We are trying something new for the first time in oh, 14 years we’ve changed up the format of our site.  The reason for this is to try to move things off the main page into different areas of the site.  The new elements will include a Contender Tracker site, which will have information about the various contenders up for the awards.  Since most of our longer pieces are here on the main site, the Contender Tracker will be a place to offer more in depth info on each upcoming contender in the awards race.  We’re also tentatively starting a TV section, which isn’t quite ready yet.

Since the site seems confusing to some, you can click on the link above that says “blog format” and that will list the stories of the day in the format you’re more used to.  Our stories will still be visible each day on the main page but the rest of the page will have other articles that get lost as we bury the main page with new stories.  I’d like to be able to have a way to showcase these things since most people visit just the main page daily.

I know it will take some getting used to and if you all really really hate it we’ll go back to a version of the old site with perhaps a few compromises.  But remember, I’m the old lady round these parts and if I can roll with it, well…




Load More Related Articles
Load More By Sasha Stone
Load More In News
  • Houstonrufus

    I think it looks great. Well done! It’ll take some getting used to but I like being able to access more features.

  • Diplan

    I knew this day would come, I don’t like change but Awards-daily has matured 🙂 and we need to embrace it,

    So good luck in this new phase 😀

  • Tero Heikkinen

    CHANGE 2013.

    Oh, I hate all the changes that Facebook (for example) throws at you, but it’s only a matter of time and you don’t need the old version anymore. You get used to new things pretty quickly (I had an NC-17 joke here, but erased it)…

  • Koleś

    It’s gonna take some time to get used to this new look, but truth be told, the site needed an upgrade.

  • Bob Burns

    I read AD for your commentary and will find it one way or another.

    In previous years I listened to the podcasts, but not this year – just didn’t see them and the time or two I looked for them did not find them. They were probably right under my nose…. the only reason I say anything about it is to provide some feedback to you as you think about your design.

    re: the new design, I did see things I had missed when they were previously posted – good luck.

  • Kasia

    It looks really nice! And “Chinatown” is one of my favourite movies, so can’t really complain about that 🙂

  • julian the emperor

    I’m just like Tero. I hate to be force-fed with change…BUT, we will get used to it, eventually. I quite liked the simplicity of the old design, the new one is more confusing (or to strike a positive note, complex).


    This isn’t a new design. This is a mess.

  • Radich

    When I saw it yesterday I was like “WTH happened?”, but I like it. Yes, it will take some time to get used to, but that’s the thing about change, isn’t it?

    So good luck with the face-lift. 🙂

  • Harry

    It’s horrendous.

  • Patrick

    I like it.

  • david

    Love the new site!!!!!

  • Phil Boroff

    I hate it. There’s too much “junk:”on the page and it is difficult to navigate. The “main stories” do not stay on line long enough for a user to connect to the story. Things I want are often “way down” the page — things were more easily accessible on the old page are now a “pain” to get to..

    “Improve,” yes, bot to “devastate” is NOT for the better..

  • cineJAB

    aesthetically: I like it.
    Logistically: there is a lot of unnecessary clicking to get to stories.

  • “It’s horrendous.”

    – from the guy who had this to say about Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey:

    Possibly the most uninteresting film I’ve ever seen, it was slow, boring, and I spent half the time rolling my eyes at the directors attempts to make you think. I spent half the time rolling my eyes at the directors attempts to make you think.

  • Things I want are often “way down” the page

    Like what? I’m asking sincerely. What do you want that’s so hard to find?

    things were more easily accessible on the old page are now a “pain” to get to..

    “a pain” as in…? how is it difficult to get to things? Which things and what’s the difficulty?

    There’s too much “junk:”on the page

    There’s nothing extra on the page that wasn’t always there. There is no new content on the home page. Everything on the page are posts that Sasha and I have written or chosen. So the “junk” is the content? Thanks.

    “The “main stories” do not stay on line long enough”…. ?

    No idea what you mean. Every story is online forever. Forever. Do you mean the slideshow? Do you see the titles for the slideshow preview illustration remain stationary permanently, unchanging, as a clickable table of contents for the featured posts?

    You spent some time on these observations, Phil, and I appreciate it, but I don’t know what you’re seeing that’s moving too fast or too elusive or too painful to find.

  • The individual posts look great, but the featured stories have a lot of wasted space underneath on the main page. Is there a way to cut that down? Otherwise everything else looks fine.

  • Lucas Prata

    At first I hated it. The thing that made me stick with AD when I first discovered it was exactly the simplicity of the blog. But as some have already said, we just have to get used to change in our lives; actually I’m kind of already used to it.

    It’s not like I like it, but it has just become indifferent to me, so, for me, you guys can do what you like. I just advice you to keep the blog format option in order to keep readers who are not so adaptable as myself. (:

  • Sasha Stone

    Can you guys check this out?

  • BedBath&Beyonce

    Definitely don’t have a problem with change, in fact this site was due for an update. But the current layout is way too busy. Less sections and nom more than two columns per section please!

  • Seankgallagher

    I was thrown by the way the layout changed, but as long as you have the “blog format” that allows you to read things in the order that you post them, I’m cool with the change.

  • steve50

    Re: “check this out”

    Nice and clean (the link you provided, Sasha).

    I don’t have a real problem with the new site, as long as recent comments are listed somewhere (which they are now).

    I think the regulars come for discussion and to check on their favorite posters, but I don’t know what that percentage is in comparison to (probably) more who come to view only.

