Here’s another shot at a new header image for IPR. This version is sized for a facebook cover and I put it on the IPR Facebook page. Comments appreciated.
Note that the lower left of this image is blank because on Facebook there is another photo that appears over that area. I tried to include a Constitution Party logo but didn’t find one that worked well. If there are other party logos I should add please let me know.
The header for the website (this website) has different proportions (wider and flatter), so it will have to be different. I’m thinking about reducing the height of the faces and maybe adding a couple of logos in with them.
I understand the criticism about the faces and am thinking about going back to the old header image. The face thing is probably more appropriate for the Facebook page than it is for the website. But I’m wondering if a compromise still works.
I like the header okay, William, but Warren is the one you should ask. I don’t know if he’s been reading us and just not commenting, or if he’s just been away for a while. Maybe you can email it to him.
Please take a look at my proposal for an IPR header:
http://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/
Header photo seems fine to me.
Warren,
I thought you might have been functional, but you inconvenienced me with this dysfunctional website. And the reason it works for me now is not because of anything you did, but only because I downloaded a new browser. (To those of you with the same problem, download the Opera browser) Now I have to remember all the comments I wanted to make. Unless you convince me otherwise, I will not support your campaign for president. I am concerned that like Obama’s dysfunctional website, your dysfunctional website will reflect dysfunctional governance.
“And in the summer of Presidential elections replace these photos with the photos of the Presidential nominees of the various parties?”
That makes a lot of sense.
FYI, I’m hopeful (but not necessarily optimistic) that the comment numbers will be back this weekend.
@William Saturn: me thinks too that Stein/McKinney, both representing one party, are their for affirmative action reasons. Diversity of parties is not the standard in the logo, it’s the faces that count.
did someone say “cleavage”? Anyone remember Loretta Nall’s 2006 campaign for Governor of Alabame?
http://nancynall.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/nallforgovernor.jpg
I like the new look. What about replacing Ron Paul (he is a Republican) with Ed Clark. And in the summer of Presidential elections replace these photos with the photos of the Presidential nominees of the various parties? After the election restore these photos unless of course one of the candidates makes history and gets alot of votes.
Thank you Warren for that link. That should suffice for the header, just rotate it 90 degrees.
Oh, sorry. I’ve never been told I’m humor-impaired, but sarcasm is hard to detect on the Internet.
For you men, we can put Natalie Portman’s face, for her role in “V is for Vendetta”
But then, if we do Hollywood, why not just a bunch of pictures of Johnny Depp? He can play just about anyone.
I was kidding about Howard Stern. The NY Libertarians would pile into Mark Axinn’s car, stop at Kings Point in Delray Beach to visit their parents, and then come lynch me.
Maybe we go Hollywood. Miley Cyrus? Kelly Clarkson said some good stuff about Ron Paul at one point. Vince something or other (Vaughn?) was on the Paul train. That Bourne guy seems into politics. Matt Damon, yeah, that’s the one. He could be Green. Didn’t Richard Dreyfus get drunk once and say something libertarian? Maybe Charlton Heston, or Eastwood – he said libertarian stuff too.
Now if we can just work in some cleavage and a twerk pic we’ll be all set. Or if we could just get Julianne Hough to lie down: http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/07/7-8-13a1.jpg
cant say I like this …
PLEASE, NO HOWARD STERN!!! (Note the use of caps for emphasis!)
If you choose to start all over, Warren, did you see Darryl Perry’s from up above? I liked that one. Colorful, simple, and direct.
Or, for those who liked the old banner, how about we use that one, but simply use newer, brighter colors?
Why not use the faces of the bloggers? They actually have something to do with this site.
If certain candidates must be favored, maybe lose “Independent” from the title.
“call off the voodoo curse Id set upon you……….:)”
Phew!
“why Gary Johnson to represent the LP , I love Gary but he is not the face of the LP , perhaps David Nolan or even Harry Browne”
Oy vey! I don’t even like Johnson and I included him.
“It seems to me the only reason McKinney is included”
I agree McKinney is questionable. And if I take her off there’ll be some other complaint.
“if we are stuck with the banner of faces, and if the number of faces must remain at seven”
We aren’t stuck with anything. I can change it any time. And I probably will change it.
