we're sorry we can't maintain two versions of the site forever--but this is a business and we have to grow it. For those folks the AOL.COM portal is still providing the classic portal experience with a massive amount of new stuff including a ton of video and programmed news.
It is ironic, of course, that some folks are voting for *less* interactivity and control, but I understand it. I don't want the New York Times to be a social news site... I think.
Old vs. New Netscape (or "if you could change GeoCities into MySpace in 2002 would you have?")
Reader Comments
(Page 3 of 25)42. I will try this again. Take you new netscape web page and stuff it. Give me the old page back. Until then, Goodbye.
Posted at 8:13PM on Jul 17th 2006 by W. R. Odom
43. Good Bye netscape. IE and Firefox for me.
Posted at 8:16PM on Jul 17th 2006 by W. R. Odom
44. This new site is terrible. To state that only a few complain is even worse. On the old site I would look around for/at the features. Now I just want to find my mail and be done with Netscape. I can't find anything worthwhile and as a free consumer I tend to go elsewhere for what I need without saying anything. I guess the grease goes to the purported squeaky wheel.
Also, the mere idea that other users dictate what is important to me newswise is ludacris. I don't care what the celebrities are doing. Unfortunately for me, the majority of people do. This means that the real world important news ends up not on the site.
Lack of growth is cited as the reason for the changes. But what about the loyalty to the users that have been there the longest? I have used Netscape for over ten years now. If it weren't for my mail account I would severe the ties immediately over this new change.
Posted at 8:17PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Matt Preece
45. I'm with the naysayers. I've hated the new Netscape from day one. I hate DIGG too, so it's not a popularity contest between the two for me.
There are too many opinion pieces voted up on the new "news" page, most of which come from just regular bloggers like me. There's a paucity of real news. Plus, it broke the tickers, which were one of the few things I really liked about Netscape 8.
I just haven't bothered to speak up because I know no one at Netscape will listen, anyhow. This decision was "researched" and planned for months; you aren't going to listen to those of us who don't like what you've done deride all your hard work. I think there are a lot of others out there who, like me, just gave up on Netscape.com when you rolled out your new layout.
Posted at 8:18PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Pab Sungenis
46. I have used Netscape forever and I have to tell you I am completely disgruntled with the new interactive home page.
I don't give a darn who votes for what or what they have to say. I like the idea of reading news without comment. If the page stays the same I am changing.
I give computer classes and over 50 people I asked for an opinion about the page disliked it intensely. The 3 that said it was okay were 15 years old. The rest adults over 25
Posted at 8:19PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Joyceb
47. Quite frankly I was hoping that the "New Netscape" would lose favor and go away. I am reminded of the phrase "the inmates are running the asylum" here. Part of the responsibility of the media is to supply the public with worth while information that will educate and enlighten, not just entertain. We have gotten so used to being entertained as a society that we sometimes take the easy road so that we do not have to think. How much do I really want to know if Tom Cruz is faking becoming a parent? How does that compare with the very important events that are going on in the Middle East that may change our way of life? Are we allowing those with no interest in our future but a lot of time on their hands dictate what we as a society see and do? I hope not! I would hope that Netscape would take itself a little more seriously and present the public with the things that are important to our wellbeing even if it is not entertaining or escapism. It is nice to include entertainment in our lives, but please do not allow it to dominate everything to the point we forget how to think and question.
Posted at 8:21PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Liga
48. I don't care for the new site. It's too hard to read for us older folks. Also, if I click on a story, sometimes I have to go through a couple screens to get to the story. I am much more inclined to go to my local news site now than I was before. I liked the immediacy of the Netscape news before...you lost it! Programmed it right out! You know the saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I don't know about other folks, but I could care less about others' comments about a big news story. I would rather have the old site where you could go right to the story, unassaulted by others' misspelled and confused comments.
Posted at 8:21PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Karen
49. the new netscape is laid out like a search engine. i have it home paged from the old netscape when i could just open up the internet and see the top stories. now i open it up and see search engine results of todays news. if i wanted that, i could just have a search engine as my home page.
Posted at 8:23PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Mr. Baker
50. the new look-and-feel is confusing and not interesting at all... The old Netscape page had better eye-appeal. I can barely figure out what the heck I am supposed to click-on to get the news story netscape is trying to promote. The "comments" link is too predominant and the "visit site" link is poorly explained. At first glance the end-user would know what to click to get the news stiries detail.
