ESPN WT Heck?

[Kfanarmy]

Looks like ESPN went out and turned its site into a giant collage like FOXSPORTS did a couple of years ago. What a mess, just a disorganized mesh of videos and photos. I'll be looking for a new sports site on the internet now.

[stillcrazie]

I saw it this morning, too. I hate it.

[stillcrazie]

Maybe it is a bad April Fools joke?

[Ichabod Drain]

I like it.... A lot easier on the eyes and easier to navigate, at least for me anyways.

[luburch]

It's not perfect by any means, but it's 10x better than the awful site they were using.

[sagegrouse]

Trouble is -- I can only see the top half of the scoring bar on my PC screen. Maybe I need to get a separate monitor, or maybe ESPN can fix the problem -- I could read the scores just fine before.

[Indoor66]

Trouble is -- I can only see the top half of the scoring bar on my PC screen. Maybe I need to get a separate monitor, or maybe ESPN can fix the problem -- I could read the scores just fine before.

It looks fine to me. Sage, check your viewing settings - maybe the image is too large - you know, they eyes at our ages....:D:cool:

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I am also not a fan, though it could be worse. I'm sure once I reacclimate and figure out where everything is, I will grow used to it. SI.com "updated" their site a few months ago and it is really a disorganized mess - they really overdid it on the pictures.

[sagegrouse]

It looks fine to me. Sage, check your viewing settings - maybe the image is too large - you know, they eyes at our ages....:D:cool:

Yeah, but that didn't seem to work. I reduced the window size down to 50% and the score bar was still obscured. I have an exceedingly lightweight Dell XPS running Windows 8.

Hmmm.... it seems to be a Firefox problem; IE shows it just fine.

[Atlanta Duke]

ESPN also apparently knows where I live, based upon the suggested list of "favorites" in the left hand column of the new site being Atlanta teams and the Georgia Bulldawgs. If ESPN was tracking articles on which I clicked it presumably would conclude I follow Duke basketball and the Steelers.

It is different, but nothing compares to the dysfunction of the hot mess that is the SI site.

[Billy Dat]

Anything traditionally web-based has to be re-imagined for a mobile world. I see this in the business with which I am involved. Over the past few years, the number of users whose first experiences with my electronic content is on a phone has not only grown, it has become the majority. The only way to efficiently serve every audience is to have a responsive design platform that recognizes the access device and displays the content in a pleasing manner. It used to be that you'd have a separate web site and mobile site and every time you update content, you'd have to do it in both places. The newer platforms allow you to make those changes once - that technology isn't too new, but it's newish.

When DBR changed platforms a while back, those who access on the phone must have noted the improved experience.

The other game changer is video, both content and advertising. This platform seems optimized to deliver a much bigger window for running video-based ads.

If you access the site on your phone, I think you'll see a huge difference over what you saw before, it's much improved.

It also seems that users get used to a new interface pretty quickly, just like those awkward few weeks getting used to new email services, shoes, spouse haircuts, Coke flavors, etc.

[camion]

What is this ESPN you speak of?

Is it anything like the Wide World of Sports?

[Kfanarmy]

you may be right, but I haven't gone back to foxsports...just can't stand the whole effect. I'll look at it on my mobile later, but if it looks even similar to what my desktop displays, I won't be checking it out much in the future. Frankly I don't appreciate the video adds either, some web sites now capture your video display so that the only way to cut off the add is to shut off the phone...I don't go back to those web sites.


Anything traditionally web-based has to be re-imagined for a mobile world. I see this in the business with which I am involved. Over the past few years, the number of users whose first experiences with my electronic content is on a phone has not only grown, it has become the majority. The only way to efficiently serve every audience is to have a responsive design platform that recognizes the access device and displays the content in a pleasing manner. It used to be that you'd have a separate web site and mobile site and every time you update content, you'd have to do it in both places. The newer platforms allow you to make those changes once - that technology isn't too new, but it's newish.

When DBR changed platforms a while back, those who access on the phone must have noted the improved experience.

The other game changer is video, both content and advertising. This platform seems optimized to deliver a much bigger window for running video-based ads.