However, I’m not terribly motivated to include Goode. If we went to 8, Roseanne Barr would be ahead of Goode. But maybe we should go to 6. 14?
Hmm … maybe I should add Howard Stern. Can you imagine the discussion that would ensue?
I’m going to ride this baby for a week and see how it goes.
Anyone who wants to suggest alternative header images, please e-mail them to me at [email protected]. Should be 960 pixels wide x 250 high, or as close to that as possible.
Personally, I oppose the banner with faces. I’d like to see the old banner restored. More importantly, I oppose identity politics. It seems to me the only reason McKinney is included is because of her race. She did not do exceptionally well as Green Party nominee in 2008. She did only slightly better than David Cobb in 2004 and far worse than Jill Stein in 2012. The arguments that she is recognizable because she served in Congress can be made equally for Virgil Goode. I agree with Peter in that the absence of a Constitution Party candidate shows bias. Currently there are three former Green Party presidential nominees, two Libertarian Party presidential nominees, one Reform Party presidential nominee, and one Reform-Independent governor. The absence of any Constitution Party representative is troubling. For those reasons, I believe, if we are stuck with the banner of faces, and if the number of faces must remain at seven, McKinney’s image should be replaced with an image of Goode for fairness.
but why Gary Johnson to represent the LP , I love Gary but he is not the face of the LP , perhaps David Nolan or even Harry Browne……just sayin
fine Wredlich , Ill try and put my big girl pants on and call off the voodoo curse Id set upon you……….:)
There, now the three most prominent faces are in the middle. We’ll see how that does for a few days. Then maybe I’ll find a good Roseanne Barr pic and see what happens if I put that in the middle.
Lunch time. I’ll be eating asbestos just in case. 🙂
It’s not about Google Image Search. It’s more about Facebook.
“But if that’s the case, why not just include their faces in articles about them?”
Because that would require authors to consistently include photos in the articles they write. And they don’t. I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation and it’s not specific to IPR. I have that problem on other sites. If I make rules like that for our authors then they might write fewer articles. I even screw up occasionally.
“There’s no reason or rhyme to who is included and who is not–Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and Ross Perot included but Roseanne Barr and Virgil Goode not? What? But Cynthia McKinney and Jill Stein get center billing?”
There is reason to who is included and I’ve explained that several times. I am on the fence about Roseanne Barr. This the first complaint I’ve seen about “center billing”.
Maybe I should rearrange them from left to right ideologically and we can argue about whether Ron Paul should be to the right of Ross Perot.
I am thinking about moving Paul and Nader to the center because they are the most recognized faces by far and the center of the header image is what’s appearing on facebook posts. Right now the center faces are Stein, McKinney and Ventura. I think Paul, Nader and … oh crap now I have to figure out who is the third most important face on the row.
Think I’ll go for a walk.
I understand your logic, Warren, faces attract search traffic via Google Image Search often enough. But if that’s the case, why not just include their faces in articles about them? Then you’re able to hit everyone too–Chuck Baldwin, Virgil Goode, and Roseanne Barr included (plus anyone else). Just make it a new guideline for posting–try to find a picture of the celebrity-politician to include, if possible.
I have no particular love for the old theme or banner–we didn’t change them much mostly because it seemed to be working and no one was complaining. But I intensely dislike the new header with all the faces. There’s no reason or rhyme to who is included and who is not–Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and Ross Perot included but Roseanne Barr and Virgil Goode not? What? But Cynthia McKinney and Jill Stein get center billing? Very confusing to say the least.
On top of that, I just don’t like how it looks aesthetically. Too busy and distracting.
“have you searched Chuck Baldwin or Howard Phillips?”
I have now. Baldwin is in Goode’s league. Phillips gets less than half the number of searches either of them get.
“Did you poll that? Talk to anyone? Survey the IPR database?”
I told you where my evidence came from: Google Adwords Keyword Planner, and Wikipedia’s stated number of members.
Where is your evidence?
“A NEUTRAL logo was attractive to all third party activists and independents.”
In my judgment (and yes, it does come down to my judgment), the previous header image (which is what we’re talking about) was not particularly attractive to third party activists or independents. Based on quite a bit of work on the web and on Facebook, faces are more likely to attract people to the site. You and I might both consider the previous header image to have been neutral but others might not think so. Two American flags were prominently featured. Cindy Sheehan said the flag fills her with shame.
