Bang on the new site code for us, if you would

We have been hard at work on some improvements to the site behind the scenes, and we’re about ready to roll out the first wave of changes. For the most part, these changes aren’t too consequential, unless you consider the fact that almost every single URL on the site will be changing consequential. We’ve had to adjust the URLs we expose to the world in order to appease the Google gods.

Nope, not kidding.

There was a time when we produced quality articles, Google did its job well, and folks found their way here quite naturally. That time has long since passed, and so we must reorg the site, exposing plain-English-format-like-this URLs in order to be weighted properly in the big G’s algorithm.

I’m going to point you to our dev server, where you can try out a version of the site using this newfangled URL mangler, but first, a word of warning: you’ll want to open an incognito mode browser window in order to avoid having your TR login and prefs cookies scrambled. Also, everything on the dev server is an older copy of the site, so don’t expect live updates in sync with discussions on the main box.

With that said, you can go here to test out the new code for us.

When it goes into production, we’ll auto redirect all of our older-format URLs to the new ones automatically. Heck, we have a ridiculous legacy there. You can, for instance, go to this URL:

http://www.tech-report.net/reviews/2003q1/abit-9800xt/index.x?pg=3

…and you’ll get to the proper destination.

We’ve made a few other tweaks, as well. Most notably, we’ve decided to pull blog posts into the same stream as our reviews and other articles. Those "posts" are really weekly columns, and we’ve invested a lot of time in creating them. Now, blogs will appear on the front page and in the section pages alongside everything else. Blog posts should be much easier to find, and yes, the individual blog pages will still be clearly marked, for those who think opinion columns should be kept separate from… reviews with opinions about products in them.

In the "who cares, really" department, the nav bar across the top has changed a bit. "GPUs" is now the less-obscure "Graphics", and "Mobos & Chipsets" becomes "Motherboards." We’ve added a gaming section page, too.

I’m sure I’ve missed some other changes, but that’s about the shape of it. Surf around, if you would, and see whether everything works as it should. If not, let us know about any problems in the comments below. Thanks.

Comments closed
    • d0g_p00p
    • 7 years ago

    Man a lot has changed. I was reading about overclocking K7 via “golden fingers”, BX vs 820i and FreeSpace 2. Also DVD burners that were under $2000. The younger generation have it good. Tech is going to be amazing in the next 10 to 20 years. I cannot wait to read the reviews here.

    • Zoomer
    • 7 years ago

    Silly google making URLs insanely long.

    At least removing the text part of it doesn’t break anything. That’s good since it would be horrible to require someone typing the link in to type all 50000000 chars.

    • alloyD
    • 7 years ago

    What do you think about moving the staff tweets section to the right hand side bar? That might make it a bit easier to catch for people who keep up with the articles enough to not have to scroll down.

    • Wirko
    • 7 years ago

    Some formatting tags don’t seem to work. I tried the color tag on trweb7 too, doesn’t work there either.

    [b<]fat[/b<] [u<]lined[/u<] [i<]slanted[/i<] [color=red]red[/color] [color=#FF0000]red too[/color] [size=30]small[/size] Edit: do part-time gerbils like me have the full authorization to use coloured or big fonts or not?

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      don’t think we’ve ever been able to do size (it can be annoying) and color I think is something that used to be doable but no longer.

    • JoeKiller
    • 7 years ago

    seems faster, me likey

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 7 years ago

    As a bit of constructive criticism:
    The page width is narrow by default. I have been reading this site for many many years now and I remember when you redesigned last time and I thought the same thing. I just now noticed the place to adjust it. Perhaps by default you could make it wide by default for desktop browsers and narrow by default for mobile devices?

    Other than that quibble, it worked fine for me.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. Having the page width set to wide as default would be good…who doesn’t have a wide screen monitor? (and the few people that don’t probably won’t be viewing this page)

        • Wirko
        • 7 years ago

        Articles on most tech sites have a layout with one wide column of text on the left and a sidebar, about half as wide, on the right. There are few good ways to make the layout wider. With wide monitors everywhere, a wider text column is a tempting option but a bad one. Long lines hurt readability and they always will, regardless of display technology and size. Long lines coupled with narrow line spacing hurt twice as much.

