You've probably noticed that the blog looks a bit different (or maybe you're one of those RSS goons) and if so I hope that you, like me, find the redesign aesthetically appealing. The change, though, was less about making the "Atlantic Voices" blogs look better than it was about integrating their look with the new redesign of TheAtlantic.com which, I think, now gives the home page a stunning-yet-useful quality worthy of the magazine. The home page now integrates content from the latest issue of the magazine, from the past 150 years worth of archives, and various different sorts of Web-only content, making it the sort of constantly-changing, internet-speed site that's worth checking frequently, even as the magazine itself continues at its more dignified pace.
« Get This Man a Styleguide | Main | Now He Tells Us! »
The New Look
15 Aug 2007 08:41 am
Comments (35)
It sickens me.
I miss the tabs under the title where I could go to Fallows and Sullivan after I was done with you.
It's fine, though I notice they took out the links to your fellow Atlantic bloggers, which is somewhat irritating. Yeah, I know, one need only visit the main Atlantic site (which is presumably their strategy) or set bookmarks, but one extra step (or one extra second) seems like drudgery on the internets. But yes, aesthetically, things are better.
I see James in LA explained far more succinctly what I just said. Sigh.
Well, apparently it helps to read down past the top post, but, as I said, definite downgrade.
Looks good--a bit like your pre-Atlantic site, actually.
This new design seamlessly integrates synergies in an environment of synergistic innovationary global communications that puts customers first by leveraging core competencies and transforming challenges into opportunities in a fully integrated synergistic flazzle blug cormormormal a;lskdjfas
The tabs live! Just scroll over "Voices" and magic happens.
The tabs live! Just scroll over "Voices" and magic happens.
Except that "Voices" isn't on the main Yglesias page, it only appears on the comments page (like this one). Which seems odd.
Wait, sometimes "Voices" is on the main Yglesias page. Maybe that's just my computer acting strange.
Anyway, the design is fine. My only comment is that you didn't change the URL - you've had this URL for, what, like 3 or 4 months now? Isn't it time for a change?
"The tabs live! Just scroll over "Voices" and magic happens."
I run Yglesias sans JavaScript, which means I'll miss the magic and the visual reminders to visit Fallows and Douthat. (I've got Ambinder on RSS and visit him from there, so his hit count won't suffer.)
-----
"My only comment is that you didn't change the URL - you've had this URL for, what, like 3 or 4 months now? Isn't it time for a change?"
I've got no problem with the URL remaining the same, but I'm troubled that he hasn't destroyed any more of his archives since the move to The Atlantic.
1. I have to first move my mouse over voices to figure out where the link actually is? Bad, bad, bad.
2. Megan McArdle? Because the Economist wasn't enough crap for us when she blogged from afar?
3. Where's the famous Index? That's the best part of the magazine anyway.
4. I have to hand it to James Fallows, above all else that makes him a national treasure, he's got loyalty!
The blogger stable here has a rather starboard list, doesn't it? Sullivan, Douthat, Ambinder, and now McArdle? Any help in sight to short up the left flank, MY (not that you aren't doing a fine job)?
I clicked on the front page to find out that Megan McCardle is joining. McCardle is the Glenn Reynolds of The Atlantic set. Ugh.
Where is "Voices" on this page? Gawddammit.
who are you calling a goon? but i do like the new look.
You like the new layout, Matt? You really have sold out. Only a Beltway insider could like this color scheme.
God. Megan Mcardle. Now she can bring her utterly vacuous "contrarian" libertarianism to a whole new audience. "It's not that hard living in poverty! Really!"
Now I feel like I'm on the National Review. This is not a good development.
Thank goodness I read via RSS.
Well, MY is a liberal, McArdle's a libertarian, Douthat's a conservative, Sullivan's a tough-to-pigeonhole center-right type, Fallows is the same but in a center-left way, and I have no idea what Ambinder's politics are.
But seriously, who cares? I'd rather read good writers than only people I agree with, or writers who meet some proper ratio of left, right and other. And all of those people are good writers. Except Ambinder, but I guess people read him for different reasons.
