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?")
Recent Posts
- The (evil?) genius of Nick Denton (7/03/2008)
- Used/antique phone booths (7/03/2008)
- User participation increases when you don't have to login. (7/03/2008)
- The Dark Knight First Five Minutes (7/02/2008)
- New Mahalo features: anyone can edit (even if not logged in) and anyone can create a new page (easily) (7/02/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 5 of 25)82. I agree with most of the people posting comments. The website is nowhere near as good as it used to be. I think you guys shot yourself in the foot with these changes. Bring back the old style homepage please! By the way, I don't see mayh people defending the new web page design. If most people liked it they would tell you...
Posted at 9:40PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Nancy Frey
83. Jason,
The new Netscape site was more an ego trip for you than a carefully thought out transition for the original, veritable brand. Shame on you. You can spin your PR ad nauseum but the fact of the matter remains no successful web service has a strong segment of their users *hating* the experience.
Good luck in your inevitable future endeavors.
Posted at 9:40PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Bob smith
84. I hate the new "look." If I wanted to be able to vote on "popular" culture, I'd waste my money phoning into American Idol or The Apprentice.
It's just about impossible to find any real news here without having to dig for it (great...maybe I'll just re-up my old newspaper subscription) -- who gives a rat's patoot about whether Tom Cruise's baby exists?
Posted at 9:42PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Linda
85. I think you are deluding yourselves relative to how much of your users are for this abomination. You are changing because AOL is telling you to. To heck with the user communities' pre-change input to this mess. Also, I see your changing your mail service to AIM mail. can't wait for that bomb. WEell, don't forget do what your told and say goodbye to alot of your user base. Bye-Bye.
Posted at 9:43PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Bob Miller
86. I really don't see how the majority loves the new netscape. Its not pleasing to look at , at all. The old netscape was perfect. I checked it several times a day for information, entertainment, and the news. I really loved the weather at the top of the page, the "whats new section" and the concise and organized set up of the old netscape. If i can find another news site I like I will promptly switch over because I LOATHE this new setup.
Posted at 9:44PM on Jul 17th 2006 by K.C
87. I have no use for the new site, I will simply use it to access my Netscape mail account, until I can transition to another e-mail server.
Posted at 9:45PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Kelly
88. I like the new page a lot better than the old one, which was kinda mindless. This one is my new homepage
Posted at 9:46PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Progressive Bum
89. So, is this it? This new Netscape is here to stay? I'm not at all impressed with this format...why do we need to "vote" on news stories? Can't we just read it, in the old format, like we used to? I can't imagine if our local newspaper did this to their format...sales would plummet! I used to use MSN as a home page, my hubby started using Netscape...so I will just go back to MSN for my news, stories, weather, all the stuff I was used to. Thanks, but no thanks
Posted at 9:46PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Deb
90. If it ain't broke, don't fix it..... Well, you broke it. Now PLEASE fix it!!!!! This format really sucks.
Posted at 9:48PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Milt C
91. I cast my vote for against the new Netscape format. As many others have stated, I do not have a problem with change. I do have a problem with the style of "News" ratings. Call me Jack Web....."I just want the facts." I don't need to see someone's opinions of the information. Maybe the News could be reported first with the option to click on a forum section instead. I truly have no interest in blogs or I would search them out.
I had held off on commenting as well, but this blog had to be responded to. Dislikening the condesending tone and Holier-than-thou attitude I had to respond.
""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.""
Your loss of 1/3 of you reader my have more to do with the merger with AOL than with the dislike of the old Netscape site. I have always used Netscape and have love the Communicator 7.2. It's the anti Microsoft in me. That is also why I never used AOL.
For me I have chosen a new homepage to get my news. As Netscape suggested and am geting my news elsewhere. I reconfigured "MY NETSCAPE" tab to get me the information I want.
As for the GeoCities statement....sure, I would want to have evolved into a virtual mall for teens to hang out in and stalked by sexual deviants.