If you access the site on your phone, I think you'll see a huge difference over what you saw before, it's much improved.

It also seems that users get used to a new interface pretty quickly, just like those awkward few weeks getting used to new email services, shoes, spouse haircuts, Coke flavors, etc.

[Billy Dat]

you may be right, but I haven't gone back to foxsports...just can't stand the whole effect. I'll look at it on my mobile later, but if it looks even similar to what my desktop displays, I won't be checking it out much in the future. Frankly I don't appreciate the video adds either, some web sites now capture your video display so that the only way to cut off the add is to shut off the phone...I don't go back to those web sites.

I hear you and "voting with ones feet" will help sort all of this stuff out in the long run. Content of all kinds is in a huge era of disruption. As the internet has produced a generation who basically expects to be entertained with free-of-charge content, billion dollar industries are trying to figure out how to stay relevant. The music business has already basically imploded, newspapers and magazines too, now the TV networks are freaking out as "cut the cable!" becomes the new mantra. Interesting times.

[tbyers11]

It is different, but nothing compares to the dysfunction of the hot mess that is the SI site.

This!

Change is always bad for websites. But after awhile I find I get used to it. Some of the ESPN stuff I'm already liking better and probably will be fine with it all in a few days.

However, SI.com is AWFUL. Doesn't even load properly on my iPad half the time. Unless I'm going there via a direct link or for a specific article (Luke Winn's Power Rankings) I stay the heck away from the place since the re-design.

[Bluedog]

It looks very similar to Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/) now, which I preferred to ESPN due to its cleaner look. I just want article headlines and links -- don't need 8 million graphics/images all over the place. But I actually think it's better than before with its clean white background now.

[superdave]

Looks like ESPN went out and turned its site into a giant collage like FOXSPORTS did a couple of years ago. What a mess, just a disorganized mesh of videos and photos. I'll be looking for a new sports site on the internet now.



Link?


Just kidding. The only thing I dislike is true of the old site as well. When you go to click on a link and the page somehow shifts up for down because of an ad expanding or collapsing and you wind up clicking on the wrong link.

Super "get off my lawn" Dave

[moonpie23]

i like it so far....

[brevity]

Maybe it is a bad April Fools joke?

Nope. It resembles the beta version, which I've been using for a few months now. April 1 is not a good day for a big company to try something new.

[DukieInKansas]

ESPN also apparently knows where I live, based upon the suggested list of "favorites" in the left hand column of the new site being Atlanta teams and the Georgia Bulldawgs. If ESPN was tracking articles on which I clicked it presumably would conclude I follow Duke basketball and the Steelers.

It is different, but nothing compares to the dysfunction of the hot mess that is the SI site.

I'm okay with the Chefs and Royals but could do without Kansas and Missouri. :D

[JNort]

Omg I'm with the op. It's harder to navigate, less information is readily available and it doesn't fit the screen as well.

[Henderson]

I don't like the new format much, but I'll get used to it just as I've gotten used to every other website change.

Like most people, I go to certain sites to get the information I want. I felt like I could do that with the old ESPN format, and I got used to it. I'll get used to the new format, grumbling like the old cur I am.

I just wish I had the confidence that the site sponsor is really trying to make the information-dissemination function better. Instead, I feel as though the site sponsor is working to generate more revenue through advertising, then is trying to sell it as more information-friendly.

We'll adapt, because we have no choice. It's not like I'll stop paying attention to ESPN. I guess they know that.

[gurufrisbee]

It's terrible. Looks worse, harder to navigate, not good at all. Sadly, in many ways the old ESPN site was the only really good sports information one and was my default. Fox and SI and SN already were not good. Maybe I'll go get a newspaper subscription.

[Troublemaker]

This new format, which lots of websites seem to use these days, is bad for headline skimmers like me. I prefer the old compact look in which several dozen headlines/links would appear on my screen at once. The main sport I follow is basketball, sure, and I will rarely click on links from other sports, but I did appreciate being able to quickly skim all the headlines from football, baseball, tennis, etc and feeling like I had a good sense of what was happening in the sports world today. That sense is now lost unless I scroll down endlessly.