And still, the broken blogroll survives.
I get it now. It's a mark of bloggy status the longer it remains unfixed.
McArdle's a libertarian
No she's not. Not by any rational definition of "libertarian." And Sullivan's not "tough-to-pigeonhole" so much as a flighty conservative free rider on Blue state values; I suppose the two descriptions might be equivalent.
It's the Atlantic's site, they should hire who they want, and no one is being forced to read some other blog on the site. (Yet.) If you don't want to see McArdle's work, don't read her. And I think the Atlantic has always been a right-of-center magazine, no?
It's the Atlantic's site, they should hire who they want, and no one is being forced to read some other blog on the site. (Yet.) If you don't want to see McArdle's work, don't read her.
I, for one, certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise. I just found the right-heavy stable surprising, but if it's true that the Atlantic considers itself a center-right mag (I didn't know that), then it's not so surprising after all.
And still, the broken blogroll survives.
Fuck Lindsay Beyerstein!!!!
Thanks for keeping full posts on the rss feed.
I hate the one sentence.... read more rss feeds.
If you don't want to see McArdle's work, don't read her.
If you don't want to watch FOX News, don't watch it. Right?
Well, MY is a liberal, McArdle's a libertarian, Douthat's a conservative, Sullivan's a tough-to-pigeonhole center-right type, Fallows is the same but in a center-left way, and I have no idea what Ambinder's politics are.
You're missing the nuance. MY is a liberal who hates Bush, McArdle's a libertarian who hates Bush, Douthat's a conservative who hates Bush, Sullivan's a tough-to-pigeonhole center-right type who hates Bush, Fallows is the same but in a center-left way who hates Bush, and I have no idea what Ambinder's politics are but judging by the others we can be pretty clear of one thing...
"You're missing the nuance. MY is a liberal who hates Bush, McArdle's a libertarian who hates Bush, Douthat's a conservative who hates Bush, Sullivan's a tough-to-pigeonhole center-right type who hates Bush, Fallows is the same but in a center-left way who hates Bush, and I have no idea what Ambinder's politics are but judging by the others we can be pretty clear of one thing..."
This is what happens when you have a WH that has pie-in-the-sky aspirations to someday have 40% approval and a pony. Bush lost everyone with intellectual honesty long ago.
Ambinder's a solid Republican by the way. He's best ideologically analogized to Mark Halperin. Great blog. He may be the best single political resource outside of The Politico.
No, given that at least 1/3 of the country still supports Bush, but none of the Atlantic bloggers do, we can simply say that the Atlantic bloggers don't include anyone who is on the right 1/3 of the political spectrum.
Equating the right 1/3 of the population with people who support Bush is bogus and you know it.
McArdle's a libertarian who hates Bush
That's relatively recent, then. She pulled the trigger for him in '04, in part on the grounds that he was better on civil liberties. So again, not so libertarian. Schmib, though.
Equating the right 1/3 of the population with people who support Bush is bogus and you know it.
Well, I thought it a pretty good generalization. Where, after all, do you think these Bush supporters are on the political spectrum? The left 1/3? My completely out-of-my-ass guess is that 85% of the current Bush supporters fall into the right 1/3 of the spectrum.
Have we established that there are writers from that stubborn third who would are intellectually serious and worth reading?
Hey, Matt, please pass on my complaint that Megan McCardle is scarily empty. Her latest bloviation about health care (we're like maybe better than Colombia, so what's your problem, you uninsured people??) is so bad, so empty, it scared me to think that part of my subscription $ is going to her.
I realize that they feel like they need 3 right wing bloggers to balance you out. But you'd think they'd find someone who actually spent a few moments and assembled some evidence to support her position.
Then again, that assumes a position that there's evidence to support.
But really, why on earth does the Atlantic pay for a blogger who doesn't do the work and doesn't seem to have any insights beyond what's fed to her? We already have Douthat for uninformed opinionating.
Comments closed August 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The site is now all sweetness and light.
Posted by Matt Arnold | August 15, 2007 8:47 AM