As you may have noticed already, we’ve made some layout changes to the way the homepage now works on the site. By default (the key word there being “default”), it now no longer lists out the full text of all articles, instead providing a short extract followed by a click through to read the full article.
We thought long and hard about whether to make this change, as traditionally we’ve always outputted the full article. There’s a couple of reasons why ultimately we decided to make the change though, which I thought it was probably important to share.
Firstly, we’ve actually had a lot of requests for it. In part this seems to be because more and more people are reading LR on mobile devices. That’s great, and indeed we actually designed the site to be responsive and work well on those environments. One problem with the original layout, though, was that with all the text and images on there, the homepage could rack up a huge file-size, making it very slow to load on some devices. This was also proving a problem for people on older machines or slower connections.
Secondly, whilst we like writing (and reading) long form articles about lots of diverse topics, we accept that not everyone shares the same desire to spend their time reading 2000 word pieces on the state of London’s Freight network, or on early twentieth century bus trials! Hopefully, this layout will make it easier for those people who want to be a bit more targeted in their reading to enjoy LR without having to physically abuse their mouse wheel.
Now obviously we didn’t want to do away with the traditional layout completely (not least because its the one I still use), so you’ll now find that just as much as the site has an “Invert” option at the top of the page (which about 30% of you use, by the way) it now has a “Toggle Full Posts” option as well.
So, if like me you prefer the traditional layout, then just hit that and your browser should remember to show full posts on the homepage instead, just as it used to. Simples (in theory at least).
Suggestions and Changes
Do let us know what you think about this change in the comments – especially if you find its not working quite right for you in your browser or on your device of choice. That way we can fix it.
Similarly, if you’ve any other suggestions (or questions) feel free to post them in the comments as well. We love writing LR, and we hope you enjoy reading it – and the more we can make it a pleasant reading experience for you the better!
All the best and thanks, as always, for reading and commenting.
John Bull
Thanks for all the work you put in to writing and producing NR, it’s an interesting and informative read.
The one thing that’s missing in my opinion is a a way to track comments on an article by email, whether you have commented yourself or not.
I read John Bull’s tweet and feared the worst, not having seen the new site for myself yet. Imagine my relief when I found out the only change you’d made was to turn WordPress’s article jump feature on!
Seriously, I’ve seen many well-designed, usable sites go completely down the khazi thanks to corporate meddling and a desire to be fashionable rather than sensible (looking at you, BBC), so thank you for listening to your users, keeping it simple, and concentrating on substance rather than style.
Not sure if this is the right way to report this but the “Who we are” page does not display correctly in Firefox 10.0.2 or IE9.
The problem seems to be
{div>[bull_avatar]{/div>
{h2>John Bull{/h2>
replace { with <
Well spotted Roger – cheers.
@swirlythingy – I’ve seen content and feature saturation, and design for design’s sake, kill far too many sites, so yes we tend to take a considered approach to changes here. T’is about keeping the design good and distinctive whilst ultimately being focused on usability. Pick would be proud, we hope.
That said, I’m trying to make sure we do use new techniques that are genuinely useful. This site has been responsively designed from the start, for example, and you should find that the new homepage layout continues that ideal. It subtly drops the thumbnail images (where present) completely once the screen width is narrow enough for them to be more of a hindrance than a blessing, for example.
Nice change. Keep up the good work!
One of the best designed out there, since it is simple to read and find all the recent articles that I have not yet read (as well as all the comments that the readers make which contribute so much to the discussion). The new format makes it even easier and more user-friendly.
I usually read LR in Firefox 10.0.2 on my laptop and the site does load quicker. That said, the changes will probably effect me little as since I discovered LR a couple of years ago, I’ve never met a post I didn’t like. (y)
What I have noticed is that several months ago you stopped being a site about upgrades, news, offical proposals, and the like, and started being a historical review / rant site
It probably doesn’t get said often enough, but thanks for all the team’s hard work keeping us informed of events in the big smoke
Anonymous at 8:48 uses the possibly-abrasive word “rant”. I would have preferred to see something like “advocacy”, but if the comment can be read as suggesting that you don’t just quote the “news, official proposals and the like”, but also give some intelligent and informed reaction to them, then I would concur, and applaud you for doing so.
Unlike Anonymous, however, I reckon that, judging by what I have read in the archives, this interpretation (“proper journalism”) is not new to the site. All power to your elbows, whatever.
I invert and I’ll extract. Thanks for the change.