[Tom B.]

I'm okay with the Chefs and Royals but could do without Kansas and Missouri. :D

Great googly moogly. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmgice3ieZ4)

[dukebluesincebirth]

ESPN also apparently knows where I live, based upon the suggested list of "favorites" in the left hand column of the new site being Atlanta teams and the Georgia Bulldawgs. If ESPN was tracking articles on which I clicked it presumably would conclude I follow Duke basketball and the Steelers.

It is different, but nothing compares to the dysfunction of the hot mess that is the SI site.

At least they didn't suggest "North Carolina Tarheels" as they did to me on the favorites list. Count me in the crowd that doesn't like the new page layout. Of course, my dislike for espn or espn.com has grown over the last few years anyway. It's too "Disneyfied" for me now, and I often wish there was a good alternative on cable. I tend to migrate to espn out of habit and because there's not much else available. I can usually take it until jalen rose comes on and starts talking, or that show with Marcellus Wiley and michelle beadle comes on...then I force myself to turn the channel immediately.

[DukieInKansas]

Great googly moogly. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmgice3ieZ4)

For me, the Chefs lose the i and capital letters based on their play. Since training camp is a ways away, I suppose I should give them the i back.

Hopefully, the site will change a bit - NBCnews.com changed their format a while ago to be picture tiles. I switched to ABC news as my main page. NBC has evolved since that time and is a bit easier to navigate - and check headlines. I've gotten used to it. I do wish I could get it to give local news for my area instead of NYC, however. It will change the weather location but not the local news.

[BigWayne]

The new ESPN site is vastly improved for me because of one and only one feature. On the old site, I had to run a javascript blocker on espncdn.com to prevent it from automatically running videos on almost every page. The new site seems to be set up (at least for me) where the videos only run if you click on them.

[hurleyfor3]

Ugh, way too much scrolling.

[BigWayne]

The new ESPN site is vastly improved for me because of one and only one feature. On the old site, I had to run a javascript blocker on espncdn.com to prevent it from automatically running videos on almost every page. The new site seems to be set up (at least for me) where the videos only run if you click on them.

Spoke too soon. It's doing it again on some pages. At least the main page seems to have autoplay turned off.

[grossbus]

"If you access the site on your phone, I think you'll see a huge difference over what you saw before, it's much improved."

i disagree.

[Indoor66]

Yeah, but that didn't seem to work. I reduced the window size down to 50% and the score bar was still obscured. I have an exceedingly lightweight Dell XPS running Windows 8.

Hmmm.... it seems to be a Firefox problem; IE shows it just fine.

I'm using Firefox in Windows 7 Pro and have no problem. I can shed no light.

[TNDukeFan]

http://www.fastcompany.com/3044445/tech-forecast/espn-just-redesigned-its-site-for-the-time-since-2007-here-are-4-takeaways

[luburch]

Spoke too soon. It's doing it again on some pages. At least the main page seems to have autoplay turned off.

On the bottom of the video, next to the volume control, etc. it gives you the option to set autoplay to off.

[devil84]

http://www.fastcompany.com/3044445/tech-forecast/espn-just-redesigned-its-site-for-the-time-since-2007-here-are-4-takeaways

I liked this quote from Ryan Spoon, ESPN's SVP of product development, talking about personalizing the new website:
"The example I give all the time is I’m a Duke football fan," says Spoon. "For me, it’s a pretty profound statement that Duke football sits on top of ESPN.com."

[brevity]

I liked this quote from Ryan Spoon, ESPN's SVP of product development...

Gross. I would hate to be described as the Scott Van Pelt of anything.

[Kfanarmy]

I have rarely gone back to ESPN for sporting news after the April 1 roll out of their new format. I got tired of that quick and just quit going back. While checking it out today though it does appear that they have returned much of the functionality that the prior version had, including actual written articles associated with the videos. I'm guessing this version is good on a variety of video screens. For the most part, I prefer watching live content and reading about past events, as I think people put more thought into what they write. In any case, it isn't as mindnumbing as the debut seemed to be, though it still isn't as good as the older version was...for me.

