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 4 of 25)62. i really enjoyed the old format. The name of this story caught my eye, otherwise I cannot even stand to look at the format let alone read through it. I browsed through it the first time and that was enough. Do not assume that a small percentage of people dislike the site. Some of us just have not taken the time to give feedback, but we are looking for a new Homepage.
Posted at 8:57PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Jacqueline
63. I DO NOT LIKE THE CHANGE TO NETSCAPE! It is bogged down with too many details....I just want the news. I can give a s--t how people vote on stuff. When something isn't broke why is it that there is always some idiot that wants to fix it....
Posted at 9:04PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Kim Thurman
64. yeah i liked the old one this new shit sucks you guys really fucked up i really dont know how to use this new one so now im forced to find another browser ps you should bring the old one back even if you want to keep this gay ass shit dorks
Posted at 9:09PM on Jul 17th 2006 by steven
65. I don't like your new look - its drab and uninviting. I would rather see headlines of 'real' news, I am not interested in what star is divorcing or dating, I don't want a Peoples Magazine view of the world. Look at your top headlines! There is too much irrelevant fluff - there are serious 'real' world problems making the news, but where are they? Previously, you actually had 'newsworthy' news, now it is mostly "Entertainment Tonight" news. For some unknown reason, hard biting in your face revelations of whats going on in the world are not always 'popular'. The current crisis in the Middle East involving Lebanon, Gaza and Israel just isn't as much fun as Survivor - so it isn't even mentioned. You call this news?? Go to CNN, MSNBC or The Guardian Unlimited if you want real news; you won't find it here any more.
Posted at 9:09PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Ron Burris
66. I really don't like the new Netscape and I have changed browsers because of it. I especially dislike the fact that you have to spend time searching for important news stories instead of it just having it presented to you right away. I like to be able to turn on my homepage, scan the news and go.
Posted at 9:09PM on Jul 17th 2006 by jules
67. I won't say I like the new netscape because I don't. If I had wanted to get my news with blogs I would have logged on to the Union Tribune or North County Times. The reason I don't like the new site is because you have to go to someone else's page to get the new article you want to read and before you can get the article you have gain access which means you have to open an account. I don't need any more junk mail because I am wanting to read an article. I just want the old site back so I get my up to the minute news without the blogging. Besides its just like listening to the old Chat sites and believe me I'm glad I don't do them any more. You could have two sites, one for the blogger who doesn't care who gets their email information and one for us old stodgy people who just want to read the news. Also just an aside the fact that your going to AIM for the email may lose you some more customers. We like Netscape, if we wanted to have AOL/AIM shoved down our throats we would have been foolish and paid the AOL Fee of $25.00 for AOL. Trust me, while your trying to be the new and improved NETSCAPE, your failing miserably.
One UNHAPPY CAMPER
Posted at 9:10PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Deborah Duffin
68. I don't care about how many people voted for any story. It is just sharing ignorance. Just give me the news or stories and I will decide the value of the information.
Am I asking for too much? Thanks.
Posted at 9:11PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Ted Palmore
69. "There are some words of praise here and there if you look closely, but for the most part, the growing community of people too busy using the site to bother complimenting it is evidence enough that people like it"
Ya know, I don't care what format Netscape uses. I've been using Opera for a while. I feel I'm smart enough to know what I do and don't like. ......But your comment above from an earlier response confuses me. Lessee if I understand yer statement: because folks DON"T compliment you it really means they like the new format? Now, why didn't I realize this before I read your above double speak. Its beginging to sound familiar.
Posted at 9:13PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Mickey
70. I absolutely do NOT like this new homepage. Who cares what 9 or 24 or even 200 people think about a news story. I want to be able to scan what's happening and not have to look at "what people voted for". I liked the old format. It was easy to find the highlights of the day. I have used Netscape for years and I personally think this is a step back, remember New Coke?
Posted at 9:13PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Cindy
71. you should have started a whole new brand from scratch. that way, youd still have the old netscapers and would have been able to lever the new aol/digg using your properties to those who wanted it. you could have called the new brand metascape or some such chazurai...
Posted at 9:15PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Philip Pearlman
72. I do not like the new format for Netscape. I am not interested in seeing what the average joe ranks as newsworthy. If I want a top ten list I will turn on Dave or just Google it. What I want is a quick break down of news, entertainment, business, interesting sites, etc. And I want them at a glance and I don't want to have to click, click, click to get to the article/site.
The reason Old Netscape rocked vs. AOL, Yahoo,CNN.. is because it was already cutting edge and it was very current and eclectic. I will keep trying to get used to the new Netscape but besides this article, I have not found any of the top voted sites to be very interesting.
My vote is a big thumbs down to the "New"!
Posted at 9:16PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Mary
73. Double raspberry on the redesign. Long-time Netscape user, also liked the previous compact single page. The last redesign was not as hard to swallow. Netscape was my home page for many years - that will be changing now.
Posted at 9:17PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Rusty
74. every time netscape changes something, they fail to realize that we liked it the old way. they took a round wheel and squared it up. they dont beta test enough if at all. as i have written MANY times they would have done better to NOT change netscape mail.. to NOT change the browser to this worthless piece of junk.. to NOT change. this is not progress.. change is only progress if it gets better. it did not. good luck working for mcdonalds.
Posted at 9:22PM on Jul 17th 2006 by p h
75. Does anybody remember "New Coke"?
Sometimes new is just Bad. This new
Netscape format is Bad.
An honest admission of that would be
refreshing.
Posted at 9:24PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Joe Kaliz
76. Like more than one of the folk who have responded, where are all of those glowing reviews about how wonderful the new 'scape is? It's DREADFUL. Not only that, the interface is mediocre at best. Many of the links don't work, and there are clear opportunities to make better links.
And, insofar as the "writers" are concerned, get some new material. That goofy thing about Bruce Willis has been up for three, four, five (?) days. It wasn't that good the first time and, perhaps, if that were cleared, maybe something worth our time and attention might be posted.
Either fix it or kill it
Posted at 9:27PM on Jul 17th 2006 by elraro
77. I might get used to it, but Iliked the old much much better.
Posted at 9:31PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Ronald Erickson
78. I can't stand the new site. I am currently looking into finding another home page. I've sent at least two comments to netscape, asking them how do I (and why don't I get my email from the old site. I have to go to the new site to get my email, and that sucks. If I want to browes and read the news, I should be able to, and not have to rely on other people's voting preferences.
Posted at 9:34PM on Jul 17th 2006 by knufsed7
79. Ijoined netscape in 1996 only to have AOL buy it out. I survived the format changes and continued to be a faithful customer. With this change which again forced me to accept your changes which you use to support your stats on general interest the only thing left for me is the mynetscape account which I've had for the same number of years.If you get rid of that I will have no reason to com back except for my bookmarks. This is really sad for the first available browser in 1992.
Posted at 9:35PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Lynn Ray Ketchum
80. Liked the old much better. Miss the weather section. New sucks.
Posted at 9:37PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Richard French
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.
61. I used netscape for many many years as my default page. I have changed it now to msn, but i keep checking back hoping you have put Netscape back to the great way it was before. How the heck wants to vote on a news item? With the new site, I can't find anything in the Channnels like you used to have before. Bring back Netscape, and trash the "new and disasterous" netscape garbage.
Posted at 8:49PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Jeff