TOO is getting a new look. The main thing is that now the featured article and the blog will be on the same page, making it more convenient to browse our content. Please have a look and let us know what you think by commenting on this blog. Changes should go into effect on the evening of November 2.
The architect of the changeover is Matt Parrott. Matt combines technical proficiency with political activism. He heads the Indiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens and has written for TOO (“George Washington Plunkitt on the Sausage Factory of American Politics“). He also has a radio show on the Reason Radio Network (“Radio Free Indiana”) where he recently interviewed me on a wide range of topics — a very enjoyable experience that will doubtless be repeated in the future.
We at TOO are greatly indebted for all the work he did—much more than we could adequately pay him for. It would be a nice gesture to acknowledge his efforts. His PayPal account is the same as his email address: parrott.matt@gmail.com
Kevin MacDonald, Editor
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Professor MacDonald: I hope that this extensive consolidation and redesign effort will save you money in the long run. I say that because the end result strikes me as anything but an improvement, at least if one’s priority is ready access to articles and comments on the blog.
The level of graphic content–much higher, much flashier–also seems to me a distraction. A front page that looks like Takimag’s will suggest to readers that the contents are equally anodyne. While I understand that this is not an insuperable hurdle, why bother erecting it at all?
How could we make the articles and comments more accessible?
I don’t know about the previous responder’s “anodyne” description (I had to look that up, lol), but I don’t care for this look either.
A more imprtant thing that needs to be done in regard to the website, in my opinion, is to open embedded links in a new window, instead of redirecting the present window to a new URL.
When you redirect the present window to a new URL, it’s very distracting and will potentially result in the reader not coming back to the original article and straying off somewhere else, be it YouTube or wherever else the embedded link may have led to.
Opening an embedded link in a new window, on the other hand, will allow readers to click on the links and examine them at their convenience, while at the same time still keeping the main article within easy view.
I think this is very important.
As it is now, I for one rarely click on embedded links because of the distraction they cause.
Rob,
The “best practices” documents I’ve found are pretty consistently opposed to opening external links in new windows. I’m in the habit of middle-clicking links when I want them to go to a new window.
I would be interested in knowing how many others feel the same way you do. Personally, I get aggravated the other way, when a link opens itself in a new window without my explicitly doing so.
http://erayne.com/blog/development-process/to-open-links-in-new-windows-or-not
Pierre,
We’re still working on improving the look and feel of the site. If you can describe a bit more specifically what the problem is, I’ll do what I can to improve it.
Thanks to you and KM for asking, and sorry for the delay in responding. I agree with many of the other comments, notably those of Lasha Darkmoon. From a nonauthorial perspective, the haphazard conflation of TOO articles and blog entries in a single list is particularly unfortunate. Can they be broken down into separate lists, and perhaps, with an eye to LD’s plaint, can each list be made complete–at least complete up to a point (say, two weeks or so back) where each ends at a link to a more or less truly complete listing of back articles and blog entries? This change alone would annul my own primary objection.
There has, at least till now, been a pretty consistent and evident difference between TOO and the blog, the TOO articles being journal-like (for lack of a better word) in their tone and structure, while still being less overtly scholarly than TOQ articles and of course as a rule much less overtly argumentative than the blog entries. TOO’s above-the-fray stance has been underlined by the absence from it of the blog’s free-swinging comments–except, that is, when KM cites articles in the blog and urges us all to have at ‘em. I think it would be a shame if that absence of comment also changed, but it appears it might.
I’ve assumed all along that pretty much everyone agreed that the distinctions between sites were useful, valuable ones and were not merely worth preserving but worth highlighting. Perhaps I’m wrong about this, too. Still, I would hope that the consolidation KM finds desirable can be modified to avoid deep-sixing all those distinctions. (That is, I respectfully disagree with German on unification.)
Spooky, alas, is probably right to snort at me and others who get grumpy simply because things change. I may be alone in finding that your design, Mr. Parrott, brings TOO uncomfortably close to the appearance of Takimag, but I quite understand why some alteration and some degree of consolidation seemed desirable to KM. Whatever my gripes, there’s no question that you did a remarkably thoughtful and attractive job.
