As part of testing the layout and appearance of IPR, I changed the picture that appears at the top (known as the header image). Again, please don’t panic. This is just more of a test.
Please let me know if you have comments. There were some helpful comments on the previous Don’t Panic post, especially from Austin Battenberg. Feel free to post comments here or on that post.
The idea behind the image is that there are certain prominent people within the third party and independent movement who are recognized by a broader audience. So I am trying an image with their faces. If anyone has a suggestion for others who should be included, that’d be a good comment.
As for the text at the top, well that is probably not the best artwork. I took a shot at it.
@Mark Ventura is more of an independent than a third party guy. And we supposedly cover independent candidates. Supposedly.
Thanks for your kind words.
I love the photos on the top. Ron Paul is easily recognized and even though he ran LP 25 yrs ago, his place in the RP was always as an outsider so I would keep him there.
Same for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, et al.
The person who should come off is Ventura. Certainly NOT a Libertarian, more of just a charlatan, and not necessarily a supporter of third parties, just of himself.
Personally, I’d replace him with Chuck Baldwin who did far more to support his third party than most of us could ever do. Also, unlike Ventura, Baldwin actually believes in something besides himself.
But it’s your site Warren, so the decision of who to put up is yours.
Bravo on the nice-looking changes.
@peter: “why put Ron Paul … and leave off the Constitution party”
Because the Constitution Party doesn’t have a recognizable face. Ron Paul is very popular among libertarians, and has been the most effective proponent of libertarian views over the past 30 years or so.
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are the first ones for a reason. They’re the ones people are most likely to recognize.
But with that said, if you have a logo for the Constitution Party that’ll work, I’d like to add it. I didn’t find a good one. The one I found on Wikipedia (which is also on their website, didn’t fit with the header image. It’s flat and hard to read on the background.
minor suggestion, I’d flip the photos of Gary and Ross in Photoshop so they look toward the center of the page (have the photos toward the left side looking toward the right, the ones in the center looking more or less directly ahead (to the degree you can find ones) and the ones toward the right side of the page looking left). Just when I was thinking of authoring new posts again, everything changes. . . I’ll be offline and in the wilderness more or less through October. See you again in November.
Yes, I will get the comment numbers back. It will happen. Might take a few days, but it will happen.
can we get some freakin comment numbers , thats how everybody refers to previous comments……..god damnit why why WHY???????
Ron Paul is actually still a member of the Libertarian Party. He has a Life Membership in the LP which he has never revoked. Also, Ron Paul did quit the Republican Party after getting shafted in the primaries last year. It is true that he has not run for office as a Libertarian Party candidate since 1988 though.
The Constitution Party is still one of the “major” minor parties in this country, so if you are going to include photos or symbols, they ought to be included (although I would urge you to NOT post a picture of Virgil Goode).
small stumbling block – old system had numbered replies – now instead of @12 or @3, I have to say @Jill or @Richard or, heaven forbid, someone else like @Jedidiah, or @Demetrius, or @Iolanthe
I suppose you can’t please all the 3rd parties, but why put Ron Paul (the Republican who once ran as a Libertarian 25 years ago and has since run as a GOPer twice) and leave off the Constitution party – a 3rd party who’ve run presidential candidates since 1992? Don’t get me wrong, I worked/voted for RP, but this is supposed to be a 3rd party/independent site.
@austin:
“Everyone should realize that no matter how much they liked the old one, we aren’t going back.”
Well … this is still a test. We’re certainly not going all the way back but I’m willing to consider going some of the way. For example, I may go back to the old header image and a three-column format is still conceivable.
I definitely want to improve the “recent comments” bit because that is very heavily used (I know I use it).
“because your [sic] doing some advertising on Facebook. IPR got a huge jump in Likes on Facebook”
Yes. Previously I asked our users to Like the Facebook page and/or to otherwise promote it. There was almost zero response. So I’m spending a little bit of money trying to increase Likes for the Facebook page. Compared to other FB advertising I’ve done it’s very reasonable. Cost per like is fairly low.
By the way, we have seen significant growth in traffic from Google (up 40% since December) and Facebook (60%). Direct traffic (which is mostly our regular users) has been declining (down 40%). And that was happening before the changes I just made. Google search is now a bigger source of traffic than direct traffic, which surprised me. Mobile usage is also up (48%) and desktop usage is down (-13%).
I like the faces! Though a party logo image might go over better than individual faces. Perhaps the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Justice Party, Reform Party, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party, & Prohibition Party logos?
That could be the change in the site design, or it could be because your doing some advertising on Facebook. IPR got a huge jump in Likes on Facebook.
Also, I wanted to address something that Jill was saying and you (Warren) responded to. This particular theme uses what is called “responsive design”. Its set up so that way regardless of what device or browser you are using, the website will adjust to fit. That is why when you grab the corner of the browser, and shrink it down to the size of a cell phone, everything automatically jumps around. It is a different then having a “mobile” site and a “desktop” site, because on a responsive design all of the content is available on all devices, it just looks different.