Posted at 9:48PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Mark McCloskey
92. Bye Bye Netscape Browser.................
I switched to Mozilla FireFox
Good Luck!
Posted at 9:49PM on Jul 17th 2006 by John Williams
93. No one has mentioned the greatest danger of this new format: the spreading of false "news" and information.
The other day there was a story posted about a man who sued his parents for being born white. This story was blatantly false (no court in the land would recognize such a cause of action), as anyone with any legal knowledge would know.
But the new Netscape allows any joker to post a link to any story, without any verification as to whether it's real or true. The new format here plays right into one of the biggest problems with the internet.
Posted at 9:49PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Chucky Smith
94. I hate the new netscape. I'd rather read the news itself than the comments about it. I'd like to know what the supposed majority of favorable responses to the new netscape are finding favorable about it! What am I missing?
Posted at 9:51PM on Jul 17th 2006 by AOD
95. I don't mind the change in format but it bothers me that the left column jumps up and down because the rotating story summaries are different lengths. Maybe it only does this with the firefox browser.
Posted at 9:51PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Dr. Dennis Robinson
96. What an absolute piece of trash!! Hopefully whoever was in charge of changing the old Netscape to this pile of garbage is now seeking new employment. You people need your collective heads examined for mental deficiency if you think this new format is gonna fly.
Posted at 9:52PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Rick W
97. Seems to me that there aren't very many of these personal comments that praise the new format. Don't count this one as one of them that does either. I LOVED the old format. Now, I just wait for my homepage to load so that I can surf the net. MSN is lookin' better and better every day.
Posted at 9:53PM on Jul 17th 2006 by mirorimaj
98. I have been using the Netscape browser since the days of version 4.X, I have been using Netscape.com as my home page for as long as I can remember...
I would bet if you looked into your demographics, you would find some pretty clear dividing lines, with a "Silent Majority" on one side, that side being the negative side of this issue.
If you haven't guessed by now, I agree with the general consenses of the new page being a mistake. There are OTHER sites out there that present articles in this fashion, if we wanted that type of format, we would have THOSE pages as our Home pages, not Netscape. But as chance would have it, we DID have Netscape as our Home page, very much on purpose.
Removing the Communicator was a mistake and this change is also. I'm sticking to 7.2 and finding another Home page where celebrity news comes after real news.
Lastly and to be clear, it is not only the physical layout of the page that I do not like but also the method of selecting stories and the forum like interaction with them. If I want to participate in a forum, I'll do that, when I want to read news, I don't care to see comments from strangers... (Yes, I acknowledge the irony, but I couldn't stand the presumptuous position of the author...)
(This ends the polite portion of this comment/suggestion...)
THE NEW PAGE LAYOUT/FORMAT SUCKS!
Thank you for listening.
Posted at 10:00PM on Jul 17th 2006 by BULL @ 3Dgpu.com
99. I don't like the new Netscape at all.Unless I'm missing something it seems to just be a vote for what news I like. I get to read the news that people who have no life but to vote on news stories decide I will get. Why does everything have to be turned into American Idol? I believe most people won't waste time complaining. They will just move on to something else. I'm using Yahoo for my webpage now,not an ad for them just the facts.
Posted at 10:01PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Robert Ames
100. I would like to see the ground swell of support you believe exists. Like many I have been with Netscape for a long time, and I think the new site is stupid, boring, difficult to navigate and irrelevant. You "forward thinking" probably leads to the dust bin of history and not the golden road of success. In some ways it looks like a desperate attempt to bolster AOL by getting us to shift. I hate to tell you, but the shift will be to Microsoft Explorer or Google, not AOL. As for a "social site" they abound already, and if I wanted a reality show I would watch TV. I always liked Netscape and I hope you fix the problem before you find you have no audience.
Posted at 10:01PM on Jul 17th 2006 by David Pifer
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.
81. You had a very good site. Why did you change it for the worst?
Please go back the way it was and I will be very happy.
Thanks,
Leonard Stern
Posted at 9:37PM on Jul 17th 2006 by Leonard Stern