The old one was simpler and better. A big mistake to change as the site now resembles so many others. Also, the rendering of the new fonts on Opera (my browser of choice) are now fuzzy and muddied. Everyone would be better served by a return to what was. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Paul,
I can’t tell any different in the font presentation between the four browsers. If you would be willing to email me a screenshot, I could potentially diagnose the problem.
I agree with Paul’s comments above – the old format was simpler and better. There was nothing wrong with it – it was a good website – it looked nice and was easy to navigate. So why change it?
We can tweak the layout and aesthetics until we get it right. Conceivably, we could even tweak it to where it looks almost exactly like the old site.
The real added value with the update is that it will make the job of publishing and archiving content dramatically easier. We’ll be trying to improve the look, feel, and flow of the site based on user feedback until we get it right.
I think the new design is great. Thank you, Matt!
You’re welcome!
The unification between regular articles and blog entries makes sense since in the blog seemed to overshadow the articles a bit (a sign of the times, web 2.0 beats web 1.0, this has advantages and disadvatages. I won’t delve into them).
Dear Kevin MacDonald I found the time today to listen do the interview with Matt Parrott you linked to. I had to agree with you in all points, everything was nearly trivial true. Your most controversial stance seems to be your sceptical attitude toward the usefulness of Christianity at this point of the development of our culture. But you are very wise to understate this scepticism in order not to antagonize Christians like Matt Parrott who is obviously an asset of the White cause.
It is a shame that your sober no-nonsense approach is not the mainstream in American politics. Strange world.
Best wishes.
Unfortunately you can’t save the articles not on your hard drive anymore.
I obviously didn’t know about center clicking in order to open a link in a separate window.
Problem solved – thanks.
Here is what I would do to improve the visual appeal of the new site.
1. I would extend the main body of the content (white background) to fill 90% of the screen horizontally (it seems to be at 80% now). The lefthand column that holds the text of the articles is too narrow.
2. I would put the video module (‘Enoch Powell Was Right’) below the Recent Posts and Social Networking sections. It is distracting in its current position.
3. In the righthand column there are way too many hyperlinks. They should be consolidated and condensed better. I would take out Archives and Blog Roll and just put them on their own pages, such as theoccidentalobserver.net/archives/ and theoccidentalobserver.net/blogroll/. Reduce the quantity of links in Recent Posts and Recent Comments to ten each.
The endless lists of links on the right do not look good.
“How could we make the articles and comments more accessible?” (Matt Parrott)
Well, for a start you could actually LIST all the articles I have written! I am credited with SEVEN articles, but most of them are MISSING!!! Anyone who wished to know what I had written would no longer find a complete list on the Occidental Observer. NONE of my blog articles are listed and several of my MAIN articles are not listed either. So disappointing.
I’m not the only one to suffer this fate. E.R.E Knutson has been credited with ONE article. What has happened to all his OTHER articles?
I hate to say it, but simplicity has been sacrificed on the altar of innovation.
Formerly, if I wished to access all the articles of (say) Kevin MacDonald or Edmund Connelly, it was easy and simple to do so. You clicked on ARCHIVES and there you found all the authors listed in alphabetical order. You clicked on the author you were interested in, and there you saw ALL his articles listed in reverse chronological order AT A SINGLE GLANCE. No longer.
Another feature of the old website that I miss is the list of all the articles on the left hand side of the page, with the most recent articles ON TOP, including PICTURES.
I’m sure improvements have been made…very definite improvements… but can’t ALL my articles be listed in the AUTHORS ARCHIVE instead of most of them being left out?!?
PAUL: The old one was simpler and better. A big mistake to change as the site now resembles so many others. Also, the rendering of the new fonts on Opera (my browser of choice) are now fuzzy and muddied. Everyone would be better served by a return to what was. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
ANDREW: The old one was simpler and better. A big mistake to change as the site now resembles so many others. Also, the rendering of the new fonts on Opera (my browser of choice) are now fuzzy and muddied. Everyone would be better served by a return to what was. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I support the above comments 100 per cent. Not only have simplicity and convenience been sacrificed on the altar of needless innovation, but the site has two additional disadvantages: (1) It LOOKs worse and is aesthetically unpleasing — too fussy and “busy-looking” and confusing. (2) It is also more INEFFICIENT, since it is no longer so easy and simple to access the articles of individual authors which are now hidden away behind several CLICKS…and in any case, most of my articles and Knutson’s are completely missing, so that’s a clear sign of something gone wrong.
