New or Old Mgoblog

Submitted by chad on June 13th, 2018 at 11:28 AM

I prefer the old Mgoblog website. Not as much clutter and probably because im getting old just what I'm used to and less change the better. 


Curious how others think?

Old or new?



June 13th, 2018 at 11:42 AM ^

Old - 

at least old had reasons to look amatuerish, be buggy, break on ocassion, not have all functionality. 

Now - It looks an old beat up car that was just detailed, sure there are shiny spots but its hard to ignore the rusted through door.  Also, the bugs and having less features is odd.

In the future I get this platform allows for the mgoblog staff to do more, but will we ever see those improvements?  If yes then definitely new; but I remain skeptical


June 13th, 2018 at 11:43 AM ^

Speaking as an IT professional, the upgrade had to happen and now it's done.  The djinni is out of the bottle and it isn't going back in.  I think we need to let go of this stuff.

I don't recall seeing any mention of a specific place to officially log enhancement requests, but if they post something like that, we should use it and I'm sure in that forum they'd be happy to hear what people do and don't like about the new and old sites.  Otherwise, I think we're beating a dead horse.  Insert gif below.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^

Work in user experience and design full time. 

  1. This is a worse site experience for commenting and interacting.
  2. This is a better experience for consuming article content from the staff.

Based on this, I would imagine that Brian & Co. are giving extra weight to (the probable majority/plurality) who come to MGoBlog and just read.

That said, I'd be shocked if this doesn't damage board interactivity and commenting. Which could also damage "read-only" viewership if a significant portion of the reading was on community posts/comments/the board instead of just articles.

Either way, over time people will get used to it and the effect will probably become less extreme. 


June 13th, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^

Way too early to tell. We haven't had much time to get used to it yet, and they haven't finished refining it. And we've been spending most of the last week staring at our own belly buttons, because there isn't much to think or worry about except the site design. 

I want to see how it works in football season. Will the smaller tab for the board on the FB be inconvenient with all the new posts? Or will the improved Mgoboard page be a natural draw that I find easy to navigate and page through? How will embedding work in its final form? How will UFRs look? etc.

I like the design fine. I might appreciate a couple of adjustments, but I also just need time to get used to it. 

Making a call like this is waaaay premature. Whether you're currently unhappy or through the roof, it's too early to know.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^

For me it is old.  I find the new version very difficult to follow.  Seems very cluttered.  Also don't like not having an app.

I know we're only a couple of weeks in, but I have found that my frequency of checking mgoblog has evolved from "OMG IT HAS BEEN 5 MINUTES SINCE LAST CHECK I BETTER HURRY UP AND CHECK" to "wait, did I remember to look at mgoblog today?"


June 13th, 2018 at 12:13 PM ^

My take as well. I used to check it at least a half-dozen times a day. Since the switch, I know there have been days when I haven't checked at all.

I never understood what was so wrong with the previous version, and why so many were clammering for an MGoBlog 2.0. To be honest, this is probably due to my low level of technical understanding. I'm sure that there are valid reasons for the change, and they are simply beyond my scope.

Maybe it is better. Or maybe it's just different. Maybe the change is an improvement, or maybe it's the blog equivalent of New Coke. Maybe people will prefer it, or maybe they won't.

That's a lot of "maybes." But I liked the old one, and read it and participated in the discussions much more often. There was no "maybe" in that.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:45 AM ^

One thing I did prefer about the old site was that in the Forum/Thread screen it would show on the left side who created the thread and on the right side who had the latest comment.

Now I can't avoid threads from users that I'd just simply not bother reading!

KC Wolve

June 13th, 2018 at 12:19 PM ^

This times a million. Outside of no app, this is my biggest complaint. I just can’t even understand the thought of not including the name of the person that started the thread. It makes no sense at all. The only thing I came up with is that they removed it to increase clicks. Otherwise, there is no logical explanation. 


June 13th, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^

Some people are color-blind.  I'm graphics-blind. I look for words on the screen and don't readily "see" pictures in front of me.  I'm terrible at comprehending cartoons, for instance.  So the change of graphic scenery is a non-issue for me.


I too will wait for the kinks to get worked out -- one that I know of is the Depth Chart by Class that's currently available is an older version, from last year.

Hemlock Philosopher

June 13th, 2018 at 11:49 AM ^

The old layout was much better, IMO. It was much more compact - requiring less scrolling. I also liked the blue background. 