I agree with Pickle, you guys (gals?) do a wonderful job. I’m partial to the Underground/Transit articles but I read the others. I probably get 30% out of them but I used to get 20% out of them
Pete
Yep, all fine – though I would have thought that the best option for people to read on the phone would be through an RSS reader? And on that note, PLEASE don’t ever change the settings for RSS to only include the first paragraph, and require you to click through to the main page to read the full article….
“What I have noticed is that several months ago you stopped being a site about upgrades, news, offical proposals, and the like, and started being a historical review / rant site”
I half-support this view as a former London Connections reader. That was a great site about the various transport projects in the city and was a useful way of keeping up on things that would affect me. This site seems more aimed at bus and trains enthusiasts, being more focussed on historical and opinion topics.
Where I half-disagree is in calling this a rant site, as it has nothing on its predecessor in that regard, and the opinion pieces tend to be considered. It is just a shame having to keep glossing over such things to see if there is any actual news of any relevance in them.
There is obviously an interest shared by both writers and readers in this site, so I do not begrudge its existence, but oh for a return of a something like London Connections or Always Touch Out for those of us who are just public transport users.
@Anonymouses 1 and 2: I don’t recognise the balance of news versus comment that you describe. If there is indeed less about upgrade projects and new building works here than on London Connections a few years ago, that may very well have something to do with the fact that Boris cancelled virtually everything, and the amount of London-related transport news has slowed from a torrent to a trickle. Right now, the only building projects of any interest are Crossrail, which is covered frequently and in some depth, and the very last phase of the Overground, which receives a semi-regular pictorial feature. The latter is due to open this year, and is not planned to be followed by anything else.
The other project which seemed poised to get off the ground, the Battersea Northern line extension, which also received substantial coverage, is now all but vanished due to external circumstances. The only remaining extension to the DLR (a formerly reliable source of news) in the pipeline became fully functional last year. Even the new train order for the Piccadilly has been cancelled.
There are less significant upgrade projects such as the Thameslink programme, the roll-out of the S Stock and Victoria station, and there is of course that sodding cable car, but London’s transport scene as a whole has not been this quiet in a decade. The massive expansions to the DLR and the Overground are over or almost over, there is nothing immediately likely to happen to the Underground, the most that the franchised train network saw was the opening of Mitcham Eastfields, the road network is in much the same shape as it ever was, Tramlink is completely stagnant and has only delivered a few meagre unfunded proposals, and you have to go out to “London Southend” to see something happening at an airport.
Not surprisingly, therefore, the site has widened its remit somewhat for the sake of still having something to write about. Hence the articles about freight on the Overground, trams in Chemnitz, and tube trains in the 1970s. As ever, there are things left uncovered (I’d like to see something on the soon-to-reopen Epping Ongar Railway, for example, even though it’s stretching the definition of ‘London’), but reports of journalism’s death have been grossly exaggerated.
“Not surprisingly, therefore, the site has widened its remit somewhat for the sake of still having something to write about.”
That is the first time I have ever seen writing about anything just for the sake of it given as a positive. I am also sure it is not true. John Bull and the others write about what they do because it is what is of interest to them and that they wish to engage others in. As they are perfectly right to do. Not because they have some compelling need to write about something, anything.
And while I accept that there may be less to report at the moment, I disagree with putting the blame on Boris. It is not as though we used to get regular updates on Ken’s unfunded Sutton and Streatham Tramlink extensions, or Oxford Street and West London tram proposals. Even the Cross River tram was rarely mentioned outside the updates from TfL Board Papers.
London Connections is, at last check, still online so it is easy to compare the style of the two sites and it is easy to tell there is a vast difference. I am not asking that this site change, I have no right to do so, but that does not mean I cannot regret the loss of anyone providing such a service.
Anonymous 2
Look, regardless of what boris has or hasn’t done, in the last couple of weeks, Blackfriars station reopened, complete with jazzy entrance.
Farringdon had a massive makeover that virtually completed recently.
Green Park was redone recently, new entrance, new access.
Of this you mention none.
Yet you’re quite happy to rant on about freight options, or what it was like in the 1980s.
That isn’t what people came to London Connections for, they came for news. They came to see what was going on.
Not some sort of opinion magazine with history articles.
And another thing, hiding comments you don’t like really isn’t how London Connections behaved.
Its dishonest. Its sycophantic.
I found this the other day: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/londoneuston/
Why didn’t you?