And remember, this is still just a test. I will be watching how the site does, primarily relying on Google Analytics. Because I generally try to make my decisions based on reliable evidence.
“Change the name from Independent Political Report to the Warren Redlich Website”
The websites I create about me do not mention the CP at all. They rarely if ever mention the Green Party. They mostly cover myself and my views on things. IPR carries very little of my views and does what it did before – it covers third parties and independent candidates. I think we’re doing pretty well at that, thanks primarily to Jill and Chris of late, and hopefully Paulie will be back soon.
I am trying to chip in more articles myself, relying on Google Alerts to alert me to relevant stories. But I’m not sure if I’ll be able to sustain that.
Peter, if you do a search by party of articles posted since Krysztof has been here, the CP has been way over represented. Sometimes there are as many CP articles as LP articles, the latter of which being a much larger party as far as running candidates and getting votes.
“Green party is far more important in third-party circles than the CP”??? Did you poll that? Talk to anyone? Survey the IPR database? I suppose because you own IPR your judgement call rules over all, but have you searched Chuck Baldwin or Howard Phillips?
After all the push-and-pull over the logo from your loyal readers, are faces THAT important to you?
A NEUTRAL logo was attractive to all third party activists and independents. Now you are ranking them according to your personal standards. Change the name from Independent Political Report to the Warren Redlich Website – that way you won’t have to worry about the little people in the small parties nipping at your heels.
I’m not snubbing the Constitution Party. I just checked Google’s “Adwords Keyword Planner”. Jesse Ventura’s name (74,000/month) is searched three times as much as Virgil Goode’s (22,200).
The phrase “jesse ventura 2012” is searched twice as much as “virgil goode 2012” and Ventura didn’t run for anything in 2012.
Perhaps the weakest other person on the slate is McKinney. Her name is searched for less than Goode. But the Green Party, which I do not support, is far more important in third-party circles than the CP. It’s my judgment that including McKinney will be more of a draw to Greens and others (unhappy Dems who recognize her from her stint in Congress) than Goode is to the much smaller CP membership (Greens have over three times as many members, 250K to 78K (LP 330K)).
Perot is another option to remove. The Reform Party is weaker, at least for the moment, than the CP. But Perot’s name is searched for more than Goode. And in my judgment his face is far more recognizable to the general public than Goode. Perot is similar to Nader. Neither has run for anything in a while but both are well recognized faces. And the point of that row of faces is to have recognizable ones.
Another one we’re leaving out is the Socialist Party (and its variants). There’s a far better argument for Roseanne Barr, whose name gets searched as much as Ventura’s, and who has a a much more recognizable face. If I were going to add one more face it’d be hers.
From Wikipedia: “Goode received 121,452 votes nationwide. This amounted to 0.09% of the vote.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode_presidential_campaign,_2012#Election_Results
Stein got four times as many votes. Goode didn’t even get one-tenth of one percent. He got 0.03% in his home state (13,677 out of over 3.7M votes).
I follow third party news. Even I don’t recognize Goode’s face.
When there’s CP news we cover it. I have it in my Google Alerts. Of course most of the alerts are for India (so I’ve added -india and -indian to my alert).
When the CP runs someone with a recognizable face, or when Goode does more to make his face recognizable, I’ll look at it again.
I really don’t like the idea that you’re snubbing the Constitution Party – you’ve got Ventura who served in office once in 1998, and who MIGHT run as a 3rd party candidate, but not the Constitution Party who’ve run candidates for prez in every election since 1992. Your ideological slip is showing – this really isn’t an INDEPENDENT report, it’s biased. Some candidates and some parties are more equal than others.
I guess you own it and can do whatever you please
Heck, I’m old, and I can handle this. LOL.
Take a deep breath. Walk away from the computer. Come back a little later and try to let go of the past.
It is not that much different from before. Yes, it feels different. I get that. But things change and we have to adapt.
It is now a cleaner interface. It allows larger photos and videos. The site loads quicker. It is mobile friendly.
And we are still working to make it better.
The layout and interface were neglected for years. McAfee labeled the site as a security risk because it was so out of date.