For functionality, I liked seeing the voting for posts (upvotes and downvotes) versus the total as seen now. 


June 13th, 2018 at 12:04 PM ^

Actually that raises a very good point.  For those posters who were active back during the first transition how was that received?  Did the move from 1.0 to 2.0 cause the same negative feedback initially or did people like it?  If the feedback was like it is now I get why Brian/Seth and the team would want to just ride out the storm until we get used to things.

But damn I am hard pressed to find ONE thing I like better about this version.  I mean not even one thing I think is superior and usually in conversions as big as this one here are several you can point to right off the bat, even if the site itself has issues.

My other question is "who were the beta testers?"  I would like to know if they gave positive feedback to the changes or what exactly did they see.

Surveillance Doe

June 13th, 2018 at 12:41 PM ^

I personally do not recall that last transition feeling like such a backward step. I think there was the initial "this isn't comfortable" period that you would expect, but this transition feels as though a whole lot of popular functionality has been stripped from the site and the experience in general.

I don't know if I'm the typical user of the site, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the beta testers do not interact with MGoBlog in the same way that I do. As others have noted, my visits to the site have already decreased significantly because of the reduced functionality and accessibility, and I wouldn't be surprised if user-generated content and discussions constrict as others who interact with the site in a similar way do the same.

I used to refresh the board on my phone (using the limited but perfectly functional Android app) probably 20-30 times a day and refresh the browser an embarrassingly high number of times on my work computer throughout the day. Now, I try to check in from time to time when I'm at a computer, and I'm already kind of over trying to navigate the site on mobile.


June 13th, 2018 at 12:45 PM ^

From 1.0 to 2.0 was what, a decade ago? Hard to remember. The MGoCommunity was different then, so the response was different too. There was a certain nostalgia for the Haloscan comment format, but the change from 1.0 to 2.0 also meant the creation of the message board, which was such an obvious increase in functionality that the change was quickly received as a good thing.

Which actually nicely encapsulates some of the tension around the 2.0 to 3.0 upgrade -- the functionality on the back end is (reportedly) dramatically improved, but I'm not aware of any substantial increase in functionality on the front end (i.e. for the users). Put another way, this upgrade isn't really for us.

Analogy: MGoBlog 1.0 to 2.0 was MS-DOS to Windows. It fundamentally changed what you could do, and how you interacted with the system. 2.0 to 3.0 is like WinXP to Windows 10. The back end is way more functional, the layout & appearance is different (some would say worse), and if you're the kind of person who's just now moving on from Windows XP, then you're arguably way behind the times. But if all you're going to do is use Word and Excel or surf the web (i.e. most people), then there's also little if any obvious benefit to you the user for upgrading.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:50 AM ^

Old easily.  Finding the quickly looking at the message board was far easier in my phone with the old.  I need four clicks and  multiple pages to load to get to it on mobile now.  Plus I felt the old was much cleaner design.  I never understood why people complained about the old one.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^

New. Everyone likes the old because they're used to it, but it was an incredible eye sore and whenever non-users saw the site they complained about its outdated look. There were also so many issues with it (non functioning search engine, inability to view old board posts easily, the view hot board posts tab never working, non collapse-able comment section, the site constantly crashing or working slowly, terrible mobile interface, etc.)

There are definitely still problems with the new site (no app, login issues, etc.) but the login stuff seems to be working (for me now at least) and more changes/fixes are coming. It's hard to judge completely until we see all the fixes and see what problems persist, but I feel like most complaints are just about change. Just like everyone always complains about change (see every Facebook design update where people complain about how bad it is until the next one where people complain about how bad the new update is because the previous update was perfect). Give it a few weeks/months for kinks to be worked out and I think this site is a lot better than the previous one.

The Granddaddy

June 13th, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^

Old. It at least worked with voting and sign-in and posting and stuff. 

Don't see why a new one would be released if it didn't yet function as good as the one that was being replaced -- point is to upgrade and improve, not just have non-functioning freshness.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^

I think they are pretty similar, but I prefer the new one. I'm actually kind of disappointed that they stayed on Drupal for the new, though, which makes all of this effort basically just for a reskin. A few bugs have been fixed, a few got copied over, but the site is basically what it was with seemingly no thought to improving the layout of the site.I guess when they said they hired an outside firm to help them, I got my hopes up for something that would make this place look a little more like a professional blog rather than a side project.