I repeat what Paul and Andrew have said: IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT.
Sorry, Andrew’s comment should read:
Andrew
November 3, 2010 – 8:44 pm | Permalink
I agree with Paul’s comments above – the old format was simpler and better. There was nothing wrong with it – it was a good website – it looked nice and was easy to navigate. So why change it?
Yes, the old site looked nicer and was far easier to navigate. And the old format was altogether simpler and better. I fear this new look will only frighten people off. The authors are not even listed in alphabetical order.
God forbid anyone get used to anything in this life. WTF?
The list of Recent Posts just looks like a big blob of text. There’s nothing differentiating one title from the next, which makes it difficult to quickly scan for something of particular interest. Maybe put each title in a box, put a horizontal rule between each title, use a bullet pointed list, use drop caps, make the first word/author name in bold, or something along these lines to break it up.
Being able to see the blog on its own page is also IMO an important feature. Only being able to display two blog posts on the page at a time is obviously less than ideal. It would also be nice if the author’s name were stored outside of the title of the blog post like on most blogs (for various reasons, such as being able to click on the name and read all posts by that author).
There’s also too much empty white space in and around the donate link and the Facebook box.
All said the new design is definitely improvement in terms of aesthetic appeal. The old site definitely had an amateur look to it, and the list of recent blog posts on the front page was never up to date. Once the functionality of the old site is restored, this will be a step in the right direction for sure.
This is not an improvement. The old site was classier – the new format looks cheap. If I visited this site for the first time and knew nothing about the Occidental Observer I would think it was run by some undergrad in his spare time. The topic index is a great idea but it would be better to provide links to this and other indexes in order to free up space for feature articles. The old site was one of the best looking sites around. Why not just enhance the functionality of that site rather than remodel the whole thing.
My only complaint is that the comment sections aren’t broken up into older comments/newer comments like the old format. Not fun to scroll down 422 comments to follow the 911 (ahem) discussion. But other than that…
The new look is absolutely fantastic. Just took a bit to get used to. Really professional, appealing and classy, perfect because our great Professor KMac deserves nothing less than the best. Thank you! Outstanding!
I enjoy the layout found here: http://majorityrights.com/
The focus there is on CONTENT, and the left frame is beautifully efficient.
At TOO, the focus is on the AUTHORS. I’ve always seen this as fetishistic.
My suggestions:
1. Reduce the font sizes of titles and, moreso, authors’ names. Remove author names from titles. Throughout the archives, too, titles and authors’ names are much too large.
2. Place Recent Comments up next to Recent Posts; move Social Networking to the bottom, along with one “Share this + icons.” Remove “Share this…” after each individual article.
4. Reduce size and number of graphics. The blinking graphic has to go (!). Highlighting a certain article could be done with red letters (in a smaller font), for example.
5. Remove list of individual author names; a link to such a list is sufficient.
6. I’m not sure I understand the question of opening links, but when the link is to an outside article, I prefer it to take me to the site of the article it links to. Opening these internally makes me feel captive – controlled. Also, for citation purposes.
7. Like any good editor, cut, cut, cut.
I also agree with Glen – the old site was classier. It did not hide its light under a bushel. Graphically it communicated a direct, bold confidence – and these qualities add a great deal when one considers the subject matter dealt with by TOO.
TOO had a unique brand that has been lost here. The new site would be fine were it all we had ever known. But that isn’t the case. The energy of the TOO brand has been dispersed with a re-design that simply was not needed.
This site now looks almost as crummy and amateurish as mine. The original version had an aristocratic look, really classey. Time to do the eternal return.
I think the new version is promising but needs to be somewhat modified. The basic question is this: what does TOO want to be? If it’s a daily, it should be more journalistic both in terms of journalism, rhetoric and webdesign. If it’s more like TOQ, 1-2 HIGH-QUALITY articles per week would be sufficient. TOO needs to find its own identity, its brand and its niche. Needless to say, the webdesign should be changed accordingly. I personally prefer to read less “noisy” sites, and believe that green and blue are underestimated as background colors.