London Connections would have found it yonks ago.
Correction : http://www.kxrlg.org.uk/images/eustonHS2.gif
Just to nip one thing in the bud: We do not hide comments. Think about it – what would be the point?
We run automated anti-spam (akismet) which catches about 100 spam comments a day and is generally pretty good. It’s quite handy actually – I have to do far less manual moderation than we used to.
Anyway, with that out of the way, I’ll say that I actually agree with a number of the points raised here – this is a very useful discussion.
We’re not LC, just as much as I’m not Mr Thant – we see each other time to time as we’re both members of another website and, trust me, we’re very different people! That goes for knowledge base as well – he’ll beat me on general network knowledge every time, for example, but I’ve probably got him pipped on rail politics and strategy.
Those differences naturally have an impact on what we write – as does which members of the LR team are available to write at all. I’ve always felt (and think I’ve said this before) that for us to try and “fake” the tone or knowledge of the original site would have been intellectually dishonest.
One thing worth remembering as well is that all of us have “real” jobs and time commitments, and for that reason alone we’ll never be completionists with regards to news – sometimes, unfortunately, bringing home the bacon has to take priority! George, for example, has an excellent 100 photo set of the DLR extension that’s tet to see the light of day because we’ve yet to have time to upload them all and prep it. This is particularly true if we feel that something has been covered well elsewhere (either in the mainstream or on one of the other excellent London blogs – I tend to assume most LR readers also read Ianvisits, Londonist and Annie Mole, for example).
I’ve always been massively against us engaging in churnalism on here as well – i.e. knocking out stories that are largely just rewritten press releases. If I wanted to do that I’d go write for the Daily Mail!
So whilst I agree with Swirly that there HAS been less in the way of showpiece things to cover, you are also right that the WAY we cover things is very different to LC – and indeed even to early LR.
Whilst i still watch and read it we rarely write up MQT any more, for example – mainly because it used to take me seven tedious hours to prep/format and as you find yourself writing up the umpteenth question about some random traffic light in Cheshunt you start to wonder whether anyone actually cares!
But this why feedback like this is good – because whilst we’ll never be an LC clone it does sound like there’s interest in us lowering the bar slightly in terms of what we write up – something that tweaking the homepage layout makes it easier for us to do. Maybe we should start reprinting key press releases that may be of interest “as is” for example. Or doing single-photo pieces a bit more often even if we don’t have time to provide much context.
If people want me to start writing up MQT again though then frankly you you’re ALL going to owe me pints. Because its bloody boring!
Anyway, good discussion so far – keep it coming. Meanwhile I’m off to Westbourne Park to try and get some nice photos of the Crossrail TBM in situ.
It’s your site JB, you write what you want to. If nobody liked it, nobody would read it, and I hardly think this is the case. Why people read sites they don’t like and then whinge about them is beyond me. Anybody wants to start an LC clone, feel free.
@ swirlythingy
Mustn’t forget recent progress on the Croxley Link, which was covered extensively by JB et al., despite its location outside the Greater London boundary.
I am inclined to put their unwillingness to comment (thus far) on the, er, proposals for a ‘dedicated high-speed rail route from Heathrow to Gatwick following the line of the M25′ to the fact that they (presumably) shouted something akin to “They must be joking!” when ‘Heathwick’ first surfaced as a counterblast to the third-runway-by-stealth/Boris Islanders a few months ago. That said, even a short piece pointing out the difficulties facing a quasi-orbital, (air-?) passenger-only (?) rail line on a wholly new alignment — and thereby exposing the shameful opportunism of its ‘supporters’ — would not have come amiss. And it would have given us all an opportunity to add comments like ‘Why don’t they spend one tenth of that eliminating the level crossings in Egham/Wokingham instead?’ or ‘Could they tack on a Redhill E-W flyover while they’re at it?’ into the bargain.
On the whole, the balance between current plans/proposals and historical stuff (like the articles on station design) is about right. Personally, I can’t get going without my daily fix of LR.
Personally, I find this site very interesting, even if the coverage over buses and histories of don’t particularly interest me. But then the new changes mean that I can skip over these parts nice and easily, so all good there.
While I’m not a long term reader and wasn’t a reader of LC, I find LR highly interesting 95% of the time. Granted, personally I’d like to see some coverage of other projects even if featured in normal press as this site has a nice tendency to highlight deeper aspects of projects that the normal press just don’t pick up on. As Anonymous at 08:05 said, some coverage over the new Blackfriars station or Farringdon might of been nice.