It had to change. It is better than it was and will be a little better still soon.
you seriously like it better? what do you like better about it , maybe im missing something? also who else likes it , i need to write them and tell them how wrong they are…lol
Header image now changed – party logos removed. Yep, that does look less busy.
Thanks for moving the comments section.
FWIW, I generally like the changes. Updating things seems to be appropriate for us at this time.
“Is there a way to easily add more posts under the “recent entries” listing? Five seems to be too few to me.”
Yeah, I was thinking that myself. I’ll do that right now. Thank you. Done.
“The stories on the front page should be teasers not nearly as long as they are now. The Const. Party pix are waaaay too much.”
The Constitution Party story is a quirk that is unlikely to be repeated frequently. This would not happen if our authors wrote more text early in the article. It cuts off by number of characters and I guess it doesn’t count the photos.
I can cut back more, but that might make the excerpts too short.
“PLEASE keep it simple – an attractive banner like Ballot Access News and short summaries of stories before you hit “more.” Essentially, a lot like the old site.”
The current character count is actually fifty less than it was before I bought the site.
“Putting [the more tag] after the first paragraph or so, will reduce the length of the front page”
That would require consistency by our authors, which is not wise to expect. The current design cuts to [read more] after 250 characters. I can make it lower if that’s a consensus.
“The messy collage of pix, patriotic symbols, party logos and SOME 3rd party faces has got to go. If you have Ross Perot, why not George Wallace? Virgil Goode did get a small slice of the pie in 2012, but he surpassed Roseanne Barr and Rocky Anderson combined. Can you justify one photo over the other in every case?”
The logos are going soon. That will make it less busy. Ross Perot is alive and is still remembered by people. Wallace died in 1998. You compare Goode, Barr and Anderson when I don’t have any of their pictures now. Yes I can justify the photos, which are chosen primarily on their public presence – Stein is the most recent GP candidate. McKinney is somewhat well known especially among Greens. Johnson, even though I detest him, is the most recent LP candidate. I left Gray out because I don’t even know what he looks like. Like him or not, Ventura is a well known public figure and representative of the concept of independent candidates not tied to a party. At least over the age of 40. Paul and Nader are icons. There’s some argument for including Barr but I didn’t find a great picture of her and wasn’t that motivated.
“plus the page in general looks lke a colossal waste of space, giant white page with giant spaces in between. yuck , before when you commented , the previous commentors were listed on the top left of the screen and other stories top right, now theyre both on the right and its confusing and not user friendly at all, i repeat again , i effin hate it”
I agree on the white space. That’s something we’ll improve over time but I don’t see it as the top priority. Right now I’m working on getting the link colors right (partially fixed but should be better shortly). And getting the comment numbers up. Also moving the comment date/time to the same line as the Commenter name, and putting the comment number after that (all on one line should improve the vertical space issue). I’d prefer to get the comment number all the way to the right, but that doesn’t look as easy so don’t count on it any time soon.
As for concerns about “user friendly”, the opinions of a few vocal people are not determinative. Others have told me they think it is now much better. I personally like it better. I’m watching to see how people use the site in our “analytics” data. That’s the more reliable measure.
“I would suggest putting the recent comments above the recent articles section, because those of who check frequently are more likely to check that section more often.”
Done. That does fit with my usage as well, and is more important after I upped the recent entries from 5 to 8.
“surely by now you see a consensus: scrap the cluttered logo, keep the article intros short, and cut back on the line spacing/blank space. White space is necessary to balance out a busy page, but it’s way too much now.”
Logo will be updated shortly. The article intros are already short but that one picture-laded post was confusing. Honestly now I think they might be too short. Will wait to hear feedback from everyone on that.
In looking at it now, I don’t think there’s too much white space. I’m not sure we’re using it as well as we could, but there’s not too much.
At some point the ads will return and I’m not sure how they’ll play with the space. Will they fill the empty space that’s there? Or will they push the empty space down? But we’ll see about that down the road.
Thanks again to all of you for your thoughts, and especially for your patience.
Warren
Warren – surely by now you see a consensus: scrap the cluttered logo, keep the article intros short, and cut back on the line spacing/blank space. White space is necessary to balance out a busy page, but it’s way too much now.
Looking forward to a re-design of this experiment gone awry – let’s get back to basics.