I’m interested in reading what Dr. MacDonald, and a few others have to say, the rest is just flash.
Although, a video, or a cartoon on the main page makes sense.
Also the contrast is a little too bright.
Keep up the good work.
Matt, you have done a number of great things, like adding the please share this bar (facebook, etc.). Since my inkling is that the site format is a work in progress, may I suggest that the older one was more pleasing to look at since it was less busy & cluttered? This current format is more in line with say Taki or Alt right, but I guess I prefer the simplicity of the old (more like “Google clean” and less like yahoo.com clutter).
The biggest improvement here is under the hood: the WordPress engine will make this site infinitely easier for Dr. MacDonald to edit, and the man wears many hats.
It will also make the site easier for us to navigate and search.
As for the look: I think it already is an improvement. The old site was a mess: Archives that needed to be manually updated (no need for that in WordPress), lists that were unevenly justified and spaced, articles that were HTML jungles that required extensive work to reprint (which discouraged reposting on other sites), etc.
Matt has been a good sport about these criticisms, and the new site is already new and improved.
Here is an important consideration: What determines whether I come to a website is NOT the content. Like most of you, I am on multiple email lists by well-meaning Right Wing and White Nationalist spammers, so if a really good piece appears, I get it soon enough even if I never visit the site where it originally appears.
That means that for me, the determining factor for visiting a site is the look and the ease of interacting with it. I like the look of Alt Right, but there is no place where one can simply see at a glance what is new in all the categories. I hate searching around in 12 different places for new material. So I just don’t go there anymore.
The bottom line is: The new TOO is much more pleasant to look at and easy to use. I will be here a lot more now. I suspect that many other readers will do the same, for the same reasons.
Since some of you are perceptive critics of websites, come over to http://www.counter-currents.com/ and give me your thoughts.
Good job Matt! Good choice Dr. MacDonald!
@ Greg: – Setting aside the “under the hood” benefits, which I also would want KM to benefit from, since yes, he does wear many hats . .. I find your reply puzzling. It is certainly a politic response; for that it earns four stars. But what am I to make of statements like these:
“What determines whether I come to a website is NOT the content.”
And, “… for me, the determining factor for visiting a site is the look and the ease of interacting with it.”
Surely when you and your authors carefully compose or reproduce material selectively geared toward specific values and goals, it is your and their hope that viewers will learn from them, enjoy reading them, and appreciate your efforts. Surely you don’t imagine that people who visit your website do so for the joy of “interacting” with it. What a quaint idea!
On September 16, I posted this in a Majority Rights thread:
“Greg Johnson, formerly editor of The Occidental Quarterly and TOQ Online, has produced an extremely interesting website, Counter-Currents, which has the distinction of being the only website among the various pro-White forums that has a visible focus and direction. That focus seems to me to consist primarily of identifying who we are (by way of the arts), and offering action prototypes, such as the present 5-part series that began here:
” http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/for-a-positive-critique-part-1/ – taken from this source: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/venner.html
“It’s obvious to me that Greg has a clear vision, is able to find materials with which to present it, and attracts people who share that vision. Counter-Currents has dignity, and because it knows what it’s doing and just does it–without fanfare, it has a quiet, driving power.
“That’s my impression.
“MOB”
_ _ _ _
I hadn’t made that judgment based on the look of your website or the ease of interacting with it. I made it based on the CONTENT.
Silly me?
MOB, thanks for your kind comments about Counter-Currents. But I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I get all the good material on TOO forwarded to me by kind-hearted movement spammers. So I don’t need to come here to look for it. If I come to a site, therefore, it is not because of the content which I can get elsewhere, but because of the look and functionality of the site itself.
The points made above by Greg Johnson are important ones. If the site is easier for KMD to edit, then that is a great plus factor. Matt is to be congratulated for doing a splendid job. The site in many ways looks better and is more sophisticated and streamlined.
The only two innovations I regard as a backward step — and I hope these can be rectified — relate to the AUTHORS ARCHIVE.
I wish the two types of article, the longer and more stylishly written MAIN ARTICLES and the shorter ,more ephemeral, quickly written BLOG ARTICLES had been kept in different compartments instead of all being lumped together.