It is a vast improvement from the old site, which was static. On my cell phone I would have to zoom in and out. I know that many people don’t mind this, but it is not mobile optimized.
Now, perhaps the way it is currently laid out on the smaller screen sizes isn’t to Jill’s liking, because she said she wants to access the comments. This is all stuff that can be tinkered with the CSS. But not everyone who visits the site cares about the comments, some just care about the articles. But there are ways to address this so different users can have different experiences. Here is a website I recently designed: http://www.countrylubeexpress.com Notice how the header bar stays static as you scroll up and down. We could do something like that (that if you want will only show on smaller screen resolutions like a cell phone), and would have a link that when pressed will automatically jump down to that part of the page. I have that same exact setup on the Country Lube website, so if you click “Services”, the page will just scroll down the the “services” part of the page, and the links remain at the top, easily accessible without any additional scrolling.
And regarding the faces, that is why I suggest making a better version of what is done on the Facebook page. Instead of showing certain individuals and candidates, we can show official party logos. I did a piss poor job of the one on Facebook, and am quite embarrassed about it now. But I did that using some crappy free online timeline creator, instead of using Photoshop. And again, I still think it should be different at smaller sizes. Right now, the banner shrinks and is VERY small on a cell phone. You can set it up so that way a different image will show on smaller screens, so you can have just “IPR”, instead of “Independent Political Report”. Or if you want the full name, maybe stack it so it says:
Independent
Political Report
Or something to that effect.
Again, a lot of the people who think its ugly should provide some constructive criticism. Everyone should realize that no matter how much they liked the old one, we aren’t going back. So instead of complaining, provide ideas to make what we have better, because I for one believe that there is a lot of room for improvement, and know that after some tinkering, it will look and function better then the old theme.
@jill – I just noticed that recent comments listing is on the bottom of the page. Unfortunately you have to scroll all the way down.
There’s probably a multitouch gesture for that but I’ve never figured that one out. 🙁
@Austin I agree that our site is about much more than presidential elections. That’s one of the things that makes it so special.
But I used the faces on the theory that new users would be more likely to recognize them than the logo. Like it or not, Greens are generally fans of Nader, Stein and McKinney. Ron Paul has many fans in the libertarian community as does Johnson.
Based on the small sample of only one day, new users stayed on the site longer and read more pages. It was big, maybe a 50% increase.
Hmm.
@Jill – there should be a way for mobile users to get the full site. Not sure why that’s not here.
@Matt “it feels quite amateurish”
I am an amateur.
@Saturn – Milnes has been looking for you. He called me to alert me that my employee was missing. I don’t recall paying you.
“the new banner makes it seem as though we are endorsing certain individuals”
Seriously? Come on. You all know I’m not endorsing Gary Johnson. I sprained a muscle trying to stop myself from including him.
“Second, it doesn’t seem to work properly on my smart phone.”
That’s two strikes against the mobile version. I think it’s better for reading posts but not for participating in comments. We will probably have to ditch the mobile theme unless I can figure out how to make it switchable.
Overall, I prefer the look and feel of the site previous to these recent changes. I, like Andy, am not necessarily opposed to a change in format. But, this particular format is not to my liking. Frankly, I think it feels quite amateurish, relative to the old one. Also, the previous banner is essentially the IPR logo. If you’re going to change the banner, I think it would be a good idea to include at least some elements from the old one.
I do not care for the changes to the site, including the new banner. I’m not necessarily opposed to changing he format of the site, I just don’t like the new format.
Looks lame.
The problem with this design is that I can’t access a recent comments column from my Iphone, which is what I like to do when I have some time waiting in line, or something similar, to see what’s going on. Also, I’d like it to be a little easier to see which writer posted the article.
I do like the new look.
The banner can always be changed.
I do not like the changes here.
For one, it’s harder to navigate. Second, it doesn’t seem to work properly on my smart phone. Third, the new banner makes it seem as though we are endorsing certain individuals.
Ugly is the best adjective to describe it.
As I mentioned in the other thread, and Chuck touched upon it as well, I personally don’t like the idea of the faces because while they may be better known then others, it should be less about the individuals. It’s not bad…but in a way it excludes others, including future candidates. Not to mention this site is more then about presidential politics, and all of those people above (except for Jesse Ventura) ran for President. Does Bernie Sanders and Angus King count? How about Chuck Baldwin or Virgil Goode? What about future candidates for office? Or ones running right now like that Libertarian (Sarvis I think) in Virginia?
At least he didn’t put Riley Hood.
I counted wrong. It’s Jill Stein, holder of the record for women presidential candidates in the general election in all U.S. history.
I think it’s Cynthia McKinney.
Are we supposed to recognize the lady in the third from left picture?
I even included Gary Johnson, despite my own distaste for him.