I would suggest putting the recent comments above the recent articles section, because those of who check frequently are more likely to check that section more often.
plus the page in general looks lke a colossal waste of space, giant white page with giant spaces in between. yuck , before when you commented , the previous commentors were listed on the top left of the screen and other stories top right, now theyre both on the right and its confusing and not user friendly at all, i repeat again , i effin hate it
was removed again… I give up trying to post the code
the more tag was removed from my last comment – the code is ( minus the spaces)
If the site is still using wordpress, there is a tag called the “more tag” (coded as ). Putting this after the first paragraph or so, will reduce the length of the front page
@ Stewart – 100% on the mark. The stories on the front page should be teasers not nearly as long as they are now. The Const. Party pix are waaaay too much. Takes too long to scroll down and scan the page. PLEASE keep it simple – an attractive banner like Ballot Access News and short summaries of stories before you hit “more.” Essentially, a lot like the old site.
The messy collage of pix, patriotic symbols, party logos and SOME 3rd party faces has got to go. If you have Ross Perot, why not George Wallace? Virgil Goode did get a small slice of the pie in 2012, but he surpassed Roseanne Barr and Rocky Anderson combined. Can you justify one photo over the other in every case? You can’t please all the independents and 3rd party activists who make up your readers – go with a simple design that will show we’re an interesting political site. Period. I think you’re over-thinking a fresh look.
Is there a way to easily add more posts under the “recent entries” listing? Five seems to be too few to me.
There are significant esthetic and subject matter objections to this design. Why pick favorites if the result is a homely jumble?
I’m using Android, and can comment. However, when trying to submit my last comment, I had to click the button twice, as the first click just shot me back up the page.
@Saturn and FFF – see above. I posted on one of my Facebook pages asking Android users to try commenting. No one told me it didn’t work and Mr. Tucker succeeded.
I am using an android.
Update – links you’ve already clicked are now blue and easily distinguished from unclicked links.
Not sure I love the color choice. But it’s progress.
Next up – we gotta get comment numbers back.
Is anyone using Android and not having a problem?
I may have to try an Android simulator.
I agree with the above. Also, I’ll add that FFF is still fuming over this. Like me, he is using an android smart phone, and it won’t allow commenting. In very crude language, he theorized that the changes here were designed to silence him and his movement.
Too many pictures. The banner is too much. Even the old banner was a bit over the top, but you have to have something.
The new format with large photos all over the front page is horrible. Most readers (myself included) probably have no interest in half the stories, so why should we have to wade through all these pictures about topics we have no interest in?
Simplify. Simplify. You could risk losing your audience if you don’t. I understand that the site makes little or no money, but this is a step in the wrong direction IMHO.
“how hard is it to get numbered comments??”
Harder than it should be. Getting the link colors changed is an easier task so I’m working on that first.
Might be time to ditch the party logos. Hmm.
I like Darryl’s suggestion. Bright colors are good.
I actually think we don’t need the party logos. The faces and the IPR banner at the top are enough.
Why have a Constitution Party logo over Cynthia McKinney and Jesse Ventura? That looks stupid.
how hard is it to get numbered comments??
Here’s a fairly simple logo which I believe is sized correctly to also serve as a facebook cover
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qms44xkf3bl4vpn/IPR-3.png
I still say it’s way too busy – you’ve got a flag, the Constitution, the capitol, seven faces (and some need to be added) and party logos. Take a look at Richard Winger’s site – neat, clean, readable in terms of logo and posted articles. Maybe the guy who did his can do something with IPR – right now the IPR logo is trying to be all things for all people.
How about Lincoln? He joined the newly formed Republican Party in 1856 or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections#Presidential
@Jill – I already moved the LP logo so it’s more on Johnson’s face. Ventura has another logo on the other side of him. And as far as policy views, he’s just as libertarian as Johnson, maybe more.
It’s not completely my intent to have the logos fit with the faces. I did put Reform on Perot and Green with Stein and McKinney I guess. There’s no Constitution Party face on here.
Hmm … who’s a famous figure in history unconnected with the two major parties or representative of a third party movement and deeply connected with the Constitution? Jefferson? I’m not that good on history. Anyone have suggestions for a prominent historical figure?