One can no longer see ALL the main articles written by Kevin MacDonald at a single glance by scrolling down the page. All one sees now is the latest 3-4 articles. If one wishes to find all of KMD’s back articles relating to Solzhenitsyn, for example, one now has to hunt for them by clicking away at leasy half a dozen times.
This is clearly NOT an improvement!
Formerly, I could locate ANY article KMD had written almost instantaneously by clicking on his name in the ARCHIVES section. Surely it would not be asking too much to restore this very simple and convenient way of accessing KMD’s articles — and everyone else’s articles too?
Please pay no attention to the above if you think clicking away 8-10 times in an attempt to track down an author’s older articles is a reasonable way to proceed.
The way the Comments are now posted, in chronological order, is a definite improvement and I hope this is kept.
Xanadu,
That’s been identified as problematic and is on the task list for resolution.
I hate change, so I miss the old format, but I still think Matt did a beautiful job. Had I never been here before, I don’t think I would have a problem navigating the articles. It will take a while to get used to the new format, but I still appreciate all the hard work Matt put into it. Thanks, Matt!
You’re very welcome.
Thanks, Matt. You are definitely a computer genius. If I quetched and complained a bit before in my role of Lasha Darkmoon, please make allowances for me. Like Clytemnestra above (any relation of Agamemnon?), I too am very resistant to change. But I’d like to congratulate you on all altogether splendid job. Once you’ve tweaked a little here and a little there and made all the necessary changes, this is going to be a truly stunning website.
Xanadu,
A lot of your concerns were valid, and we’re both passionate about making sure this site is everything we envision for it.
Mr. Parrott
Unfortunately I would have to agree with the previous sentiments. I’d advise that you take Mr. Johnson’s advice and head to his website and check out their layout as it is very functional and easily searchable. If I could make a suggestion it would be to move the topics, author archive and blogroll off the panel to the right and make them tabs along the top. Keep recent posts where it is and dump the recent comments section altogether as it is unnecessary.
There’s a subset of “heavy users” for which the “Recent Comments” section is a very important part of the site.
I agree that Counter-Currents is very elegantly assembled.
We’ll assuredly be fine-tuning the layout as we move forward.
I disagree about the recent comments section. If a site is going to have a lively comment culture, then it is good to see what is new at a glance.
http://www.classywebdesign.com/
For some aging simpletons (not unlike myself) the old format was fine. Now, I just see this giant ball of wax. and don’t know where to find things I’d read in the past. With all due respect to MP’s skill and hard work, it were’t broke in the first place. I liked that blog commentary and major articles were kept separate.
A wry amen from this corner to every last Barkingmad word, especially the “aging simpleton” bit.
[sigh]
I haven’t spent much time with the old website, which may be an advantage in assessing this new one. It appears straight forward and easy to navigate. My eyes scanned the sectional layout and found the major categories readily and clearly. Things appear well labeld and identified; easily navigatable. The aesthetic appearance is umremarkable, quite uremarkable, but that is the last criterion by which to judge this site.
I suggest not making any significant changes now, but to allow users to accomodate themselves to what is presently here and then, after experiencing the site, to offer suggestions after some trial and error. You may also want to design a questionaire and solicit responses in a two or three weeks. Remember, there is always a portion in any population highly resistant to change and displeased with the need for any accomdation or realignment. You need to let the current design ride for a while and not get spooked over every displeasure.
The site looks a lot better. I will be coming here more frequently now.
@ Barkingmad
For some aging simpletons (not unlike myself) the old format was fine. Now, I just see this giant ball of wax. and I don’t know where to find things I’d read in the past. With all due respect to MP’s skill and hard work, it were’t broke in the first place. I liked that blog commentary and major articles were kept separate.
The two points in bold print above simply MUST be addressed or the website cannot possibly be regarded as an improvement.
1. It is now impossible to find ANY back articles without undergoing major traumas. Formerly, ALL back articles were instantly accessible by clicking on the individual AUTHOR’S ARCHIVE. All the author’s main articles were listed there on the same page in reverse chronological order. Why, oh why, was this BASIC FACILITY abandoned in favor of the present system which is almost designed to give the reader a headache? It’s ironical to think that in order to find a back article of KMD’s one must now go hunting for it on the internet and read it ON SOME OTHER WEBSITE!!!