[sagegrouse]

I'm using Firefox in Windows 7 Pro and have no problem. I can shed no light.

It took ESPN about ten days to fix the problem I was having in seeing the scoreboard banner.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm finding it harder to pay attention to anything on the website simply because over half of what they write is now in their "in" section. I'll pay to watch, but I'll never pay to read someone's opinion.

[Jarhead]

I have rarely gone back to ESPN for sporting news after the April 1 roll out of their new format. I got tired of that quick and just quit going back. While checking it out today though it does appear that they have returned much of the functionality that the prior version had, including actual written articles associated with the videos. I'm guessing this version is good on a variety of video screens. For the most part, I prefer watching live content and reading about past events, as I think people put more thought into what they write. In any case, it isn't as mindnumbing as the debut seemed to be, though it still isn't as good as the older version was...for me.


It took ESPN about ten days to fix the problem I was having in seeing the scoreboard banner.

The old ESPN format was perfect. For example, the screen held the MLB standings for the whole league with a pleasant amount of contrast in text and graphics. Now it takes 4 screens that are quite difficult to read. If only they had used more ink on the text, and emboldened it a little bit. ESPN used to be my constant reference on sports, but now it is in the back closet of bookmarks. It's bad for all sports. USAToday is my reference of choice now, but is too similar to ESPN to earn permanent status.

[gurufrisbee]

The old one was still better, but slowly I am getting more used to this one.

[gep]

The old ESPN format was perfect. For example, the screen held the MLB standings for the whole league with a pleasant amount of contrast in text and graphics. Now it takes 4 screens that are quite difficult to read. If only they had used more ink on the text, and emboldened it a little bit. ESPN used to be my constant reference on sports, but now it is in the back closet of bookmarks. It's bad for all sports. USAToday is my reference of choice now, but is too similar to ESPN to earn permanent status.

Funny... for me, DBR has been, and still is, my reference of choice. I generally go to ESPN, Yahoo Sports, SI... only to get possibly other articles that may not have been linked on DBR... Front Page and EK Board. :cool:

[gurufrisbee]

ESPN losing Simmons.

ESPN changes format to a far less enjoyable one.

ESPN losing Olbermann.

Are they in some kind of Brewster's Millions predicament?

[TKG]

According to Bloomberg this morning the Worldwide Leader has lost 3 million viewers over the last 12 months and faces the specter of rising fees on sports programming. Doesn't necessarily correlate to the Simmons and Olberman dismissals both those two were making big bucks.

[ChillinDuke]

According to Bloomberg this morning the Worldwide Leader has lost 3 million viewers over the last 12 months and faces the specter of rising fees on sports programming. Doesn't necessarily correlate to the Simmons and Olberman dismissals both those two were making big bucks.

I mean didn't we all see this coming? To some extent? I don't know exactly when the peak was or will be for ESPN, but I'd sell now.

- Chillin

[sagegrouse]

According to Bloomberg this morning the Worldwide Leader has lost 3 million viewers over the last 12 months and faces the specter of rising fees on sports programming. Doesn't necessarily correlate to the Simmons and Olberman dismissals both those two were making big bucks.


I mean didn't we all see this coming? To some extent? I don't know exactly when the peak was or will be for ESPN, but I'd sell now.

- Chillin

Here's an article in some blog (http://awfulannouncing.com/2013/should-espn-be-worried-about-declining-ratings.html) (unknown to me) named "Awful Announcing." It attributes the declines at the ESPN networks to an increase in sports viewing opportunities elsewhere. And, as it turns out, the article is based on a more authoritative Sports Business Journal article (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/07/09/Media/Q2-cable.aspx) with a helpful table covering the last five years.

[Atlanta Duke]

According to Bloomberg this morning the Worldwide Leader has lost 3 million viewers over the last 12 months and faces the specter of rising fees on sports programming. Doesn't necessarily correlate to the Simmons and Olberman dismissals both those two were making big bucks.