        This is the widest line from the above article as I see it (Firefox, 120% zoom, only text zoomed):
        >appear on the front page and in the section pages alongside everything else. Blog posts<

        and its length is already pretty extreme to me.

        Here’s a widest line taken from The Economist (about the same width but a larger font, it’s easier to read):
        >patents connected with smartphones and tablet computers was drawing<

        and Tom’s Hardware (about the same width but an even smaller font):
        >derivative of the company’s Vertex 4, the Agility 4 is a worthy successor to the Agility 3. We<

        Tech Report, layout set to wide:
        >mangler, but first, a word of warning: you’ll want to open an incognito mode browser window in order to avoid<

        My browser-screen-eye-brain system is but one of many but I think that TR, or any site, should do some more research before trying to light up all the precious pixels on our wide screens.

        Thanks to TR for giving us more than one option, anyway.

          • deathBOB
          • 7 years ago

          I agree, the width is fine as-is.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        yes it’s so difficult to click your mouse like 3 times.

          • DragonDaddyBear
          • 7 years ago

          No, it’s not hard to click threet imes. This site has the most entertaining articles of any site I visit daily and TR should have a wider base than it does. I never noticed an area where you could click three times to adjust the width or font and that’s. It’s a tiny icon on the side where all the advertisements are. I see that as an even larger problem on mobile devices with high DPI. If it took me this long to see that then I wager new visitors will not notice it and this site deserves more readers.

      • quasi_accurate
      • 7 years ago

      I view webpages in portrait mode so that would suck for me. For example, I hate how the Gawker family of blog sites (Jalopnik, Kotaku etc) makes the page a fixed width so the index on the right is always cut off on a portrait display, forcing me to either move the window to a landscape monitor (at home) or spread it across two portrait monitors (at work).

      • Arclight
      • 7 years ago

      It might not be in their interest IF they want to use the sides for ads…..

      • StuffMaster
      • 7 years ago

      I think the site is plenty wide enough. Not everybody browses full screen.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 7 years ago

    I would like to browse “Friday Night Topic” and “Etc.” postings as well.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Bump! That would be great to have under the More menu.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 7 years ago

    So far so good, but can you add bacon to it? Because bacon makes everything better. Ummm…bacon.

    • Vrock
    • 7 years ago

    And for more fun, there’s this:

    [url<]http://web.archive.org/web/20000815065515/http://www.tech-report.com/[/url<] Detonator drivers. Heh.

      • bthylafh
      • 7 years ago

      I got more of a kick out of how expensive CPUs used to be. I’d forgotten that it was so recent.

        • ClickClick5
        • 7 years ago

        That 600MHz Duron for $79 looks tempting.

        Just enough to power my Win ME that I just bought. AND, thank goodness that Real DOS mode patch is released!

        (That whole page is a good past laugh! Like this page will be in 12 years!)

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      Geforce 2 Ultra used to cost $499 at launch.

      Amazing that the current GTX 680 at the same price point completely blows it out of the way.

        • Sahrin
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]This is a hefty increase over the original GeForce2 GTS, and the 39% increase in actual memory clock speed results in [b<]an incredible 7.36GB/s of peak available memory bandwidth. [/quote<][/b<] (emphasis is Anand's) A 7970 (I'm just using it because it's off the top of my head) has around forty times more bandwidth. Forty.

          • jazper
          • 7 years ago

          You are comparing a card from about 10 years ago…

          I imagine the results would be even more scary when you start looking at older cards… tnt or voodoo anyone?

          in 1998 there was the Voodoo II, with its 3.6GB/sec memory bandwidth (what’s that? your 7970 has 80x the bandwidth?)

