Latest News → Making Sense of News

How Gawker’s redesign subverts the scannable culture of the Internet it helped create

avatar by Published Feb. 8, 2011 12:46 pm Updated Feb. 11, 2011 6:50 am

It’s only Tuesday, and already it has been a tough week for Gawker Media.

The popular blogging house announced its plans for a brand refresher back in December, part of Nick Denton’s grand vision to move “beyond the blog.” Denton announced his grandiose goals by saying:

“It represents an evolution of the very blog form that has transformed online media over the last eight years. The Internet, television and magazines are merging; and the optimal strategy will assemble the best from each medium.”

Unfortunately, the unveiling didn’t quite go as planned. After executing the new site design on Monday, commenters widely panned the new design.

Gawker.com quickly (and perhaps temporarily) reverted to a reverse chronological view Monday that was closer to the typical blog format, while Tuesday all the sites in the portfolio are using the new layout.

The reason for the user outcry is fairly simple — unlike committing to sit down with a newspaper, magazine, or television show, the online world is built and based on distractions.

Denton’s redesign was trying to accomplish the impossible — force readers to focus on one editorially selected topic while the norms of the online world make everyone into little hummingbirds, flitting from link to link, site to site, and story to story.

Indeed, the Internet became a popular venue for reading because you could jump from place to place quickly and easily.  In the course of a morning, I can skim up to 300 stories from various outlets and videos. Of that number, I will probably select around a dozen to actually commit to reading.

A study from Outsell notes that 56 percent of Google News users click through to read the story behind the headlines. The study confirms a long-held Internet adage: No one clicks through links. The idea has always been to make ideas pithier and shorter or package them in a way that is so compelling, the user has no choice but to click through.

Gawker’s original design, particularly the immediate nature of their coverage and their average of 40 or so posts in a day, was designed to foster a skimming culture. The new design pushes for a more controlled reading experience and so the transition is a bit jarring.

Readers airing their frustrations in the comments section or in the #groupthink hashtag on Jezebel openly ask for a return to the days when they could visit the site, scroll down, and participate in any conversation that struck their fancy. As commenter Georgian Mae Fayne hilariously lamented:

“You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! …

I’m too old to defect to tumblr. The cool kids over there will laugh at my love of pictures of Zac Efron and Shia LeBoeuf on shetland ponies. My internet life is over.

/collapses in melodramatic heap #Groupthink”

The new site design may have had visionary aims, but as the comments reveal, most readers believe that if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Latoya Peterson was a contributor to Jezebel.com, a Gawker Media property.

CORRECTION: This story originally said 44 percent of Google News users click through to read linked stories; it is 56 percent who click through.

Tags:

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://twitter.com/Bill_Owen William Owen

    That’s funny, cause you don’t sound like an adult, you sound like an arrogant, condescending little 22 year old shit. You just told the internet that they need to grow up. Is that stupid or what?

    Your advice, sans the whingy sarcasm is not bad, maybe you should try growing up yourself.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VGKJZMOVD6DHLG4MWNXAQ4G4BA Dan

    And you’re so mature aren’t you? I don’t think you understand what has happened. Before, you could better focus on what was relevant to you, being given all the articles in a logical, reverse chronological order. You could more easily “penetrate the clutter to get at substance”. Now, because they’ve begun controlling what articles are seen more frequently, you’re left fighting the site to get what you want. Not to mention other small niceties being removed that made the social aspects of the site more organized. They’ve alienated their most loyal readers and don’t seem to realize what their site’s real purpose was for many people. Nick Denton himself said that he didn’t realize that people cared so much about what was an amazing commenting system, a feature that added whole new levels of information and entertainment to the articles.

    The worst part about the entire thing is the arrogant patronization of the 9 out of 10 negative responses to the redesign.

  • Pingback: This Week in Review: AOL’s big HuffPo buy, converging media in Egypt, and waiting on The Daily » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

  • Anonymous

    Implying that as you get older your brain can only process and comprehend a more minimal amount of information and stimulation? There’s a reason that people argue that older, slower and more feeble citizens shouldn’t be allowed to operate anything larger than their colostomy bag, and it’s not because their over inflated egos would blind them from the fact that age doesn’t always equal intellectual superiority.