@Jill – I use a 4S, iOS 6. Can you send me a screenshot showing any problems you’re having? For those who don’t know, on an iPhone you can take a screenshot by simultaneously clicking the home button and the top (shut off) button.
@Saturn – Please take a screen shot so I can see whatever problem you’re having. I don’t know how to do screenshots on Android. Varies by device.
Note – Home page is now fixed in that you now get excerpts of articles with a [read more] link. And photos do not appear on the home page view. Chris’ last post – a great one – had a ton of photos.
Next project is changing the color of links. Not there yet but I’ll get it done.
Thanks,
Warren
@Michael – Thanks. I missed that. Fixed now.
The header and new set-up works for me. I do suggest re-adding the useful links to news-sources and parties at right. Thanks.
I sometimes use an Android, and once I click on an article, I cannot write in the comment field and no links work at all. I asked FFF what device he uses, but he hasn’t responded yet.
It works on your Iphone, Warren? I have a 4. I wonder if that’s the problem. I really don’t like the Libertarian logo on Jesse Ventura’s face. I don’t think he identifies as a Libertarian, really more as an Independent. I think his run with the LP is still a made-up thing.
It looks good.
Photos: 3rd from the left is Jill Stein, as successful a Green Presidential candidate as there is. Perhaps replace the Republican with Tonie Nathan or Julie Fox. Perhaps pair Johnson with Gray.
Perhaps the kerning on the right column can be tweaked so that the space between entries is larger than the space within entries.
“because he cannot even run a functional website, Warren Redlich is not a functional candidate.”
As a candidate I won an election in 2007 and as the LP candidate in 2010 I got triple the vote total of my predecessor and double any previous Gov candidate in NY.
But I never claimed to be functional.
As for websites, I’ve generated millions of dollars in revenue through them. Please point me to FFF’s functional website or his history of functional candidacies.
I asked for constructive criticism. Personal attacks are neither constructive nor functional.
@Saturn – What mobile devices are you two using? It’s great on my iPhone.
What problems are you having with mobile version?
Personal attacks are not constructive. But I do appreciate the Obamacare analogy, especially as their website is a disaster.
I received an e-mail today from Functional Fillmore Frugal. He seems angry about the changes implemented here:
“Very upset. Cannot use properly on my mobile device. Appropriate that this is being pushed on us today since this like having Obamacare pushed on us.
This all has led me to conclude that because he cannot even run a functional website, Warren Redlich is not a functional candidate.”
I have to agree with his comment about the mobile device. It doesn’t work for me either.
I like the new logo a lot. Let’s keep it. It’s a lot cooler than the original one.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=469885196378947&set=a.432434806790653.101114.432432060124261&type=3&theater
That picture should stay as the Facebook banner picture IMO, though.
Oh I agree, I like Jill Stein. And it was her inclusion that led me to believe that Virgil Goode & Rocky Anderson should be included as well. They’ve actually held elected office.
As far as Jill Stein being pictured, she is a consistent candidate who is true to what she says, and I think she should definitely be included.
I like the faces with the small bit of the old logo worked in at the top.
I wish I’d mentioned this earlier, but I had a medical procedure earlier today and was distracted. One of the ideas I had was to keep the old header but use new, brighter and bolder colors. I’ve always thought new a new colorway would be a good idea.
Roseanne would be a better face than whoever that lady third from the left is.
Fair enough. I’d argue that Jill Stein & Cynthia McKinney aren’t exactly household names either, though.
@Jed – Interesting try, but I’m not loving it. The picture of Roseanne is not recognizable as her to most people. The goal here is recognizable third party figures. The ones I chose are the ones who are most recognized. The ones you suggest I add, other than Roseanne, are about as well known as me. 🙂
Let’s ride this for a few more days. I’m about 50-50 on going back to the old header image. Having the pictures on the Facebook page is more important than having them on the site.
I’m still undecided about keeping the new header image or switching back. Waiting to hear from more people.
We are working on fixing other issues with the site – particularly getting comment numbers back and changing the link colors so users know whether they’ve clicked on something before or not.
I’m also amazed at how many people are so upset. It’s a work in progress. We’ll make it better. We’ll get there. It doesn’t happen overnight.
I hope people can understand that being on McAfee’s malicious sites list is a bad thing and it’s very important not to be on such a list.
The only way this banner will work is if Robert Milnes’ face is included. Otherwise, I’d support a return to the old banner.
More – I think it would be a good idea to go back to the old header, and stay with that at least until a couple of months after all of the major layout changes have been completed. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but totally changing everything about the look and feel of the site at once doesn’t seem like a great idea to me, and is certainly contrary to conventional business wisdom.
The header, IMHO, is something that isn’t/wasn’t broke, so it don’t need fixin’. Further, since there are real problems with other parts of the site, it seems like time would be better spent addressing those.
Andy, that’s my reasoning though. Roseanne is famous, and she is part of the anti-duopoly movement. She ran for president last year & is trying again in 2016, her run with the Green Party was a topic in her Comedy Central roast, and she frequently discusses her views & ideology on Twitter.
I also included Goode & Anderson because they were former office-holders who ran with minor parties & were invited to a debate that was televised on C-SPAN. Plus I wanted to throw the CP a bone, Goode is the most well-known CP candidate. No, Tancredo doesn’t count, I believe he returned to the GOP.
As for the new banners, I think the current version is looking pretty busy. However, I very much like the incorporation of the old banner. I think it helps casual users recognize the site as IPR.
Correct dimensions, then. 😉
http://i44.tinypic.com/2cwmwxf.jpg
FYI, the facebook cover should be 851 by 315
Header image for the site should be 960×250
Not bad Jed. I’ll think about those.
My attempts.
Faces only: http://i44.tinypic.com/311o2lt.jpg
With party logos (not overly happy with this one) http://i43.tinypic.com/2nte7w6.jpg
Roseanne Barr is famous as an actress, comedienne, and TV personality, but I don’t think that very many people know about her foray into the world of being a candidate for political office.
But I’ll try the one Jed posted.
Hmm … Roseanne Barr …
@Peter – Please find me a good Constitution Party logo in “svg” format (so the background does not cover the image behind it.
I looked.
I think Roseanne Barr is a face that could be added. Like her or not, she’s a recognizable face in the third party movement. Also, this Constitution Party logo should work. http://netnswvaconstitutionparty.com/images/Clogo.jpg
and the Constitution Party – are we chopped liver?
I consider the “third party” and independent movement to be bigger than any one person or group of people who could fit on a banner on this site.
Also, you have a Libertarian Party symbol over Jesse Ventura, even though he has never been a member of the Libertarian Party, yet you do not have the Libertarian Party symbol over Ron Paul, who is a Life Member of the Libertarian Party. Ron Paul has not run as a Libertarian Party candidate since 1988, as all of his runs for office after that were as a Republican, but he did quit the Republican Party after the primaries last year. Ron Paul has a stronger claim on the Libertarian Party label than Jesse Ventura does.
How about just Vermin Supreme?
@Andy: “why bother with pictures of anybody”
Because people identify with faces. It’s a common trait among humans.
Like it or not, to many people these are the most prominent faces of the independent and third party movement.
Hmm … maybe Stefan Molyneux. 🙂
Rumored to be a candidate and being a candidate are not the same thing. Jesse Ventura may be “libertarian enough” to be considered to be a small “l” libertarian, but he has never been a member of the Libertarian Party and should therefore not be associated with the Libertarian Party label. If he joins the Libertarian Party, then by all means associate the label with him, but until then, I would not do this, and I say this as somebody who is a long time Libertarian Party member and as somebody who has a generally positive view of Jesse Ventura.
Also, why bother with pictures of anybody? I fail to see a good reason to put pictures of anybody in the banner.
Ventura is at least rumored to be a candidate for the 2016 LP nomination, has somewhat of a libertarian streak (yes I know he’s not perfect but neither is Johnson) and he is a recognized face.
Still thinking about going back to the old logo. Just trying out this compromise.
Jesse Ventura has never been a member of the Libertarian Party, so why do you have the Libertarian Party symbol over his picture?
not crazy about faces either – where’s Harry Browne? Tom Hoefling? Pat Buchanan? George Wallace? Rocky Anderson? Rosanne Barr? Buddy Roemer? Virgil Goode?
I think party symbols might work, but it’ll be awfully busy with six-eight-10 logos. Keep it simple: polish up the old design
Not a big fan of the faces or logos. Be independent.