I understand Matt intends to sort out this problem. And I hope he does so without further delay.
2. It is also extremely displeasing to see the MAIN ARTICLES and the BLOG ARTICLES all jumbled up together, without the reader knowing which is which. The MAIN articles, by and large, are of a far HIGHER STANDARD than the BLOG articles whose focus is often extremely narrow. Some of the blog articles are little more than extended “Comments”, amounting sometimes to 3-4 short paragraphs.
By placing the blog articles in the same category as the main articles, you are simply devaluing the main articles and reducing them to the level of extended comments.
I understand that Matt is working on this problem. The new website looks good and is certainly more streamlined, but functionality is more important than good looks. Having said this, however, there was nothing particularly ugly-looking about the old website.
I hope Matt takes these criticisms on board without being offended. No offense is meant. I know other website designers, with Computer Science degrees, who don’t even have ONE-TENTH of Matt’s talents. But Matt has to realize another thing: even if he were to design the PERFECT WEBSITE, he would still get a whole bunch of complaints from the usual fusspots!
Yes, there are people who complain about War and Peace—they say it’s too long! And they don’t like Shakespeare either—because they can’t understand archaic English! So bear this in mind, Matt, and good luck with any changes you decide to make.
Best wishes,
Xanadu
(Lasha Darkmoon)
Let the hits and the comments decide. If there is a precipitous decline, get rid of the changes. Although the backslapping has been a real pleasure to witness (barf), I think the changes completely suck.
1. Recent Comments: It’s good to see this section has been lengthened. It would be helpful for readers if the commenters’ names were bolded and article titles were italicized.
2. Home Page: “Featured Article: Jewish Racialism and Jewish Capitalism: An Analysis of the Coen Brothers’ Barton Fink” is a mouthful, particularly with Comments in mind. I’d suggest cutting down to::
“Jewish Racialism and Jewish Capitalism: An Analysis of Barton Fink.”
Again, the font is disproportionately large, especially the author’s name; how about a simpler maroon title like Vdare uses. Also a line space under the blinker would look good.
3. The blinking graphic pulls the eyes toward it, again and again, and the information it carries duplicates information already in the Recent Posts section two inches away, in a southeasterly direction. : )
I had a look at buchanan.org’s newly designed site and it looks like what TOO used to be. I am not sure, tho, what exactly was “wrong” with the previous version that they felt they had to change it.
@Xanadu/Lasha Darkmoon
The only article of yours which has not yet been transferred from the old archive to the new site is the 08/29/10 post entitled “Sex and the Jews: Letter to a Jewish Correspondent,” and the reason that it has not been transferred is because it cannot be accessed at the old archive. See here:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/archives/Darkmoon-Archives.html
If you would like to e-mail that piece to Matt Parrott, I will see that it gets uploaded promptly. If not, we will eventually locate it somewhere in the HTML jungle and transfer it.
The blog posts will be separated from the featured articles soon, which will make site navigation much easier. Obviously, it would have been best to separate them from the beginning, but hindsight is always 20/20.
Matt has worked hard on this project and demonstrated a great deal of patience and attention to detail. I think the end product will be something with which the vast majority of TOO readers are quite pleased.
It seems to me as if Dr. MacDonald is already availing himself of the ease of the WordPress format in order to post more frequently. I welcome any innovation that makes Dr. MacDonald’s work easier and helps him to be even more more prolific than he already is, which I didn’t think was possible.
@ Robert Campbell
Thank you for writing and explaining all this to me. I’m afraid my knowledge of computers is very limited, so I am all the more in awe of Matt’s many talents in this area. As I mentioned in an earlier post, even if Matt had designed the ultimately PERFECT website, there would always be people who found some fault with it. You just can’t hope to please everyone!
I came to realize only much later that what Matt was trying to achieve was not only an attractive looking and functionally efficient website but also one which would give KMD less of a headache to edit. I understand that many things are now being done automaticaly that previously had to be done manually, and so naturally this must be a great weight off KMD’s mind.
Anyway, good luck to both you and Matt.