June 13th, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^

Any negative criticism of the new site users will be dinged infinite mgopoints .... never understood why people even care about it? 


June 13th, 2018 at 12:00 PM ^

There are definitely bugs to be worked out with the new site, but beyond that, trying to read threads even on my laptop is so difficult. I find the threading really difficult to follow. The lines to show what comment it's in reply to are an improvement, but when just reading, not trying to look back at the parent, I can't figure out what's a reply and what's a new comment.


June 13th, 2018 at 12:01 PM ^

I think if you took a poll you'd get a lot of people saying old, but I also think that's due familiarity with the old site, and will probably decrease over time. If the mild, probable log-in issues are addressed that's a huge pain point taken care of for me.


I agree with a lot of the comments about the Board itself - it's too far down on the main page (below towers of Diaries), but I also have not broken the habit of really only relying on the main page for the Board to work, given that it never really worked for me before in the actual "Board" page. It actually does now, so that's a habit I'll have to break.


Once we get out of the comfort and habits of the old site I think it becomes less of an issue.


I will say, I do agree with some others on the Board itself having what feels like a lot of white space. Basically the max you can get in is 3 comments before scrolling.


June 13th, 2018 at 12:06 PM ^

Took a few visits to wrap my arms around it but I'm all warm and fuzzy with the new look. That and the bloggers and info have not changed  which imho make this the best site for all my MEEECHIGAN news and information. 


June 13th, 2018 at 12:07 PM ^

I will wait to make a final judgement but for now the layout needs work IMO. What was great about the old MGOBLOG was the side table wasnt obtrusive. You noticed it when you looked. On the new site it takes up far too much of the page and when you scroll further down the emptiness is worse.

Go Blue in MN

June 13th, 2018 at 1:01 PM ^

I agree with most of what others have said, but your point about not being able to immediately find new posts is at the top of my list for things I hope get changed/fixed soon.  On the old site, if there was a topic I was interested in, it would not be unusual for me to check back in an hour to read the new material.  Now, I just won't re-visit for that purpose because I can't figure out which post are new.  I would think this will greatly reduce the number of clicks/visits and thus assume this is something the staff is going to want to fix ASAP.


June 13th, 2018 at 12:10 PM ^

Old, by miles and miles. I really, really loathe the new site so far. I get that there are bugs (so many bugs) to work out, and maybe it'll grow on me. But as of today... kill it with fire. 

Bando Calrissian

June 13th, 2018 at 12:11 PM ^

The old one was old. It had some quirks. Some of the functionality broke down. But it was at least logically organized and visually, well, not this. All this white space and boxiness... I feel like all I do is scroll around trying to figure out how any of it works. Aesthetically, it's clunky, weird, and totally unappealing.

Whatever. This is what we get. It's a free site, and the mods trust HUEL. I just don't get the appeal.


June 13th, 2018 at 12:13 PM ^

The new site is fine, and probably objectively better in a lot of ways, it's just different.  Compared to the literal years of use of the old site, we've had so little time to get used to the redesign, and the MGoTeam and HUEL have had so little time to iron out the wrinkles it's not fair to judge yet.

Honestly this is what I see when I see the most vehement haters of the new site:



June 13th, 2018 at 12:27 PM ^

So what portions of the new site do you like better?  Here are the negatives as I see them so far for the new version:

1. Too much white space

2. Diaries improperly placed

3. Far too much scrolling required to read comments

4. Banner is too large

5. Cannot edit posts

6. Cannot up or down vote original posts

7. Cannot identify who created threads

8. Only 7 board thread identified on main page as opposed to 14 in old layout

9. Posting GIFs requires downloading to computer instead of cut/paste

10. Posting video also requires additional step of downloading first instead of imbedding code

11. After posting comment you are taken back to the original post and have to scroll back down to find place of comment instead of being placed back at where you started

12. No phone ap

13. No ability to create a subject line unique to the post

14. Spellcheck not enabled

Those are just the ones that come quickly to mind.  I left off the log-in issues as those seem to have been resolved.   What are the positives, from a user perspective, I'm missing?  Maybe if you're able to present a corresponding list of all the good things this new site offers that I'm missing I'll feel differently about it.