  • Anonymous

    Gawker built their brand on insightful posts by great writers, which drew a larger than average portion of insightful commentators, and an active community of raving fans who lit up the boards with tips and insight. (For those who say “bah” you should go back and re-read comments from journalists, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who added to the discussion instead of just flaming each other.) As an active (and starred) commentator, I found the “thanks but we don’t want you anymore” attitude of the relaunch personally insulting — and I pride myself on my skin being pretty thick.

    I completely understand the revenue model Denton is going for, which completely up-ends the current system and focuses on “shoppers” instead of “browsers”— the wider audience who comes on the strength of a specific topic instead of the few who stay longer just to hang. I don’t know this for sure, but I can see how an ad rate could even actively scale with the number of unique views — guaranteeing quantified eyeballs to advertisers. In this model, no one cares about bounce-clicks, it’s all about the gross numbers. (I often wonder why the site worked so hard to court commenters and editors, revamping the commenting system last year and hosting social events in NYC. It all came to naught.)

    All in all I could have handled this change gracefully if the technology and design behind it hadn’t been so horrible. Since the launch, no one can comment from any mobile device and the new site is completely un-navigable on a tablet (tablets display the mobile version now). In addition, while I understand that Denton wants to drive people to the site instead of allowing RSS readers to do the work (and skip the ads), the rollout is scatter-shot — working on some readers an not others. The ability to easily tweet links to stories is gone but facebook is not. Even the mobile version of Gawker is unstable. So I’m limited to actively participating with the site only when I’m at my desktop computer.

    From a design perspective (my expertise and profession for 20+ years), it hurts me to see a site that built its reputation on being smarter than the average bear look like perezhilton. The layout, typography, and information hierarchy is terrible and looks amateurish. With two of my three devices not able to read the site, the mobile version is actually a blessing in disguise (even if there is no way to comment from a mobile device). With companies like Flipboard raising the bar of organization, design, and interactivity, this was a huge letdown.

    To all this feedback Denton tweeted that dissenters were “armchair web designers”. It’s as if he decided overnight that the Observer should really be TMZ. He could have launched this model side-by-side with the old site as kind of a Gawker lite and actively worked on tailoring the tone and content to get the eyeballs he needed. But by launching a halfway thought through site the way he did, he insulted the community that believed in Gawker Media most. That’s a shame. Rant. Over.

  • Anonymous

    So adults enjoy broken navigational architecture, giant, screen-devouring photos and hyper-aggressive splash advertising? How do you patronizing jerks ever get anything done?

  • Anonymous

    Websites, like people, need to evolve and mature. Consuming media like a hummingbird works when you are young and don’t know any better. But, as you mature, you recognize the value of focus. The amount of content vying for our attention continues to multiply. Successful websites will help adults penetrate the clutter to get at substance. Gawker will fix the bugs and they will prove how much smarter they are than their critics, who seem overly concerned about losing their childhood. Walk into the light kids. It’s going to be OK. You will actually enjoy being an adult.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G2IPMJPAZ2VC34AOOSWVHOES4M Mike j

    I wouldn’t have minded nearly as much if it wasn’t so damn buggy. It’s very difficult to navigate, hides 80% of their content, completely tore the community commenting system that bonded people to the site into shreds. Just to add insult to injury, they are seemingly ignoring the pleas of their community.

  • Anonymous

    That would require us to have liked them on Facebook in the first place.

    Honestly, layout makes no difference to me as long as they continue to offer RSS feeds. Who has time to actuually VISIT a blog (and tha’ts all Gawker’s stuff is anyhow) any more? ;)

    I just fire up Google Reader, ignore the ads, and scroll and read, scroll and read, scroll and read.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=816420013 Charles Van Horn

    Simple thing to do would be to show them a message by unliking them on Facebook. Think about it. If half of the facebook fans you had left, there goes some of the proof to the advertisers that you have a following, and also reduces the “hit machine” facebook is whenever a story is posted or shared.