Not certain if Bloomberg was basing its reporting on this article in today's Wall Street Journal

ESPN Tightens Its Belt as Pressure on It Mounts

Since July 2011, ESPN’s reach into American homes has dropped 7.2%, from more than 100 million households—roughly the size of the total U.S. pay-TV market—to 92.9 million households, according to Nielsen data. ...

Viewership of SportsCenter, its marquee and high-margin sports-news show, has sagged since September, due in part to the fact that younger consumers are increasingly finding sports news at their fingertips on smartphone apps.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/espn-tightens-its-belt-as-pressure-on-it-mounts-1436485852?mod=trending_now_2

And of course the ever increasing flood of $$$ into college football and basketball is based upon ever increasing payments from ESPN and the other networks for broadcast rights

If something is too good to last it won't - if ESPN tightens its belt then so will the rights holders that have feasted on the cash from the networks

[oldnavy]

Here's an article in some blog (http://awfulannouncing.com/2013/should-espn-be-worried-about-declining-ratings.html) (unknown to me) named "Awful Announcing." It attributes the declines at the ESPN networks to an increase in sports viewing opportunities elsewhere. And, as it turns out, the article is based on a more authoritative Sports Business Journal article (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/07/09/Media/Q2-cable.aspx) with a helpful table covering the last five years.

Sage,

I have railed against ESPN's coverage of college basketball for years now. They make watching the games painful, from the bad commentary to the awful production.

When I am watching an event on ESPN, I feel as though I am watching a commercial for the next ESPN event with a little of the current ESPN event sprinkled in.

Also, whoever the genus is at ESPN that somehow thinks that watching people watch basketball (i.e., all the cameo's of stars or players parents or the dude that just made a jump shot run up the floor, or worse the bench warmers who celebrate the dude that just made a jump shot and YES even the Cameron Crazies [while the ball is in play] or the absolute worse, the small box with the face of the coach watching the game) ... whoever thought that this is interesting should be banned from sports broadcasting.

If I ever feel the need to watch people watch a game, I'll go to the sports bar and find the most interesting folks and watch them on my own, I don't need ESPN to do that for me.

The games stand on their own. ESPN feels the need to improve the game with "stuff" that is distracting to me and has little or no added value for the event at hand or in general. I wish I had a dollar for every time I yell, "SHOW THE #*$& GAME!!" at the TV.

Of course they do have a tarheel running the place so it should be expected, given that "style over substance" is the Carolina way....

[Kfanarmy]

ESPN losing Simmons.

ESPN changes format to a far less enjoyable one.

ESPN losing Olbermann.

Are they in some kind of Brewster's Millions predicament?


They're not really losing Olbermann's presence; they're gaining his absence.

[subzero02]

Sage,

I have railed against ESPN's coverage of college basketball for years now. They make watching the games painful, from the bad commentary to the awful production.

When I am watching an event on ESPN, I feel as though I am watching a commercial for the next ESPN event with a little of the current ESPN event sprinkled in.

Also, whoever the genus is at ESPN that somehow thinks that watching people watch basketball (i.e., all the cameo's of stars or players parents or the dude that just made a jump shot run up the floor, or worse the bench warmers who celebrate the dude that just made a jump shot and YES even the Cameron Crazies [while the ball is in play] or the absolute worse, the small box with the face of the coach watching the game) ... whoever thought that this is interesting should be banned from sports broadcasting.

If I ever feel the need to watch people watch a game, I'll go to the sports bar and find the most interesting folks and watch them on my own, I don't need ESPN to do that for me.

The games stand on their own. ESPN feels the need to improve the game with "stuff" that is distracting to me and has little or no added value for the event at hand or in general. I wish I had a dollar for every time I yell, "SHOW THE #*$& GAME!!" at the TV.

Of course they do have a tarheel running the place so it should be expected, given that "style over substance" is the Carolina way....

I couldn't agree with your sentiments anymore. It is inexcusable to force the viewer to miss segments of the game in order to show or talk to people in the crowd. Attending a live sporting event usually allows the ticket holder to have a more enriched viewing experience. This is especially true today with entities such as ESPN intentionally choosing not to show random portions of the game in order to provide the viewer with pointless fluff.