However, I do appreciate we all have other lives to lead rather then spending hours over LR writings.
I’m always interested in progress reports and piccies, and particularly what the inside gossip is on possible new projects.
I was surprised, for example, that nothing was made of the Autumn spending review, which was surely an exiciting loosening of the purse strings for transport lovers (maybe too political?)
JB, I miss your write ups of MQT, but they were exceptionally long. It was quite an ordeal just to read them! If you felt able to give a few paragraphs worth of highlights, that would interest me greatly.
I like the historical articles: who can forget the Harrow and Wealdstone piece last year, which should have won an award, so beautifully was it told.
The analytical articles are great primers, but do tend to trail off a bit at the end leaving me waiting for the next part, the one with the definite solutions!
Many thanks for all your efforts. They are much appreciated.
“This is particularly true if we feel that something has been covered well elsewhere (either in the mainstream or on one of the other excellent London blogs – I tend to assume most LR readers also read Ianvisits, Londonist and Annie Mole, for example).”
I do not read those sites. Two are far more general that transport news, one I particularly dislike, and for those of us who are not enthusiasts the interest in reading so many sites only goes so far. Hence missing something offering a comprehensive and straightforward approach.
When there is a relevant story that someone else has covered sufficiently you could just make a one-line headline post linking to the other site. Sorry to keep comparing to London Connections, but another difference is that on there post lengths varied as the story dictated, they did not have to all be long thought-out pieces.
Anonymous 2
I do not read those sites. Two are far more general that transport news, one I particularly dislike, and for those of us who are not enthusiasts the interest in reading so many sites only goes so far. Hence missing something offering a comprehensive and straightforward approach.
When there is a relevant story that someone else has covered sufficiently you could just make a one-line headline post linking to the other site.
A fair point and a good idea, that.
I’m addicted. I think the quality is superb. I enjoy the varying styles of the writers and the range of scope of the writing. I accept that there isn’t coverage of all that I would like to hear about. I recently wandered around the new Faringdon and exited Blackfriars by the south bank not long ago, hoping that something would turn up on LR to add some insight (and give me a chance to comment!). But LR to me is worth just as much as some railway mags I could mention (or more likely moan about!)
Fandroid
Your wish is our command – Blackfriars is in the pipe but the first stop will be London Bridge.
I don’t take issue with the site description proffered by Anonymous @ 8.48pm ( a rant and history lesson ! ) but its a fascinating read none the less. Congratulations to the team for keeping the spirit of the old LC site alive. Mr Thant had detailed technical (and presumably inside) information to impart – the current contributors have different strengths.
I see no point in maintaining a site that merely replicates the announcements that TfL deem to make. Still the obvious response is if a reader has something different to offer – then get writing !
Personally I found the articles on the Harrow & Wealdstone disaster and the New Johnson typeface ( for example ) to be an ideal example of all that’s best about this site.
I would second Anon 2′s comments about a lot of newsworthy things which have not been reported on here. You won’t be “knocking out stories that are largely just rewritten press releases” because you will have an enthusiast’s take on them. The TfL news section rarely gives any useful information. Perhaps it may take time for someone to go and take photos, upload and format a post, but I’m certainly happy to wait a couple of months after something new has happened for a post to appear.
Look, this site is “London Reconnections”.
Its not called that because its about about opinion pieces, bus stock, or random history articles. Its called that because it was set up to take the place of London Connections.
If you can’t do that, change the name. If you object to the idea of it being a clone, what the fuck did you think it should be with a name like that?
To Anonymous @ 9.44pm.
Look, if you don’t like the site either start your own or contribute some of your own time to write the kind of articles you want to see. Don’t go round telling people who give up their own time to write about what interests them what they can’t and can’t do. Who are you, some kind of dictator?
@Anonymous – fair enough!
You are, of course, absolutely entitled to your opinion. This is just one of those things on which I suspect we’re always likely to disagree! Hopefully you’ll find something of interest going forward, but completely understand that what (and indeed how) we write may not be to your taste.
I’m conscious that it’d be easy for this comment thread to get heated now, and obviously that’s something we’d rather avoid. So as its largely served its main purpose – to make sure no one experienced problems with the tweaked layout – I’m going to close it down.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback, both positive and critical- its genuinely given us some good food for thought. If anyone has any further feedback they’d like to add please feel free to email me directly.