| 7:50 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think it's an improvement over what they had.. The old site was way to busy..
| 7:53 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Im with HyperGeek to an extent on this one. Agreed it is an improvement on the old version, but why do things by half measures. I also agree the new logo does nothing for AV's image. Looks like a 12 year old made is with M$ paint.
| 7:54 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hypergeek seems to have lots of white space ;-)
I quite like it to be honest, the logo typeface is about the only thing i can fault, decent enougth results for my searches, I'm not gonna swap from google but a step in the right direction.
| 7:55 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree seth. Though I also think the white space useage on the 'directory' is a bit poo.
| 11:12 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I like the faster page load, I used to avoid using it just because of the walking through treacle effect.
The layout is functional and fresh looking. Down to taste really.
The important point is (IMHO) that they are declaring their intention to launch a counter attack.
Just after I posted this reply, I checked some pages that I tweaked last night and they are re-indexed already (18 hrs later) and carry "Refreshed in past 24 hours" label.
| 11:22 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
definitely an improvement. Agree with the logo and whitespace. I don't like the directory font style either.
| 11:26 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
On the bottom and left side of the page, I see a small
Does anybody know the signifigance?
Also looks like about.com is a little more prominent on that home page.
| 11:32 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Years of brand recognition? As far as I remember they changed their logo about once a month (only slightly exaggerating, I can remember at least 4 different logos in the last few years).
But I agree, it looks unfamiliar, the logo is pretty bland, and the way the logo font is squeezed in there is awful.
The categories look like they reserved space for Yahoo-ish subcategory links, but then forgot to put them in.
Quinn: Server IDs I suppose? I remember noticing that before they redesigned too (a quick check in the web archive shows similar codes on, for example, the Jan 24 copy)
| 11:41 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry if I'm being thickheaded, but why would they put a server id on that page?
| 12:58 am on Nov 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Never mind what it looks like, it's still crashing my browser.
Very sad state of affairs.........
| 12:14 pm on Nov 15, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Can't overlook the minimal traffic.
#1 and #2 positions aren't yielding much of anything!
| 10:07 pm on Nov 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Couldn't agree more FredZeppelin,
For my top keyword Google #3 - 500+ clicks a day
Yahoo #3 - 300+
AltaVista #1 - 10-15
The only reason I am still paying AltaVista is because they bring high conversion clickthoughs from MSN
| 11:15 pm on Nov 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh...actually, I think the look is better. Everyone needs a change now and then. I like a clean looking site.
My complaint is in the search centers and marketplace - at least in yahoo you're still in yahoo. But I guess you gotta make a deal here and there to make some dough.
I have great serps in AV. But then again, I have great serps in hotbot. So who cares?
| 1:30 am on Nov 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Am I going mad ;) or does uk.altavista.com only offer one page of results?
| 1:06 pm on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I dont like the new look either, whats with that blueish bar thing on the left is it neccessary. I dont know? but i get good listings, but hardly any peeps from em.
| 1:11 pm on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I dont like the new layout that much either, the logo doesnt do it for me at all :)
| 1:16 pm on Nov 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think the new logo looks like a mish mashed cross over between the classic @ sign and the OE logo for the onln essntls