04-01-2024, 08:45 AM
Well, as mentioned - we had to deprecate the old engine. It was way beyond its end-of-life support already.
The new layout is probably rather generic - it is based on a very commonly used (ready-made) template made specifically for review sites.
The old format was in some ways more straight-forward ... for those who visited the site since the dawn of time. You always knew where things were and whether we published something new.
There's certainly a difference between "the straight-forward" (old) site and the more "eye-catching" (new) site.
The bitter truth is that we have seen a sharp downturn in readers in recent years - on the old site, that is.
This has many reasons - Youtube is probably the main one - but a site has to attract new readers. And the old site was certainly not aligned to this.
The old site was difficult to use on mobile devices and while I have some doubts that this is a useful format in our use case, mobile is the place for attracting a younger audience.
Of course, the other aspect is that advertisers don't take you seriously anymore if your site looks like it's from the Stone Age.
We are certainly willing to change certain aspects based on feedback - but there's no turning back. There are/were also technical reasons. The old engine is/was from 2008 and was kept on life extension by modifying its code to secure it. And while I have a corresponding background, that can't be "my job" (my primary job is basically cross-financing this photo site already ...)
Interestingly, we received several negative comments about the 3-page review format on the old site - which we abandoned on the new one. But it seems that this change is less appreciated compared to the changed navigation. ;-)
The new layout is probably rather generic - it is based on a very commonly used (ready-made) template made specifically for review sites.
The old format was in some ways more straight-forward ... for those who visited the site since the dawn of time. You always knew where things were and whether we published something new.
There's certainly a difference between "the straight-forward" (old) site and the more "eye-catching" (new) site.
The bitter truth is that we have seen a sharp downturn in readers in recent years - on the old site, that is.
This has many reasons - Youtube is probably the main one - but a site has to attract new readers. And the old site was certainly not aligned to this.
The old site was difficult to use on mobile devices and while I have some doubts that this is a useful format in our use case, mobile is the place for attracting a younger audience.
Of course, the other aspect is that advertisers don't take you seriously anymore if your site looks like it's from the Stone Age.
We are certainly willing to change certain aspects based on feedback - but there's no turning back. There are/were also technical reasons. The old engine is/was from 2008 and was kept on life extension by modifying its code to secure it. And while I have a corresponding background, that can't be "my job" (my primary job is basically cross-financing this photo site already ...)
Interestingly, we received several negative comments about the 3-page review format on the old site - which we abandoned on the new one. But it seems that this change is less appreciated compared to the changed navigation. ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji