You state that "Because of the popularity of our Live Discussions, we've anchored a placement near the top of the home page to help readers find our schedule, previous transcripts and featured guests." Actually, that USED to be on the site, but now it's gone with the redesign... It's now harder to get to the list of daily discussions as there's no more "Discussions" link in the menu bar. Please fix this!

the new home page is terrible. The one force commercial keeps popping up all over the place, all you have done is create more adveristing space. WAPO sucks now. Did you hire someone from CNN to design this?

I really preferred when you had the daily schedule for online discussions on the home page. I realize that this isn't your problem, but my office web filters block the schedule page so I am no longer able to participate in the discussions. When it was on the home page it wasn't an issue, plus I could easily see what was available for the day. Otherwise I like the changes for the most part.

Thanks.

I'm so sorry to say this but I HATE the new home page -- I LIKED all the links and headlines and busy-ness -- you're a newspaper and there's a big world to cover! The busy-ness was GOOD. It reflected reality! I hate having to poke around for what I want. And if it isn't on the front page, how will I know I want it?

You've managed well to subtract news from your site. What's the point?

And lose the leading. You've opened up far too much space!

I use the web page to get content. If I want to see white space, I go to an art gallery. It's hard to find the discussions. Ditch the new homepage, and bring back the old one. Also, give us a list of the day's editorials instead of that silly one-by-one flashing. And, for heaven's sakes, bring back Mary Worth to the printed paper.

I too, can't find the discussions. And I liked the previous format better for headlines. Now you look more like the NY Times web site which I also read but not as often as the Washington Post.

Please put the photos & video (or multimedia if you prefer)link back in the top menu. At least on my menu bar there is a blank space where it used to be. Why should I have to scroll half-way down the page to find one of the items you want to highlight. Leave the multimedia strip for those who like it - there's nothing wrong with it where it is just put the link back in the top menu. I do like the modularity and the idea of grouping like with like as you did with Smart Living and Opinions and Discussions. I don't like the fact that you can't find the News - wait, I just now found the News - buried at the bottom of the page. I agree with Rachel - this is a News paper, make the News easy to find. Maybe to take up less space and be able to show more news you could make all those nice boxes a little icon that when you click on it all the stuff in the box appears. Then you'll have room for the news.

I don't like the new home page. It's too hard to find the real news stories about national and international news, among all the fluff. There is now "World" or "Nation" button to click to get those stories. I now just hit "Print Edition" and then "A Section" to get to a format that I like.

This dumbed-down homepage is very insulting to your readers. We want the news, not white space. We want to see the homepage filled with news. We want the previously-easy access to other sections of the paper. Perhaps your time and money would be better spent on getting and reporting news than on redesigning a perfectly good homepage.

I do hope you will reconsider and return the news to us, readily accessible.

Despite their general lack of journalistic standards, more and more I depend on TV news for hard news (especially local). Much to my distaste, this is because over time it has become harder and harder to find hard news in my former standby, the Washington Post. YOU ARE FIRST OF ALL A NEWSPAPER, FOR GOD'S SAKE. I read newspapers in order to spot a BROAD selection of news headlines first and then select the order in which I read them. In becoming some sort of mule hybrid, you have killed some of the main advantages of a newspaper without yet having found things worthy of taking their place. And by the way, the chatroom function has grown very tiresome to me. Too many of the respondents are wackos who can neither reason nor spell. It would be one thing if you offered a roundtable for thoughtful points of view, but you ain't reached that standard, sadly, not even by a suburban mile.

I wanted to register my agreement that the redesign obscures much of the content (variety of news headlines, full list of discussions, and weblog updates) that should be available directly on the homepage. I peruse the main page to decide where I will spend my time on the site. This may be an unfortunate symptom of the short attention spans plaguing many of my generation, but it's quite unlikely I'll spend the time needed to hunt through subpage after subpage to find the content I've previously been able to locate at a glance. Please at the very least move a longer list of headlines higher in the page and return the full list of daily discussions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm
A real homepage. At least the reporters here aren't stooges of WB43s.

This is just about the worst transformation of a newspaper web site many of us have seen. The new page is terrible. It is terrible to use, it looks terrible, it's not user-friendly, you can't find anything, it's just horrible. Suddently, the Post web site went from one of the best to an actual terrible one--horrible, even. What on earth were you thinking? Even the pictures, captions, headlines and news listings are terrible. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and the old page was not broken. This one is.

The new design is cumbersome and much less user friendly. After a quick review of headlines, I always skim the upcoming discussions and blog postings. The latter are nearly impossible to find now. Back to www.nytimes.com

The smaller font is definitely not a good idea. I can hardly make out the text in your bullet points highlighting the website changes. Why do editors think this is a good idea? Time magazine just went through a redesign in which they also increased white space by reducing font size. Seems to miss the whole point of why your readers are here: TO READ. Not to look for nice framing around the ads.

The new design is EXCELLENT. You've succeeded in removing the clutter and keeping the layout user-friendly. Finding information and stories is much easier than the previous design. Congratulations on a job well done.

Looks like 94.1% (16/17 at this point) of "post"-ers dislike the new website. Make that 94.4% (17/18) - I don't like it either. You're doing way worse than Bush. Now that's an achievement!

So I've read several times on various wp pages that there is an anchor to discussions at the top of the page - where? And, don't tell us there is no room for it, there is a BIG area on the header that used to hold the discussion button and is now blank. Let's try again, guys...

What happen to the Most e-mail articles link? Does the post no longer offer this listing? I hope you all have not gotten rid of this feature? It was one of the main reason why I preferred the Post over other papers.

As an Internet consultant who specializes in usability and accessibility, I see pluses and minuses in your redesign. And the minuses seem to outweigh the pluses. (Note - I'm commenting on the Washington, DC registered user version.)

The pluses are the white space makes your other content more readable, and the sections distinct. I don't think you've used too much white space - I always thought the home page could use a little bit more and the balance is good. The page looks less dense now, which is difficult for a news-based web site.

I also like that what used to be the rotating box in the upper right corner now allows you to pick the content you want to view. I always seemed to just catch something just before it turned and then I had to wait out the rotation. Though I'm not sure of the purpose of the heavy blue box that surrounds it. As featured content goes, it's not that crucial, and your eye keeps getting dragged back to it because of the density of the color. A thinner line, perhaps?

On the negative side:

The font under "more headlines" and similar sub topics is too small and a touch too pale. I'm 37 with good eyesight and I'm having a hard time reading it. Boost it up a little and darken the blue, please, for better contrast.

I, too, liked to be able to simply look for the discussion schedule on the home page. You've moved it too far "below the fold" for it to be of much use now. If there's not a contractual agreement of some sort, could you push the ad on the right column down and put the discussion area on top of it? It would be more visible and I think appease many critics of this design. Either that, or add it as a tab to Opinions/PostGlobal & OnFaith.

Ditto for the Blog list. I liked to just scan it, which is now harder to do. That pop-up box just isn't comfy to use - maybe it's the lower contrast, maybe there's too much white space, but it was not an improvement over your old list.

You should be proud of your award winning photography. But you are giving it too much prominence, even below the fold. Could you perhaps do the two sliders at half the width and put them on the same row? The color difference between them would help differentiate them to users. I will say that I do like the coding behind the sliders - the arrows and the small dots make them fairly intuitive.

The biggest negative for me, though - What happened to "Metro" as a "More Top Stories" Category?

Overall - a 50%. I'm curious if you did any user testing - if you did who did you use as subjects? Because I see a lot more unhappy people than happy people on this board and in the discussion earlier today.

Change always invites grumbling, but I think some of the complaints are valid here. You got people used to certain levels of convenience and you eliminated those conveniences. You have angered the usability gods ;)

Please put links to all the live online discussions on the home page. It used to be very easy to find. Now I bookmark this link in order to get that list: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/liveonline/
Why not just put this list back on the home page? Thanks.

Probably the most popular single feature on the Post website is your collection of excellent chats (and we miss Gene)-- no? Word of mouth about these chats no doubt has added thousands of new readers. You are hearing from everyone that you really blew it by eliminating the handy list of these "discussions," earmarked as "live" and "earlier" -- the first place a lot of people go on your site. (And we always knew that we could clink the link to find the schedule for the week.) So I'll just add one more voice -- YOU BLEW IT.

Live discussions? I read the paper for the columns and news and I go here for the things that the paper can't do like (live discussions DUH).

I hate this web page. The whole point of the page is to scan the articles you have in the newspaper and now I get to look at two per category instead of 4 or 5. It is now easier to find news in the actual paper than on the site. You went from having a great page to an awful one.

Let me echo the calls for putting the live discussions back on the home page. I came here just to try to figure out where they disappeared to. I'm still not sure, but I'm going back to the home page to search again...

In the old format, one could see what items one had already visited (the text was colored differently). It's a fairly common useful feature.

I don't see that now.

I'm both a subscriber to the dead-tree version and a daily reader of the website. (In fact, I've had the Post as my home page ever since the NY Times screwed theirs up in a bad redesign.) And I hate the new setup. To echo some of the previous comments, the discussions -- one of your best on-line features -- are much more difficult to find. And when I clicked on schedule this (Friday) morning, it showed me next Monday's schedule. The blogs are likewise harder to find. If I hadn't been a regular visitor before, I wouldn't even know that you have so many extras -- and even knowing about them, I may decide the hassle of finding them is not worth it. As for the main page, it looks dumbed-down. (And while it may be useful to see the bylines and times on the 4-5 top stories, they're really sucking up a lot of space.)

Also, the ads that appear (constantly!) mid-screen are terrible. One popped up just as I clicked on a link to a discussion, so I was rerouted to the advertiser's site instead of the Post chat I _intended_ to select. This is all so user-unfriendly that I think you're more likely to lose your regular readers than to attract new ones. Please rethink it!

I don't mind the redesign. In fact, I quite like the tabs at the top to direct me to sections. I agree, however, that the discussions and blogs--the features taht make the website unique--are very difficult to find. Perhaps adding "Discussions" and "Blogs" tabs could minimize the problem?

I don't think this change is for the better. The "clutter" gave readers access to news and useful links. We can look at snow for white space-we look to TWP for news. Please, everyone is 'dumbding down" news content for life styles for the vacuous and uninformed. resist the temptation.

Since many people (as you can see) are now going to bookmark the daily chat contents, clearly you are going to have a lot fewer front page impressions (where people are exposed to the ads). I think your change in this regard is going to backfire. Please reverse that decision.

I think hate is a little too strong a word but I have to admit that the new design leaves much to be desired. Some of this is repetitive but, IMHO, the live discussion schedule should be readded, the font is a little small and light, the multimedia section is entirely too big, and I preferred three headlines per section as opposed to two.

I thought I was the only one who hated the redesign. One of the few times I'll say "let's go back"

Please return to the old way of listing discussions and return the most popular link. Having to scroll down so much just to get to the technology, health, and education sections, for example, is a big minus.

The live discussions are far and away this site's strongest suit -- they are what draw many people (including myself) to your site on a regular basis. But if I can't find them, I'm not going to waste a lot of time looking for them, nor will I spend a lot of time on the site.

I think the redesign looks pretty, but I resent the loss of information, and I'd like to add my voice to the 50 bazillion others who want the compact lists of discussions and blogs back. Don't make me go digging for them.

Another annoying thing about the new format -- you have to use a pull down menu for Columns and Blogs now, but when you get finished reading one blog you have to go back and pull the menu down yet again to scan the others. You are making people do too much work. You guys have fixed something that wasn't broken.

You probably won't go back to your old web page but I sure liked it better. I agree with lots of your commenters. Too hard to find those live discussions topics.

I agree with many of the criticisms aired; I don't care for the dumbed down appearance. Is this further evidence that are society is catering to the lowest common demoninator? I also want to express my dismay there no longer appears to be a MOST EMAILED section with a separate page listing up to 25 articles. I often found interesting articles I would otherwise have missed because I often don't have time to open and scan every page of the online newspaper. NY Times and NPR still retain this feature on their websites; I don't see why the premier newspaper for our nation's capital would give us less.

Again, I don't know why you hid the discussion links. I want to be able to see all the day's discussions from the home page.
Also, the NYSE chart is way to low in the page. I'd switch the position of 'Smart Living' and the quotes. I know I'll be reading SL semi-regularly, but I check the quotes DAILY and I don't want all the scrolling. (And what's doubly troubling is all the scrolling through your new, clean emptyness.)
A cleaner look shouldn't mean eliminating/hiding information. It's a good idea, just poorly implemented.

You have made two changes in the last 18 months each of which has made finding things progressivly more difficult. While I subscribe to the daily paper, i hit the website because it usded to be easier to find stories. I really don't like this change

A small bet. The number of negative comments you receive about the new site over the next week, will be ten times greater than the negative comments you received about the old site since its inception. Folks, it just doesn't work. I'd say "nice try," but I'd be disingenuous.

A newspaper website that no longer features much news - I think I will have to remove the Post from my list of Favorites

Simply awful. Go back to the old style/format.

I have to read your page in a bright room and the size of your type makes it really difficult.

I have to say that I agree with the comments posted above wishing for the old homepage back. I have lived in Philadelphia for over 8 years and have kept my homepage washingtonpost.com because I want to both stay in touch with the DC region but also be up to date on breaking national stories, political and otherwise. I used the old 'busy' page to regularly scan for articles of interest, and the white space actually makes me feel like there isn't much interesting news happening. You changing the homepage reminds me of your old campaign for subscriptions - "If you don't get it, you don't get it." Take your own advice! The reason why this site is winning awards is that its great the way it WAS! You get everything you need without having to click around everywhere!

The new page although less busy it is very hard to find stuff. To much drilling in with not enough direct links. And PLEASE BRING BACK THE MOST EMAILED SECTION! It is nowhere to be found? It was one of my favorite feature of WAPost.com

Your homepage redesign is a huge improvement. The double-spacing and additional white space make it so much easier to read. Good job!

I will join in the chorus of, "go back to the old format!" As others have mentioned, I enjoyed the "business" of the main page, which gave an easy jumping-off point to check out articles I'm interested in exploring more in-depth. I do most of my reading on a laptop, which of course has limited screen space - the less scrolling/page changing I have to do, the better.

Please bring back the old format!

Thumbs down. I don't consider the new (U.S./World) home page an improvement. I'm yet another reader who wants as much news (short descriptive article titles) as possible near the top of the first page like news.bbc.co.uk.

Increased whitespace at the cost of font size is not my idea of improved readability.

Please test all clever coding tricks in as many browsers as possible before turning them lose on your readers. Not everyone uses Ms IE. (I use Netscape 7.2.) I wish you (and every other website) would stick closer to standard, plain vanilla HTML. That's my suggestion for achieving "a lighter page weight," not by displaying less information. Check out refdesk.com for an example.

I think it would be nice if there were a way (perhaps in our user profile settings) to indicate what screen resolution we'd like the pages laid out for.

I realize ads are a necessary evil, but pop-ups are the most annoying way of presenting them. What advertiser in their right mind wants their product associated with most people's intense negative reaction to pop-ups? The same applies to ads with so much over the top animation, they make it hard to read the rest of the page.

And please, no "dumbing down" of either layout or content. Leave that potential readership to USAToday, CNN, FOX, and the like. If your advertisers want dumber customers, then get smarter advertisers. And on a similar note, see if you can turn up the intelligence on the comments submitted regarding articles about controversial topics! {grin}

too much scrolling; too little news; too much white space; definitely a loser!

Why is the news on the bottom? When I click on WP, I want to see news first----------not junk and white space.

The new web-site seems to lack the news. The tiny font makes it impossible to read. The headlines are gone. The white space dominates the screen for no purpose except possibly to facilitate advertising. The many links are difficult to find. Newspapers require what you are calling "clutter" because there is so much to tell about a changing world. Please go back to the old website. This one is a nightmare for what you need to at least pretend the Washington Post still cares about--the news.

You guys couldn't leave well enough alone. You had a good home page and you had to go and ruin it. What were you thinking? Probably some consultant sold you a bill of goods. We don't want white space. We want links to stories. USA Today just ruined their home page and now you're doing the same thing. Please, Please, go back to the way it was.

Honestly, I don't like it - - I want to read the news. Where is Metro the Politics sections. Who said that they wanted the change. Definitely not those of us that have commented. Change it back. I particularly appreciate the comments of the web designer. Maybe you guys should hire him to get it right.

You took the fun out of checking washingtonpost.com - now I have to click TWICE to view the discussion schedule...

sick of bs advertising. go back to the prior design if you can't be creative.

People wonder why newspapers are failing. My guess is that they spend a lot of precious money on consultants who sell them foolish advice and "retire" the writers we have come to trust. As these comments show, they obviously can get much better feedback from their own users that whomever they are listening to now.

Not being able to tell what links you've clicked on is an egregious violation of web design.

The LA Times doesn't force me to use Javascript (the hacker's best friend) just to see a photo layout. But you do. Why?

PeggyM

Where is the link for "Most e-mailed articles" ????????

It seems the most interesting (and useful) part of the website is gone.
"Most viewed" is not the same, and is much less interesting or useful than "Most e-mailed"..
Please bring it back!

yuk. i'll take previous layout, hands down. Current version: content layout: not intuitive or natural; bad. video bar: splits news, feels unnatural, looks like a javascript ad; bad. font: marginal. javascript ads: clogs up memory, expands into text, annoying, distracting, screws everything up; bad, terrible, worst. i understand ads are revenue.

o, i hope you didnt pay for the *enhancement*. j/k

Been a regular reader but I guess I'll be stopping. I don't know where you put the news, but it's not on this page any more.

I do not like the new webpage, so I say.
Try it, try it and I may?
No way.

Lots of info I regularly clicked on is no longer on the front page and I have no idea where it went. I don't have time to click around and find it.

Please, bring back the old info. If you want more white space, fine. If you want to add extra stuff, fine. but don't rearrange the stuff so I cant find it.

You wouldn't do anything like this to your print edition. It would be a disorganized disaster.

I bet I'm not the only Post reader too busy to learn your new website. If you don't bring back what was there, I'll just go to another news website to get info.

No Politics or Local/Regional news on the WP homepage?

Isn't that why people bother to read the WP???

I guess it is true that one should never underestimate the power of stupidity

I can't tell yet if the new layout will in fact be better than its predecessor, tho it could hardly be worse. And I am still struggling to find things. All this will be irrelevant, however, if the WP continues to force me to wait thru a 10-15 second ad in order to view the piece I am interested in reading. This is truly infuriating and, if continued, will lead me to abandon the WP altogether. My time is too valuable to wait 10-15 seconds to see if I even WANT to read an article! What you have done is to infuriate your readers.

Yes, I understand that you want to create another revenue stream. If you are so struggling that you need to do so, why not follow the Times' example of the Times Select? I subscribe to that and would probably do the same with the Post. I will not, however, put up with the policy that you are currently inflicting on your readers by forcing them to wait to examine every piece you publish!

This 'innovation', Sir, is altogether unsatisfactory. I, for one, will not put up with it. Instead I assume the really important pieces will be reprinted on one of the many sites that do so.

I do hope you will reconsider this latest policy. I suspect that I will be not the only reader to cease visiting the Post page if you do not.

Well, I don't know who you were listening to when you did this redesign, but it couldn't have been anyone who loves news and newspapers (the white space is awful). I loved the site before and it was my favorite news site on the web. It is now awkward and difficult to navigate. Perhaps before you make such a major switch you should ask readers what they like and not just listen to those who write in to gripe.

The Print Edition and link to Previous Editions is gone

Add me to the naysayers chorus. This is simply awful. I don't have time to go searching for what I want, namely the discussions and the blogs and the list of the most emailed articles. And I agree with the poster who said you need to test on browsers other than IE. I use Firefox, and what I'm getting is not good, with some things jumbled and overprinting. Bring back the previous design ASAP, PLEASE!

The line height should be tighter/smaller on your front page blurbs (black text). Also, your main nav bar looks pretty strange on a Mac running either Firefox or Safari.

Words have not been invented yet to accurately state my level of disgust with this EXTREME DOWNGRADE to the website.

What a mess. Some may have called the old page "cluttered" (I didn't find it to be), but at least it was logically organized. Where is the link to the Metro section? I see Sports, Business, Technology, Education, but NO Metro! And the multimedia section in the middle of the page is a major distraction, and takes up a huge chunk of space. What a downgrade. I'm a long-time Post print subscriber, one who hitherto viewed the online site as a convenient and complementary supplement to the print addition. Not anymore, this melange is going to force me back to the print version exclusively, which is essentially the same as saying the Post will no longer be my main source of news and information (I have limited time to spend with the print version, though I love it when I do). But then maybe forcing people back to the print version is your intention? Awful, just awful.

I hate to jump on the bandwagon here but add me to the negatives. I like the old page much better for the discussion links, all the information and a good number of the other compliants already mentioned. Sorry, but it simply does not work as well.

Some feedback for Washington Post:

Please link all of the daily discussions on the homepage. They are the Post's best features, don't bury them.

More content directly on the homepage, please; less white space. I come to the Post to read or, when time is short, get my news at a glance, not via more clicks.

I too couldn't find the most emailed articles feature, and would like to see it back.

I like the photos and videos block, but not it's placement. It really separates the news at the top of the page from the news at the bottom.

Is "Local" the same as "Metro"? I suggest renaming that link, so people can find what they are looking for, under the name they are familiar with.

The largest daily newspaper in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat, made exactly the same mistake 6 mnths ago as WP - more white space to make it more "friendly". The response of the readers was almost unanimously negative, people wanted to have lots of news. This trend towards lighter pages seems take place all over among the serious newspapers. Why? Please, put back the most e-mailed section!

So I've been scrolling down the comments and I've yet to find a single person who likes the new homepage. And understandably so. To echo the legions of disgruntled Post readers out there, for heavens sake, dont join the race to the bottom!

As an overseas reader I have to say this is yet another contribution to the 'dumbing down' of America which is doing so much harm to America and the world. We live in a complex world and merely shunting the complexity to the hinterlands of our consciousness and sticking a Ms. America Pageant on the front is not going to make it all go away.

I'm sorry, I don't drink coffee first thing in the morning, I read the Post. Well, I used to anyway.

The N.Y.Times did the same thing a few months ago.I used to read it every day.The change was so bad that I haven't been back since.This change isn't quite as bad but I suspect that there is more to come.I don't know about other readers but I expect an online home page to be like the front page of a print newspaper not an index or a menu.I suspect that I will be leaving the Washington Post pretty soon.

Plenty of froth, but where is the news content? A sad day for the Post.

I hesitate to sound like I just don't want change, but in this case, I really think you've made a big mistake. The old style was way easier to scan and find what I want to read. Please change back!

I think it makes it look like the CNN page.

I don't like that you have to click on the blogs, discussions part to expand it. Those are often what I like to see and I'd like them to all display. Maybe that could be an option?

I also wish that once you turn that pop-up add in the middle of the page off that it stay off!

Is there a link to 20 most e-mailed articles on the opening page? I'm not seeing it...

And to comment on the comments, it does seem odd that, though the Post says they got good feedback before proceeding with the new design, nearly everybody that has commented here and at the live discussion hates it. I'm willing to give it some time and see if it grows on me, but not being able to find the e-mailed articles link puts me in a negative frame of mind right off the bat. I suppose it is there and I just don't see it?

Hate it! The content that I want to see isn't directly accessible from the main page. World/Metro/Style/Sports "print editions" You'll probably get less ad revenue from my clicks, as I'll be visiting less frequently.

No good.

I've always turned to the Post first because the news was always easiest to find there and many of its writers are first rate. Now you make it hard to find anything.

I have yet to read anything in that White Space you brag about. Why not put some stories in there and help keep your readers better informed. You know, like you used to.

I like the new format. All of those complaining - it's a resource you don't have to pay for, so get over it. Here we get all of the editorials and all other content at no charge. NYT makes you pay for 'full access'. Chill out already!

I'm really surprised the website staff thought this particular redesign was a good idea.

The Post has always stood for depth in reporting and the website front page reflected this. Now it reflects...I'm not sure what.

Please keep things in the same place each day. I don't want to have to search for my favorite sections.

Also.. please put the Discussion link back at the top of the page. I have to search for it each time.

Your live discussions are one major thing that sets your website apart from other newspapers'. Don't hide it!

Thanks for letting us share our input. I hope someone's actually reading these.

Like many others, I don't like that the new homepage has less news. I have a few specific complaints:

1. I cannot right-click on the articles in the new features strip. I use Firefox, and I like to scan through the front page and open new tabs for all the articles that I plan to read. If I can't right-click on the articles, I can't open them in a new tab. A lot of these features looks interesting, but I don't want to read them now and don't want to have to track them down in their respective sections in order to open them in a new tab. Please don't drop basic functionality in the interest of a slick appearance.

2. Please bring back the short list of today's discussions on the home page! If you won't replace the blurb/picture for the featured chat, at least add a tab for today's discussions on the front page (the way that the box above has two tabs for Opinions and Post Global & On Faith.

3. The drop-down box for columnists and blogs is not user-friendly!

The news content is less in the new format. I dislike it. I've always read it before to get your excellent news reports, not the fluffy stuff that you now feature. Please reconsider. You are offending many of your most devoted readers by underrating our interest in perceptive & intelligent hard news reports

The new layout is no improvement for me. I liked the "clutter" of the old site where I could scan headlines (like having a newspaper in my hands) and decide what interests me. When it comes to on-line content, if it's not on the home page, I am far less likely to see it.

To respond to an earlier poster: Just because it is "free" doesn't mean it should be lousy. Free & No Good = No Users. Believe me, I am "paying" for this new layout being so lousy.

The redesign is AWFUL. Whoever worked on this should be fired. The extra white space doesn't reduce clutter, it simply reduces the amount of content which means we have less to read. Aren't news stories about reading? And you have eliminated or hidden all of the most useful links to discussions, most e-mailed articles, etc. Apparently no testing was done and you didn't consult one actual reader of your online format. You need to hire new designers.

When I logged into your paper, I thought something was wrong with my computer. Your online format looks weak and anemic. I thought my internet browser wasn't displaying properly then I find out that someone deliberately did this to your online format! Bring back the old format. There was nothing wrong with it and you actually had a lot of loyal readers who found the old format useful. Don't know who gave you the awful advice to change it, but they are not your friends.

WTF did you do with MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES?

I hate the new layout. I miss the sections to the right of the page outlining TECHNOLOGY, METRO, ****POLITICS****(this is DC by the way), BUSINESS, ARTS, HEALTH, RELIGION. I think having to search for the Metro section and the Politics section is ridiculous. What a shame. This was my first stop of the day. Not any more.

I want to register that I don't like the new design. Bad move. Please reconsider.

Where is the "Most E-Mailed" link???? Maybe the new format makes it to hard to find the real news stories that people like to share.

I get the feeling that a bunch of young stuffy board members did this and do not care about what the average joe think. WATCH HOW YOUR CLICKS FALL OFF LIKE THE NYT. GOD AWFUL URGGGGGGG

I agree with almost every other commenter here, your new homepage is TERRIBLE AND PATHETIC. I come to the Washington Post for news, not flimsy video clips of idiotic drivel and gossip. The Post sure has fallen from the heights of journalism and integrity it once enjoyed in the 70's and 80's. You have already fallen below the rancid USA Today, and appear on the verge of catching the National Enquirer. If you cannot provide good hard news, and lots of it, just quit the business; this is useless. Furthermore, your constant shilling for the right wing religious noise machine and attempts to "dumb down" both your content and the IQ of the American public are reprehensible.

Of course,
it is good
to
reduce
cluter, but it is
not a

good idea to
reduce news. And,

I hope you
will
reconsider.

I would assume that those of us who log onto WAPO want to read the news and are looking for text and links. Those who are looking for "open space" should bring up a new document in Microsoft Word, and just stare at the white blank page to their hearts' content. And why not just have a link to the sports page instead of cluttering what little news space we now have left with sports "news". Please leave sports and entertainment items to other frivolous publications. Almost half your main page ow is devoted to inconsequential "news". If governments are a mirror image of the voting, or non-voting public, no wonder we get saddled with such pathetic, incompetent and ignorant administrations as the one we now have.

Sadly, I agree with the negative comments about the new design, so I'll only add one I haven't seen here. There's link to an alternate home page (local v. national) in the upper right. It doesn't show us the other home page, though; instead it asks us to change our profile permanently. Sometimes I'd just like to switch from one to another. This is done by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/) where you switch easily between the UK and international versions. Could you make this possible for WaPo, too? And if you are contemplating a return to the old format: please, please return. It takes a big newspaper to learn from a mistake.

Who did your redesign, the Washington Times? This format is a huge step backward. Copying the Day in Photos format from the Chicago Tribune was your only good idea.

If anyone is actually reading these comments..ughghgh...my new homepage will be McClatchy Washington Bureau. take a look: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/ It's about the news.

wow, how disapppointing to come to the website of a leading u.s. newspaper and not be able to find the news. what's the point?
and where are recent live discussions?
how much time do you think people are willing to spend finding stuff that used to be onthe homepage?
ok,ignore me, cause i don't pay to read this, but i hope some of your paying folks like advertisers let you know how annoying this is. It's 2007, we are no longer impressed with how cool a design can be--we want intuitive logic, function and breadth and scope and speed. It's a newspaper!

The web page is no longer a destination. No Metro. No hard news. If we have to click thru to find news, we might as well go to the NY Times where everything that is fit to print is on the main web page. I'll use one of the local news station web pages to keep up on local.

The Post was the best compromise for finding both local and national news. Now it is a cleaner version of The LA Times or Houston Chronicle, with less depth.

How sad.

I liked the previous design. This one is counter intuitive. Try again.

great job on re-arranging the deck chairs again.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GHVbxsbECCM

Please bring back the old format. I want news, not gigantic mouse-over ads and white space. Thanks

My, oh my the natives are restless! Apparently much of the carping reserved for the Message Boards is now directed at an update of an old and truly cluttered format.

The WaPo redesign is not only attractive but actually complementary to the overall direction essential to new tech. Besides being both fresh and crisp, the new look does facilitate navigation. The old breadth of information is still there so I really can not understand the reason for all the carping over "removal of content". If one is familiar with the on-line world one would realize that these changes were made to take advantage of the Net's display potential. Good work and as you know there's no pleasing everyone...

New home page. Bad. How sad!

Did you folks change because USA Today dot com changed their homepage recently?

Addtional white space just adds to the scrolling while removing content. Is that the goal - to remove content?

It would nice if you indicated change your 'visited' link color in your global.css file
a:link { color:#0C4790; } <<<<
a:visited { color:#0C4790; } <<<<
a:active { color:#CC0000; }
a:hover { color:#CC0000; }
to something other than the 'link' color. How do we know we already visited a given article. Is this the equivalent of grocery stores putting milk at the back so we must walk through all the clutter just to buy a gallon of milk?

On balance I'd have to say I'm not impressed.

Please put the list of the day's chats back on the front page.

Not sure why newspapers are in such a rush to change the things that readers actually like. You're just driving away the readership that you still have.

Why don't all of you whiny crybabies shut up? Are much are you paying to access this site--oh yeah, NOTHING.

I miss the old page, I liked the section links for National, Metro, World & the other text blocks a great deal.

I don't like all the space given to religion at all.

Please bring back the old format -- I have tried to give this new format a chance, but I have to echo all the previous comments: it's incredibly frustrating not to be able to scan so much of the paper's content right there on the front page. It invariably led me to read articles I never would have known about. And, hello, who's going to read various discussions/blogs/etc. if you don't provide us links so we know they even exist?? Plus, whoever said white space was good is just plain wrong. It just makes it look like the paper couldn't find any news to print. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go back to the way it was.

Hey FRED, are you the Editor or a relative? Doesn't it seem odd to you that a FREE online paper apparently spent unnecessary $$$$ changing something that no one wanted changed? All the comments here are saying VERY LOUDLY is that they want the old format back. They aren't asking for something for nothing. They're simply saying to put back the old something and stop wasting money trying to improve something that didn't need improving. Apparently the Post did not consult anyone who actually reads their paper online or they would understand that one of the most useful features when you are reading the paper on the web is MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES. Unlike MOst Viewed Articles, the most e-mailed highlight topics other readers truly care about. Articles they have read and found interesting enough to pass on to others. Most viewed simply indicates which headlines might have caught someone's attention. BRING BACK THE OLD FORMAT. It was fine and you don't need to waste your money trying to fix something that is not broken.

PLEASE BRING BACK MOST THE MOST E-MAILED LINK/SECTION!

The new homepage sucks a whole lot. Put it back the way it used to be. This new format is cluttered and confusing. The new format was nicely organized and I like having lots of links. That means I can easily get to what I want to read from the front page without having to go hunt for it, like the discussions.

Gallery is one of the reason why I always come here to visit. If I don't scroll down the webpage, and if without the comment from the other readers, I could barely found the gallery. Basiclly, I still hope the gallery can be put in the top menu...

I'm seeing "roomate" on the front page right now. When you fix that error can you take us back to the old page? It has so much more to offer.

If you like white space so much, why don't you eliminate all words from your new home page???

Your new design is awful.

News contains surprises, I thought. Assuming this is indeed true, how do you know what you want to find if you are saddled with a stupid, white space filled home page?

Next, will the front page of the print version be all white spaces, too?

Your old design for your homepage was lovely. Redesign for redesign's sake is silly.

I couldn't find the discussion link and would also like to see it featured more prominently. I didn't mind the "cluttered" look before but I do like how you've highlighted the multi-media aspect. I'm not as negative as some of the other posters. I'm willing to give it a chance.

Diego: "The WaPo redesign is not only attractive but actually complementary to the overall direction essential to new tech.... If one is familiar with the on-line world one would realize that these changes were made to take advantage of the Net's display potential."

That's truly condescending. We're not a bunch of stodgy Luddites who are not "familiar with the on-line world." To the contrary, it's clear from the comments that we are regular readers of numerous on-line news sources. We expect any such site to provide quality content AND to be attractive and easily navigable -- and we abandon sources that fall short on either count. (Presumably the Post management, and its advertisers, understand the commercial consequences of that outcome better than the "stop complaining, it's free" commenters do.)

Taking "advantage of the Net's display potential" and providing well-organized, user-friendly, substantive news content and easy audience participation (i.e., chats and comments) need not be mutually exclusive. It's a shame that people like Diego seem to think they are. And I would say that, even where those goals might conflict, it is in the Post's interests -- its entire history and reputation, and presumably its future business plans, being premised on the quality of its content -- to prioritize the latter.

Very early this thread Jean, nailed it. "Dumbed down" is a fitting descritpion. Change does not necessarily equal good.

If the suggestion was that there needs to be more white space in the print edition, would you actually consider it? What if it was that there is too much clutter with the entries on the left side of the page opposite the Op-Ed page?

while well intended, the design changes are yet more tweaking of the surface -- when structural changes to the newspaper and web site are so desperately needed.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NsWYJR44z18

you gotta put the full list of discussions back on the homepage where they are easy to find and see at a glance what is happening that day.

this all seems like change for the sake of change. who was dissatisfied with it the way it was? I thought it was fine, and any problems I may have had with it are certainly not fixed by this change.

I wish you would address one of the most annoying features of the Post web version, which is the constant updates. On a dialup connection, it is really aggravating to return to the home page and find that you have to wait while it is (yet again) updating with nothing new. Updates definitely have their place on a news site, but keeping them down to once every fifteen minutes or so would be a major favor to your readers.

I can give you my opinion in four words: I don't like it.

The new Post home page is a serious disappointment.

Yes, you have reduced the clutter.

Your readers now have LOTS of white space and a third less news.

You have sacrificed information for prettification.

You have dumbed down WashingtonPost.com.

Compared with the wealth of news on the home page of the New York Times, the Washington Post's new page is an embarrassment.

Where, for example, are the subheadings for Metro and Politics? (Get rid of them. They just clutter things up.)

Come to think of it, you could reduce visual clutter further by posting just one story per subheading.

There is a BIG SPORTS HEADLINE accompanied by a picture that periodically changes, however. (The biggest and most prominent feature of the page. Saturday, March 31, 11:05 pm)

Nice big ad for Radio Shack, too. (It's a full column wide and about one-third of the page in height.)

I thought you were supposed to be a world-class NEWS organization.

I am not merely a cranky freeloader. In addition to being an online reader, I am a long-time subscriber to the print edition of the Washington Post.

You will notice that there is plenty of white space in this email message so that it can be read easily.

I have written mostly simple sentences. They are easy to read, too.

Please bring back the link to most emailed stories. It is the most important feature I look for.

My God!Where's
listen live?

I hate the new home page too.

It wasn't cluttered -- it helped me get to the news and especially the departments I wanted FAST.

The new page isn't as efficient, at all. It makes WaPo look like some cheesy regional paper instead of a national publication.

So, what isn't efficient doesn't respect my time. And what doesn't respect my time disrespects me.

Please, bring back the old look.

I wonder, if in view of the OVERWHELMINGLY negative comments, if the Post will actually listen to its users and not consultants and beta test flunkies. Newspapers worry so much about declining circulation. Perhaps being totally out of touch with their own customers has a lot to do with it.

I *dare* the Washington Post to return the to old format and admit it made a mistake. After all, their own editorials call for Bush to admit to his mistake so this the WP's "Iraq War Blunder." I'm betting the the Post execs act just like Bush and would rather go down in flames rather than admit a mistake on this scale. Yahoo did the same thing and Wall St. punished them severely as users fled.

This comment section is almost completely filled with negatives. Doesn't the MEAN anything to the Post? What I've heard so far is just lame justifications of a bad decision and "you'll get to like it - eventually." Weak.

It's time for a ROLLBACK!!!

PeggyM

I agree new page is disastrously badly designed. Contrary to stated intent, I find it more cluttered not less - it now has more, rather than fewer, different unconnected "buckets" on the page, and is harder to navigate. The page could have been improved but not the way you did it - it should have been made easier, not harder, to scan; more unified, not less.

As a reader of the Post for 40 years, I still prefer the print version that's dropped in my driveway every morning. Because we are in rural southern Pennsylvania, we get a very early edition, but I often go to the website to email or copy articles that I want to save.
When have page designers taken over the news? I don't want design. I agree with the comment that if I wanted white space, I'd go to an art gallery. I WANT CONTENT, AND EASY NAVIGATING. Where is the most e-mailed stories? Discussion??
First WETA, now you! Didn't you consult anybody first?

I agree with everyone.
It was better before the redesign.

What happened to the top 20 most emailed????

I hate your new web page. Please bring back the old one!

More space for the Discussions area should be returned.

What I notice is more room for skyscraper ads on the side of the page. Headsup: Research indicates static skyscraper ads don't really work; making them bigger isn't going to change anything.

Thanks for listening. If you ARE listening, that is.

Your new layout is crap. Prettier with less real content - dumbed down just like our government but prettier. Combine that with psuedo-news like the retarded PR campaign being run by Cassidy & Assoc. under the guise of news and you get a TOTAL load of crap. That is a forum that has not only been actively editing out protests against lobbying and exhibited organized resistance to my employers posts, but has been allowing the "subject" of the "news story" and his friends add editorial comments and corrections. Excuse me? How is that journalism? You are not much better than FAUX News. You can sell and spin that kind of garbage all you want but you cannot defend or promote lobbying and be taken seriously as anything but a sellout. In case you did not get the message, IT IS CRAP - Layout is there and Content is spiraling around the drain rapidly. Your real reporters, not the Neocon moron schills like Will and traitors dirt bags like Novak, deserve better and so do your readers. What happened to the Post that employed Bernstein and Woodward and ENCOURAGED real investigative journalism vs. the corporate pablum you are serving now, WaPo? What happened to the Post that would have brought this corrupt unconstitutional administration to its knees by exposing their crimes? SOLD to the highest bidder. Your current evolutionary path leads to being irrelevant as a source for news but a great study in fascist propaganda. Just like FAUX.

Sounds like most people pan the new design, but I think it is cleaner and more accessible. The only real problem is that you have again failed to promote the comics to being a first class portion of the front page -- nevermind politics and the weather, what about the funnies?

The home page layout is awesome! I read my paper online every morning and the clutter use to drive me crazy!...I didn't know where to start reading. Now my eye has the ease of reading what I need to read even if I have to scroll down just a bit without my eyes going stir crazy. I have completed three website re-designs with three different organizations and getting rid of clutter has always been a goal in order to assist your clientele and your employees in finding the most pertinent information quickly. From a person who has experience in e-marketing and an end-user - Thank you for a job well done :o).

This new design is an April Fools joke, right? You're going to tell us today so we can all laugh and go back to the old news format, right? Please say yes. Don't listen to Monica the supposed e-marketer, the new design is AWFUL. The Washington Post is not about e-marketing, you used to be about NEWS!

For every editorial action, there's an equal or opposite readership reaction.
In this case: Less Clutter = Less Content, thereby making the news universe that much smaller.

The redesign is not an improvement. I look for the Politics articles and find they are not together. Major catagories are good. It helps me search. I recommend going back to the old format. At least I had figured it out. This is a hodge podge.--Guy

I hate this new format. What happened to the direct link to the Metro section? To me, that is one of the most important parts of the paper and it is completely missing on the homepage. I can get national news anywhere. I come to the post for local stuuf too. Fix it!!

I don't like the new design. I suppose I'll tolerate it, but there is less news to entice readers to click on to something. Less clutter means less interest.

Oh dear. Let's see.

First, you have open space on your header bar, while the menus are sufficiently close that people who have their browsers set to larger type sizes are going to see them running together. Not necessary. Please fix.

Most viewed is at the top right of the page? That's kind of embarassing, isn't it? You've just basically announced that the most valuable real estate on your home page can be freeped within fifteen minutes by pretty much anybody with a handful of sockpuppet blogs. If you're promoting Live, put it there.

Aesthetics vary, but the overall look of the page doesn't work for me. User-friendliness, on the other hand, is a little less subjective. You've created a page with less information on it, which makes it more difficult to get to the information, and which, because of the decision to emphasize negative space over content, actually takes longer to scroll down.

If you want to offer this layout as an option for people who warm to it, that's great. Bluntly, a clunky design would be a disincentive for choosing your site to catch up on the news.

WP has had THE best home page for a long time now. Unfortunately, this page isn't very good. The old page might have been cluttered, but it was cluttered with advertising, not news. Leave the news and amount of new alone, and figure out how to make your advertising less obnoxcious and you'll have a winner again. Not enough news on this page. Really, you need to either go back, or get more new on this page. Sorry, I want to support you guys, but this page stinks.

This is what happens when you put marketing people in charge at a newspaper. All you get is less news, and more marketing. I'm not in the DC area anymore but I liked the metro section headlines on the front page. If I wanted to read a paper that was visually attractive but full of fluff I would read the AJC (actually it's not visually attractive, just full of fluff). I come here for news, not white space. No wonder the whole industry is in trouble. It's just like a bar tender that waters down his drinks, then wonders why nobody buys them, so to stretch his shrinking budget he waters them down more.

What on earth were you thinking? Even the pictures, captions, headlines and news listings are terrible. If it is not broke, don't fix it, and the old page was not broken. This one is horrible.

I get it! VERY good April Fool's Day joke. Look how many people you got--me included. I can't wait to see the real page back on Monday. This practical joke is almost as good as Sid Finch--maybe it's even better (so hard to keep a secret nowadays as compared to the 80's).

I suppose the objective was to make the paper itself as difficult as possible for the filthy liberals to read, and comment on all the lies and propaganda you publish.

I, too, bemoan the loss of "Most Emailed" from the home page.

don't like the "new" look, lol
a shame.
since it's free, what can i say?
Would you care if i stopped reading your paper cause of this? I doubt it.

WHERE IS THE "MOST EMAILED" SECTION???

The most interesting part has been cut off.. I hope this is due to incompetent design, and not on purpose..

Interestingly, the editor's justification regarding "page weight" is obviously straight out of a consultant's Power Point slide.
If page weight (bandwidth needed to load the page) was a concern, Wash Post is 7 years too late.. That was an issue when dial up ruled the roost. With the vast majority of readers on broadband, page weight is completely irrelevant. Someone should have told the consultant to at least update the standard Power Point used by the consulting firm.

SO YOU GUYS ACTUALLY THINK WE ARE KINDERGARTEN - EVERY SINCE THIS LITTLE COMMENT ABOUUT - READERS WILL GET CONFUSED ABOUT DAN FROOMKLIN BEING A REPORTER. WELL GUESS WHAT THE ONLY CLICKS ARE GOING TO COME FROM HIS LOYAL BASE AND THOSE OF US WHO DISLIKE THE TALKING POINTS OF HOWARD KLUTZ, GEORGE WILLS, ROBERT NOVAK.

I LIKED being able to see all the headlines without having to scroll down. The large photo on the left is a waste of space. I have the Washington Post as my home page to get all the news at a glance. If I wanted something that wasn't busy, I'd choose that. Get rid of the huge advertisement on the right-hand side, put all the news headlines "above the fold" (meaning I don't have to scroll), and go back to what you do best--reporting the news--even if it is from a liberal bias.

I also do not like the changes. It doesnt seem as though much was accomplished except to make the site less user-friendly. One of the main reasons I visit this site is to view the post's politics reporting. That section is not even listed on the main body of the homepage anymore. Any why is it suddenly so difficult to get the Fix blog. That is perhaps the best part of this entire website and now its hard to find!

To those noting the Post website is free, I would offer the following. A Post executive on CNN several months ago said that the Post website is a profit center that is helping to support the traditional paper edition. The website ads generate revenue, and my assumption is that by now forcing us viewers to hunt and peck for the old content, we are seeing more ads, thus producing more revenue. I only wish Jim Brady in his explanation had been more forthcoming, instead of pointing to more white space as the rationale.

I think the new website is much less user-friendly. I also liked that the old website listed the Live Discussions in a more appropriate and accessible area. The layout might look nice, but the older page had the hard news set up in a better fashion. Now, it is harder for me to find what I am looking for, and the Metro section should be at the top of the news links. Mr. Brady, please read what the overwhelming number of people on this blog have expressed and consider changing back to the previous format.

Who is in charge of forcing change down the readership throats? I preferred the old front page because it had the links i needed to anywhere in your site. It adds to my time, and will inevitably lead me to other pages for the links i need, even to the post content. Another change brought by the same management that keeps tinkering (negatively) with the print Post as well.... the only reason you can succeed so well is that you are essentially the only big show in town.

Please put the list of live discussions back on the main page!

OK, since you're holding hostage the HEADLINES, DISCUSSION, and MOST EMAILED sections, and since most people think it's because you wanted to expose us to more advertising since the site's content is 'free', I'd be willing to buy a subscription if only you'll put it back the way it was.

First reaction: "What happened to all the stuff?" While appearing busy, the old homepage was not necessarily "cluttered". Living in a multi-tasking world, I don't see how I'll benefit from this greater separation of information.

I spend considerable time with your op-ed columnists. Access to their offerings continues tolerable. The "Opinions" scroll list is still an eye chart.

It would be interesting to see how website viewers would respond: Subscribe for website access to the old content, or accept the revised format with more ads for free?
Personally, I'm torn!

We blather on here and no one responds. Did you people ask our opinions because you cared? Do you intend to respond either by post or by action? Are we just tilting at windmills here?

Less information: another step towards irrelevancy! Good idea, schmoes.

It appears an overwhelming majority of readers (customers, to use a different word) don't like the new layout. Is there any chance of polling the readership and asking what they think of the new layout, and possibly going back to the previous layout. It may be, in fact, that the previous layout, although a little cluttered (to some), was in fact a better layout. And, you can include advertising anywhere on the layout you want.

Great heavens, Mr. Spock, they're actually doing it...shrinking the news universe!
Yes, Captain, it certainly defies the laws of physics, but you must remember, we're visiting the planet of Corporate Greed. The Greed Gnomes have clearly taken control.
But, but...why, Spock, why? Why would an intelligent life form do such a thing?
Again, Captain, it's the planet's innate culture...to live in the past as they devour the future.
Well, this certainly must stop! Scotty, prepare to beam down Mr. Spock, Bones, and myself to the Planet of Corporate Greed.
Ay, Captain!

Everybody's a critic! Whenever inexpert opinion is given equal voice with expert opinion, inexpert opinion prevails. This points to a major problem with this type of forum. People who have nothing better to do with their time than spend hours hanging out in forum are probably not contributing much to the life of the polis.

They'll forget they ever had a problem with this facelift. Amazing how this kind of mossgrown conservatism evolves. It was a mistake to ask for reaction when all you have is hip reactionaries.

Can't find your way past the main page? Poor babies.

After 20 years of living in Washington and subscribing to the Washington Post, I moved to Southwestern Virginia 3 1/2 years ago. Unfortunately, I found that I couldn't get the Post delivered here. But I was thrilled to be able to read the online version.

Like many above, I found that the 20 Most Emailed section was the most interesting thing on the site. To me, it was a barometer for what's most important and interesting to an intelligent group of people. WAY different, as others have noted, than the list of most VIEWED articles. This was the pulse of the region and sometimes the nation. Such great reading.

I know that as a business struggling to compete in a new world, you are doing this to get people to browse more online, and hence get more advertising "eyeballs," not to make it easier for the readers.

My guess is also that the link to the Top 20 Most E-mailed articles is probably the most clicked on feature, which is scary to you since there's no advertising (or little effective advertising that I can remember) there.

Would you be willing to divulge that data?

So you're spending millions of dollars a year developing this world-clase content, yet no one is reading it.

And at the same time, I suspect you've just hidden the most popular part of the site. If so, to say you're doing this to the readers is a joke.

Anyway, a couple of days ago, there was a Q&A on here about the new design which said that the Most E-mailed link was about 2/3 of the way down on the left. I looked & looked, and couldn't find it. I now can't find that original Q&A. So what gives?

I've wasted quite a bit of time searching the site high and low for that, but can't find it!

I would gladly pay a modest fee to have access to that list - maybe e-mailed to me. After all, I'm not able to buy a subscription in this part of the world. It was worth that much to me. And I want to see your business model thrive going forward, so all in the world can access the good reporting of the Post.

But yeh, I agree with the many posters on here - this was not done for readers, but for advertisers. And some design consultants sure sold you a bill of goods.

In addition, why does there have to be a total, all-at-once redesign? Why not tweak a section here or there as you go along to accomplish your goals?

Finally, given the overwhelming response on here, are you really interested in this feedback, or are you just kind of hoping that we vent and "get used to it."

When do we find out if you've actually "heard us." After being a loyal reader of the print and online editions for 23 years, this is sorely disappointing.

The new page is fine. Everyone will get used to it in a few days. Honestly, it's not really that different, and it's working better for me. For those who are so worried about getting all the news, just click on the section pages. Honestly. Unless you think reading the 'news' means reading headlines.

I must say, though, that I've also lost the Live Discussions and I'm not happy about that. You need to check to make sure that link exists and is working properly!

I thought that your page was having a computer glitch or problem. I liked the "busyness" because it was full of information which is why I liked reading the Washington Post. Now that I know that this isn't a mistake, I'm not going to be using my time on the Washington Post anymore; it simply doesn't have what I'm looking for: quick, accurate and very accessible information.

The change to the WashPost website prompted me for the first time in memory to pen a note to the Executive Editor; I received a pablum response of "we appreciate the feedback and can't respond to all comments."

I am a dead tree subscriber but the Post on-line has been a wonderful lunchtime alternative. But, no more if you keep this format.

I thought I could adapt to it, but, as many other posters have described, it is not possible to find what you are looking for.

In addition, please review your Creative Director's responses to criticism in the Friday live discussion - was he responsive - I should say not.

Where is the list of columnists?
Why can't you see today's live discussions without an additonal click?
Where are the Metro headlines?
Where are the most read articles?

What were you thinking???

The very few pro-change respondents seem to be art-effites who don't have a user-world mentality.

This weekend, I only accessed the Post website to view comments on the change and to play sudoku. Starting tomorrow, sudoku will be my only excuse.

Farewell WashPost online. I'm done.

Shame on you for such bad judgement.

Those of you claiming that the negative posters need to relax because the site is free are very much missing the point. We do pay to use this site by exchanging our willingness to utilize this website for exposure to the advertising messages of the advertisers who fund it. If we as web readers do not enjoy utilizing the site and find it cumbersome and lacking the personality we were attracted to in the first place, we will very possibly seek our news elsewhere, thus reducing the eyeballs (and potential ad revenue) for the Washington Post. By virtue of posting commentary, these critics are web savvy and do know what they enjoy. This instant feedback from loyal readers is what makes the internet so valuable in the first place and should be welcomed by a company in the business of instilling brand loyalty.

Where are the Politics, National and Metro groups in the More Top Stories. I'm sure you couldn't have just buried them in lower pages somewhere. After your above the fold headlines these were the 3 most important sub groups to check. Sports, Arts and Living, and Health still get groups of headlines, but no Politics, National or Metro? What am I missing here?

F- and 20 minutes with the dunce cap.

You might want to try looking at the site in a browser with a minimum font size selected, say 18pt. (That's what I use, and I'm sure lots of folks use an increased font size.) The layout falls apart. That's a rookie mistake.

I have nothing new to add but my voice in concurrence with the ~98% of those above who think the change is bad. In particular, I am much less likely to visit this site if I can't find local DC news on the main page or get more than two headlines per section. I don't have time at work or while watching my kid to do much more than scan quickly through the headlines, tabbing those that look interesting for later reading (like now, at 11:33pm). Please, please don't ignore reader response on this one; I don't want to have to go through the trouble of finding two new news sources, one for local, one for global. If you don't fix it, though, I (and, I suspect, a large percentage of your other viewers) will leave.

I hate to pile on, but it looks like we have to to get you all to recognize that you've made a massive mistake here. The "clutter" you talk about on the front page isn't clutter, it's VITALITY. Little hometown paper's websites that only have 5 stories to talk about in a given day have 5 links on their homepage. You are supposed to be a PAPER OF RECORD in this country. So, showing more news on the front page is important to help us find stuff that's worth recording. It's a shame you've ruined that by taking news off the front page.

I've been a washingtonpost.com regular reader for at least 7 years now (I can still remember checking for constant updates during the 2000 presidential election recounts) and I have never had a problem with this site until now. But let's be honest: This dumbed-down "redesign" is a disaster. Hasn't anyone over there ever heard the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

I wonder, Mr. Brady, how much you truly know about the field of publication design theory? I myself have made it my career for going on 23 years now, and I can say that the changes instituted this past week at WaPo's site aren't going to enhance the readability at all. Just to give you one example: Nobody wants to spend time scrolling through three or more screens' worth of pixels to get to the bottom of a homepage just to find their favorite links. The old (pre-Thursday) layout was a model of tight efficiency: Major stories headlined "above the fold," with relevant links to Froomkin, Kurtz, videos, etc., and departments (where the hell have Metro and Politics gone to, BTW?) "below the fold" with the three most newsworthy stories bulleted right there. Now the news density is reduced by at least a third, the thing is an unreadable, impenetrable mess, and the reader has to do a hell of a lot more active scrolling and searching. You (or maybe it was the shill for the new designer--I forget) referred to the old homepage as "cluttered"; I, OTOH, always found its layout to be refreshingly intelligent and accessible.

And here's a second example: Even a 10th-grader who's putting together his high school paper knows the difference between "creative use of white space" and "creating a dull gray mess." White space is used to help the reader differentiate between items on a page and highlight individual items. Adding leading and lessening the white space between individual items, as your designer has done, achieves the opposite effect and confuses the eye so that it can't decide where to go. It's fatiguing and, as is obvious by all the negative posts you see here, immensely user-UNfriendly. If you're going to throw around specific terms like "white space," you should at least know what they mean in a design sense.

I'm forced to assume that someone at your office was sold a bill of goods by some cookie-cutter "webmaster" who has a mastery of coding but no experience with actual design work. I remember several years ago when Reed Elsevier's trade news print magazines underwent a similar makeover regimen, which made them much easier to lay out on the computer, Quark-wise. But the process also stripped several venerable titles of their gravitas and left them looking like nothing so much as those throwaway airline magazines you find in the seat pockets of your local commuter jet. Your site now gives off much the same feel.

On another front, who decided what passes for newsworthiness on your new site? Near as I can determine, it must've been some focus group assembled from the folks who couldn't get into Wednesday's "Oprah" taping. Your shift away from serious news to lightweight "lifestyle" pabulum is similar to the one that finally forced me to recently drop my two-decades-long Newsweek subscription and start spending three times as much to receive The Economist every week. The Economist ain't as prettified graphically, and its editorial bias doesn't jibe with my own brand of politics, but damn, it sure is nice to see all that hard news instead of the latest on which graveyard Anna Nicole wound up planted in. Some of us still care about that stuff. Silly huh?

Knowing corporate mentality and the inability to acknowledge mistakes, even glaring ones, I don't expect anyone at washingtonpost.com to have the balls to own up and say, "Sorry, my bad, we'll put it back the way it was." Y'all have obviously thrown waaaay too many bucks at some flashy "award-winning" clown of a designer--the cousin of a WPC board member, perhaps?--to be able to admit what a waste it turned out to be. Instead, you'll no doubt keep nervously congratulating yourselves on what a nice new outfit the emperor is wearing, and awhile later down the road you'll feign total shock as the numbers come in and show that traffic has dropped off, and you'll shrug and say, "Well, that's the way the news business is trending. It's not like we could've done anything about it, after all." And so it goes...

Or, unlikely as it may be, you can change you minds, revert back to the old and far-superior WaPo layout, prove me wrong and keep me--and all those who've posted comments before me--as happy readers. Which will it be?

Oh man, I HATE the redesign. Despite the very "dumbed down" look, it just took me more than 3 minutes to find your supposedly page A1 article on how the Bush administration puts insiders in top prosecutor jobs. Previously, this would have been prominently featured, I am certain. I also can't find the Discussions links you're talking about. Sorry, but I HATE IT. HATE IT.

On the old home page we could see all the most popular or emailed stories. Under this new one we can only see five. If this an improvement. I think not.

I spent several days looking for the most emailed articles, it was such a good way to catch the interesting stuff. After reading the comments here, I guess it's missed by others as well.

Sorry, I also think there's too much space and not enough articles to click on. I usually check your site several times a day, scanning through all the lists to see what's interesting, and it seems harder now.