It plain ol' BLOWS..... Get it together AOL or Netscape or however the heck you have evolved into....
I've been onboard with NETSCAPE for nearly 13 years and it's NEVER been this bad...
Posted at 8:26PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Matt Beach
51. BRING BACK THE OLD SITE SIMPLE THAT IS IT
Posted at 8:28PM on Jul 17th 2006 by RICHARDP. PRZYBYL
52. I have been with Netscape for 5 years. There was never any message that came to me saying that the home page was going blog or bog or f*****. Whatever! I really liked the new mail page and allowing 250 MB of mail info was great. But how STUPID is it when I cannot log on to the portal to read or even seek help when it tells me that my name and email is taken. By ME you netscape wads! I have sent 5 emails to netscape and not even a kiss my grits response back.
So Jason, or whoever is running this train wreck, don't unpack your bags. Get ready to try a New Coke!
Posted at 8:29PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Jesse tillman
53. While I appreciate the quality work behind the old and new delivery, I do not feel very respected as a user. There was no warning and no easy roll-over offered. Just wham!, a seemingly arrogant change. Further, on my Mac systems just a complete dumping! I am not happy with that type of treatment from anyone... it seems a typical MO these days though... sad... Workers do a great job and the Management does the greedy job...
Posted at 8:32PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Al Phillips
54. I have to agree with the so called minority. If it were not for the e-mail program you use, I would switch browers in a heartbeat. I am not interested in AOL. I feel that I will start using another e-mail program and DROP netscape comepletely, never to return to any computers in my household.
Posted at 8:33PM on Jul 17th 2006 by John Hancock
55. I dont like the new netscape either..I already changed my homepage to my yahoo instead...its a shame
Posted at 8:34PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Robert
56. Please switch back to old netscape. I think I may switch to MSN.
Posted at 8:34PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Sam
57. This new web page SUCKS need to go back to old site ASAP
Posted at 8:36PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Kevin Colbert
58. In my opinion Netscape has been steadily going down hill with each revision. The latest a disaster. I have zero interest in waiting for the news to be display much less a long list of advertisements before I can get to email, financial news and other things I am interested in.
Posted at 8:40PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Mike Warner
59. I use to use the quick links to the news stories in the old Netscape page. With the new page I just skip everything and go straight to checking my mail. The only thing worse than the changes to the Netscape page was the changes to Netscape mail. The new mail sucks BIG TIME!!! I don't want my mail to open in a seperate window where most of it is wasted space & I have to scroll even to read short emails. I've stopped using it as 1 of my main email addresses and switched to Gmail.
Posted at 8:41PM on Jul 17th 2006 by mordin_x
60. If the dissatisfied folks are so few, why do the comments run consistently ten to one against the new Netscape? Jason is defending his own stupid out-of-touch decisions by claiming the ten-to-one who hate it are outnumbered by "new" members -- but they are "outnumbered" by THEMSELVES, as they were all forced to "join' the new Netscape just to express their disgust with it. Shame on you, Jason. You know better.
Posted at 8:47PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Allan Small
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
41. C.K.:
I was wondering how many of those 20,000 "active" users have taken the time to compliment the site. That way we could compare the positive votes, to the negatives votes, and ignore those who haven't taken the time to voice there opinions. And it occurs to me that many of those "non-active" users may not be active b/c they aren't all that interested in the new set-up, never mind the thousands that just fled elsewhere.
I've given the new setup a few weeks, and while it's not as bad as my initial impression, what i have noticed is for the most part, it hasn't become a forum for people to discuss their opinions, but rather a forum for people to express their opinions and abusively attack those who don't concure.
Rather than give me the pulse of societies feelings on a subject or situation, i've unfortunately rediscovered that ignorance, and intolerance is flurishing. Actively posting serves no purpose, except to open up myself to attack. Posting to get a civilized discussion started, and perhaps learn more about the opposite view is an effort in futility. So what's the point?
While i expect I'll probably be hanging around netscape for a few weeks more (maybe 25% of the time i did before the change), this new inhospitable evironment is growing old very fast.
Posted at 8:07PM on Jul 17th 2006 by mrguppy