Regarding my article “SEX AND THE JEWS”, quite a few people have been writing in to me complaining they can’t access it on the Occidental Observer (and even from other websites which provide a link to TOO) and I have been unable to help them. So if you can do your best to insert a permanent link to it in the archives ASAP, I’d naturally be delighted.
I hope the link below helps. Please let me know if this is what you are looking for.
All the best
Xanadu
(Lasha D)
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-Jews&Sex.html
The front page of the old site had a “Golden Oldies” section on the side with a list of “Classic TOO Articles you may have missed”. This is absent from the new site. I found the Golden Oldies section useful when I first discovered the site.
The seperation between blog posts and main articles on the old site was good because they are two very different types of content. On the new site, I can’t tell which is supposed to be a blog post and which is a main article.
The new site has got “White Identity, Interests, and Culture” written all over it. I think this is too overtly nationalist. As another poster said, it makes the new site look like “just another generic nationalist website”. The old website stood out from the crowd, it was different, it was special. The old website was more subtle, classy and mysterious. I remember when I first discovered TOO, I wasn’t entirely sure what the site was about and if I had known straight away, I might have been scared off. But I found the content intriguing so I stayed around.
@Xanadu/Lasha Darkmoon
I have uploaded the letter in question. Here is the permanent link:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/08/darkmoon-jews-sex-letter/
All of your pieces can now be accessed by clicking on your name in the Author Archive section.
@Golden Oldie,
The featured articles have been separated from the blog entries.
One of the articles in the Kevin MacDonald archive is actually by Alex Kurtagic:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/02/it%e2%80%99s-not-the-arguments/
Also, how do you get to the archives by author for the Blog?
Even when I click on Kevin MacDonald’s name in the heading of one of his Blog posts, it just takes me to a list of his featured articles.
@ Robert Campbell
Thanks, Robert. I am very grateful for your help. Things are beginning to look up and substantial improvements have now been made.
Xanadu/Lasha
Now the bolding which previously distinguished the featured articles from the blog posts in the ‘Recent Posts’ section is gone.
Wow, brilliant improvements have now been made to this website! The two things that bothered me most (and manyt other people too) have been completely rectified.
(1) FEATURED articles have now been clearly separated from BLOG COMMENTS and have the added bonus that they often come accompanied with a thumbnail PIC which gives to each article its individual signature. This is great.
(2) The AUTHOR’s ARCHIVE has ALL the author’s articles clearly listed on the same page in reverse chronological order. No more clicking several times to track down a back article written (say) two years ago. Casual readers may not think this so important, but for a serious researcher looking for a particular back article for a link, the new system is invaluable. Please keep it like it is now. It’s just perfect!
(3) As for the the order in which the Comments are posted, I can tell you from long experience as a poster on other sites that what most posters want is for the comments to appear in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. The most recent posts should come right at the end. Scrolling down to Comment 400 is no problem whatever. Posters get used to it. It only takes a few seconds. (Besides, when do you ever get 400 comments?!? That’s exceptionaly rare.)
If you break up the Comments into batches of 50, with the most recent batch of 50 first, and then require the reader to keep clicking in order to gain access to OLDER COMMENTS, this has TWO grave disadvantages:
(i) Most readers only have time to read the LATEST batch of comments and seldom have time to check out the OLDER comments; (ii) This is a pity because the OLDER COMMENTS are always more pertinent than the newer ones. By the time you get to Comment 50, everything relevant and important has already been said by the best commenters. The later the comment comes, the more it tends to be repititious and/or trivial…so it is better to keep the earliest (and best) comments in full view at the HEAD of the Comments page.
This is just my opinion of course, based on my own experience as a poster on other sites in the past. Others doubtless will have different preferences.
I’d like to say something positive, but this new site really sucks. I much prefer the old site.
The fonts are blurry and difficult to read, and no, I don’t need specs. Even the TOO banner looks blurred.
The big articles should be on the front page, making it easy for new visitors to get the message. The day-to-day blogs are more ephemeral, less important, and should not be on the front page. Above all, this should be an educational site (I thought), not a campaigning site, so educate on the front page, and blog on another page.
(Here’s a strange thing: The new site has just crashed Firefox several times. This must be a problem at my end, but no other site has ever done this)