    Sometimes we like to go back to posts from earlier in the year (archive), but that might be a luxury no longer possible.

    Either one looks good to me.

    ” I spent half the time rolling my eyes at the directors attempts to make you think.” God – I remember reading that when it was posted. Thanks for the chuckle, Ryan!

  • @Sasha, I really like that look.

  • Erik815

    Hi Ryan,

    I think it’s a good time for a new design. It’s a strong signal that the site has now evolved from the blog it once was to a more ‘mature’ website. Some points of (constructive) criticism I’d like to add, though:

    – Use of multiple fonts, font sizes, and font colors. This would be less distracting in the more basic blog format, but is still a huge typography no-no. My personal opinion is that it is always preferable to always go with one font, and vary with a limited number of sizes and colors for clarity, although opinions differ on this subject.

    – The new layout is not vertically streamlined. For clarity, you should be able to draw 3 of 4 vertical lines which divide the site into 2 or 3 “columns” within which all the main components exist. Sites that do this well include IMDB (1 wide column and 1 narrow column), Hitfix (3 equal columns) and (1 wide column framed by two narrow columns). Or Facebook for that matter. The “old” blog format had this by virtue of the blog format which allows little else, the new format demands adjustment every time the reader scrolls down, which frustrates the reader’s natural inclination to focus, as we are accustomed as readers to having information organized in neat columns (depending on the medium and its purpose of course).

    – Too much information at the top of the page. There are 5 horizontal elements that take up about 40% of the page before you get to the eye catcher, which is partly cut off at the bottom of the screen. I’d say the first element (the date to “AD Forums”) belongs on the bottom of the page, the second element (trending) doesn’t add enough to warrant the ‘distraction’, The third (banner + Chinatown quote) is perfectly fine, the fourth (title of the site + search bar + social network icons) are great too, the fifth element (“Home” tot “Blog format”) is fine, but could also be moved up higher. The “columns” I mentioned above should be clear before you start scrolling down. You should never have to scroll down before you see the main eyecather (picture+title) in its entirety.

    – The “Featured story” element is too big. A static picture should not take up 2/3 of the width and height of the page. The smaller element on the right (currently “Lincoln blu-ray detailed”) and the text below (“NEXT” + 3 stories with no pictures) require several extra seconds spent just on searching for focal points because the information is not structurally organized enough, but I kinda already covered that. The next part of the site which flicks through 6 main stories with 6 pictures appears to fulfill the same function and repeats the main stories. Repetition with equal focus or “importance” is never a good thing.

    – On a personal note I’d also consider a segment to spotlight trailers, as these are often a big draw on your site throughout the year, and often lead to a spirited debate.

    Overall: You could actually do away with the whole top part with the featured story, go right to the next part with the 6 main stories and maintain a 2/3rd with “column” in which you organize the content you already have in the same order, but with more uniform style and font choices. On the right you create a 1/3rd width column that features short easy-to-digest pieces that capture the attention (“trending” would be good here, a trailer spotlight, the contender tracker, and you could consider a “latest reviews” or “latest interviews” or “latest podcast” section here).

    I like the overhaul, but I think it needs some tweaks. What some people perceive as “junk” or “horrendous” or a “logistically” bad site might largely be a subconscious reaction to typographic and stylistic problems that can easily be adjusted.

  • Sometimes we like to go back to posts from earlier in the year (archive), but that might be a luxury no longer possible.

    We’re making massive cuts in Defense spending and ‘entitlements’ to ensure that luxury remains intact.

    I think the regulars come for discussion and to check on their favorite posters, but I don’t know what that percentage is in comparison to (probably) more who come to view only.

    The core-group of readers who keep the discussion pages active are pretty much literally the 1% . Not kidding.

  • Erik815

    Ha, got so caught up in Ryan’s response that I missed the fact that it was a Sasha-thread. Sorry ’bout the typos too.

    @Sasha: The layout on your link already makes for much less stressful reading. Steve50 says it best when he calls it “clean”.

  • Erik815

    Fantastic feedback! Cogent and constructive. Thanks so much.

  • Sorry ’bout the typos too.

    what typos?


  • steve50

    “We’re making massive cuts in Defense spending and ‘entitlements’ to ensure that luxury remains intact.”

    Well, about time. Hate to think it would cost some little kid their school lunch. Or impact Meals on Wheels (like Bill Maher said, “Granny, get yer own damn sandwich.”)

    Yeah, I thought the percentage of commenters was small – a fact underlined every time we vote on the simulated ballots.

  • Kind of all over the place, but I like it. Will there be a mobile version?

  • brian

    Sasha — I’d read you and Ryan on any site (except a republican one),
    as I have for years — and yeah, this new one will take a LOT of getting used to,
    it’s a little too…well…busy, but best of luck with it.

  • Lucas Prata

    Sasha, it’s a consensus but the more we say the more you can be sure of it: the link you provided is almost perfect. It just isn’t because nothing is, you know. For me it’s 9/10. Way better than the “messy” one before. (:

  • Lucas Prata

    Oh, I forgot to mention:

    Sasha and Ryan, if it is ever possible, I think I speak for everybody when I ask for the “liking/disliking” button on comments to come back. I helps us reader to know better when we have short time which comments are better to read and which are just crap. :B

    Anyway, if you guys can bring it back, please consider.

Check Also

Viola Davis Officially in Supporting – How that Shifts the Race

Now that Viola Davis, as reported by Greg Ellwood, is campaigning in the supporting catego…