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        I guess haters are going to hate.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 7 years ago

      Ahhh….all the news and reviews just thrown into one giant list. I remember how much I balked when they made the first change to make it organized…

      • Arclight
      • 7 years ago

      Wow amazing. Thanks for sharing

      [quote=”Jer Azonic Davis”<]This new variation on the original GeForce 2 GTS is being manufactured using TSMC's .18-micron GX process, and will come running at a stock GPU core speed of 250MHz. The card will also be equipped with 64MB of DDR running at an amazing 460MHz.[/quote<] Oh how things have changed. Remember back when DDR was amazing running at 460Mhz. I sure don't since i didn't even had a PC back then lol Also....some things never change [quote<]Of Godzillas and chips by Ronald Hanaki - 12:09 am, August 13, 2000 Rambus will not be going away quietly. The company has filed another patent infringement suit against Infineon over SDRAM. Clearly, Intel's recent misfirings and poor execution with Rambus have forced Intel to release some kind of SDRAM solution and extend the life of the Pentium III.[/quote<] And yeah, some things happen in never ending (hopefully) cycles [quote<]Pretty colors by Scott "Damage" Wasson - 12:48 am, August 11, 2000 Yes, I have been messing with the site's graphics and layout. Sorry about that; just trying to make the place look a little less awful. More useful is the work I've done categorizing our articles to make them more accessible. I've also updated the indexes for The Damage Report and Evil Thoughts, although I turned around and copied over the Evil Thoughts update; I'll have it back up soon. [/quote<]

    • kalelovil
    • 7 years ago

    I was wondering why Google searches for Techreport articles usually led to Anandtech.

    • willmore
    • 7 years ago

    So Googles link parser has some bias towards natural language link names? Holy crap, do you know what that means? Hint: would a dumb computer care? Damnit, if the dolphins disappear tomorrow, we’re screwed!

    • Majiir Paktu
    • 7 years ago

    Links in article text still use the old URL scheme. See the in-article links here: [url<]http://trweb7.techreport.com/review/23419/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti-graphics-card-reviewed[/url<] Granted, they redirect to the new links, but it might be worth a skim through the database if Google cares. (You'd think they'd just follow the redirects, but you'd also [i<]think[/i<] they'd not require English text in your URLs...)

      • yuriylsh
      • 7 years ago

      Agree, changing urls would be ideal (but might be tedious, depending on how conversion is done). If this is not possible, I would recommend [url=http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=83105<]using HTTP 301[/url<](permanent redirect) instead of currently used 302(temp redirect).

    • ratte
    • 7 years ago

    Works just great but a little hard to read.
    Change in fonts/resolution?

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      tabbing between the two, looks like the font is 1pt smaller or something…

    • ordskiweicz
    • 7 years ago

    Basically seems OK.

    Seems the resolution is higher or the fonts are smaller —

    Also forums are way dated – not current – is this an area to be worked on further?

    Where’s the cheese option?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      -1 for griping about the content being out of date when…

      [quote<] Also, everything on the dev server is an older copy of the site, so don't expect live updates in sync with discussions on the main box.[/quote<]

    • I.S.T.
    • 7 years ago

    I will not have carnal relations with site code thank you.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      You send conflicting signs.

    • DancinJack
    • 7 years ago

    Honestly I think the new urls will help everyone. I’m sure it’s a pain but it will increase traffic and make links easier to find for everyone. I like being able to see where exactly I am within a site index. Having page numbers at the end of the urls is nice too. Everything looks good to me on the dev server though. Nice job.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, I agree – everything about the URLs is a net improvement.

      • dashbarron
      • 7 years ago

      How/why were the auto-generated urls used in the first place instead of names? Seems like the latter would have been easier.

    • grantmeaname
    • 7 years ago

    Everything works good’n’purty. Have you considered giving the blogs a little ‘Dissonance’ or ‘MacHole’ emblem or the like to set them apart in the articles feed? I like that they’ve been brought in with the other content, but they don’t stick out when I’m looking for them now.

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 7 years ago

      Good idea.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      I agree with this. Some sort of symbol or system to denote these as blogs before you click on them. I do believe they should be in the reviews news feed as some of the blogs are pretty cool, but definitely should be denoted as such before you go to them.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This