Not to mention having yet another site with an incredibly high bandwidth requirement….

The comments themselves on Dailytech often leave something to be desired, but the format may offer something to TTAC. It’s easy to identify individual conversations and common threads among the hundreds of comments.

The comments and conversations are the strongest features of TTAC. Keep that across all (two, in my opinion) of your sites.

…Nah, that would be crazy.

TTAC has tons of content — that seems to fly off the page. I take my time looking at editorials and reviews (which I enjoy lots) — to be sure and catch the news stuff — which if I don’t get to the site often enough, I never see again.

I think you need a creative redesign — where the home page has the latest stuff from all major content areas, and then 4 – 6 subpages (maximum) for each of the major content areas. Then on each page – current stuff at the top, and then organized either by chronology, by topic (e.g., deathwatch, truck reviews, news about chrysler, news that is funny, etc) the older content.

The other challenge is improving interactivity. The conversations and discussions are attached to an article. Not bad — but, it limits the discussion of, GM for instance, or the latest things from BMW. Also, with the current design — those things are quickly “lost” so discussion stops.

TTAC can excel, vs other car sites say, because the site content is pretty tightly focussed, and the “slant” is very appealing to many of us. So how to integrate that with the community? You’re not going to find this kind of discourse on Edmunds, say, or a brand site (saabnet, for instance). But how best to leverage the users?

You have a GOOD challenge here — good stuff & good users —

All the best! Pete

On another note and anectdotaly, I see quite a few of the new Malibus (Rochester, NY). Definately more than the new Accord but not as many as the Camry. Only one that I have seen had an Enterprise sticker on it.

It seems clear where The Best and Brightest stand on this issue.

I now see that our “core” or base are happy enough with the synergy between TTAC’s three elements– a thought that, frankly, hadn’t resided uppermost in my mind.

One thing is for sure: we will be adding widgets that are LONG overdue: photo galleries, videos, forums, user groups, etc. But I promise to keep the site clean and uncluttered as possible, so that the widgets complement the current functionality, rather than destroy it.

I’ll keep you posted as the strategic and development process develops. Thanks again for all you help.

I don’t feel TTAC dilutes it’s brand by posting editorials, reviews, and a new blog. All three aspects are linked by one common theme; cutting through the BS and getting right to the point! That is what the TTAC ‘brand’ really is, the truth. That is what makes the entire site a cohesive unit.

I think what you propose (a “discuss this article” link on the bottom of every editorial, article, and review) is a workable solution. The current Responses section is no substitute for threaded discussion, which is desperately needed.

I agree, the comments section could use some improvement, but the solution is not to separate the articles from the comments. That’s a bad way to go.

My solution to the comments section: model it after digg.com’s, but don’t copy it exactly. digg.com gives the user too many options on how to view the comments. It should be sorted by date with most recent one last, but people should be able to reply directly to the comment they are replying to, like how it is on digg. And, of course, there need be no ranking here on TTAC like onn digg. I think we’re all way above that here. I know digg’s comments section is sometimes clunky and takes too long to load, but what do you guys (especially Mr. Farago) think about that as a model for a new comment section?

I agree that a tightly focused brand is a good brand. However if we use a Porsche analogy, Then TTAC is like the 911, Cayman, and Boxster. You’re not far into Cayenne territory yet, so don’t worry. Leave it alone. It’s good.

TTAC used to be clean; now it’s a bit cluttered. People only spend a few seconds searching for what they need and the site in its present state is not as easy to navigate or understand as it might be. At least, that is my impression when I show the site to TTAC-newbies. Some experimentation might be in order: how much time does a newbie need to find a car review? How long would they need if the site was split up? In the end, page views and advertising income count.

I think the comparison to GM is not so valid. Rather, I would compare TTAC to Virgin as it has a similar brand kernel: a renegade, noncorporate, no n-BS, unique, quality brand, personified through its founder. Who is willing to experiment with new products and willing to dump them if they are not successful.

The only lesson I would take from the GM book is that one needs to concentrate on matters of importance (or at least be amusing when not). Lately, I think TTAC has been publishing news that is not always terrifically newsworthy. Who cares whether a German statelet has introduced a speed limit? This stuff from Bremen has exactly zero importance in the CO2 / driver’s freedom / traffic management discussion.

Lastly, an idea. It might be useful to increase interactivity. Why not let readers decide whether the 800-word limit is law? How about letting readers vote on each car review: Click on “Would you like the author to write an expanded review of this car?”, or click on “Satified with the information provided”.

You dont want to change that…I read all articels in all 3 sections and dont want to be pissing about trying to find what I want ot read on different websites…

The current layout is pretty easy to navigate and find what you want…

There might be some room for cleaning up the layout/interface but its essentially fine – its nice and simple – and its light – ie. there isnt too much graphic/flash nonsense that just prevents you getting to what you want…

One of the worst things a site can do is get overly graphical or complex in layout…if its hard to find what you are looking for you dont bother and go somewhere else…

Not that things couldn’t be better, though. For instance, didja ever walk into a Best Buy or similar shop and see boatloads of wonderful new wide-screen monitors? Boy, this thing sure wastes all of that width I bought with my 21-inch widescreen.

Also, I’d say your reviews are your weak point — I’m not sure they would stand alone very well. They tend to be wildly inconsistent, leaving no sense whatsoever that this enterprise speaks with some shared, specific viewpoint.

I sure thought it hit a low point with Justin Berkowitz’s review of the 2009 Toyota Matrix, which was essentially 100% snarky opinion, with absolutely no information within the review to let the readers know what those opinions were based upon. Eventually, Justin followed up with pertinent information in a comment — information that SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE REVIEW ITSELF.

To me, his review was nothing less than some smart-butt “shooting his mouth off,” and sure didn’t qualify as anything approaching “journalism.” And it was a good example of what happens in a number of reviews — it’s like the reviewer can’t do anything but bad-mouth something like a Yaris or an Aveo because it doesn’t match up well with a BMW 3-series.

Come on, you need to have some PERSPECTIVE BASED UPON REALITY in these things. But wait — yes, you DO have some excellent examples of that. William C Montgomery’s recent series of big SUV reviews was EXCELLENT. He didn’t rip these vehicles new butt cracks because they didn’t handle or accelerate like sports cars — no, he weighed them against each other, within the reality of where these rigs fit into the marketplace.

So, I think the TTAC reviews need to “grow up” — if they were more standardized around the kind of quality Mr. Montgomery has produced, I wouldn’t be writing this.

I’m happy with the news bits, but I sure don’t see them as making up a “whole web site.” And, I’m happy with the editorials, but it’s the same boat — I’m not sure they make up a whole web site. So, I’m kind of happier with things the way there are now.

But, you know? I think I just gained a bit of perspective on that beef I’ve got with your “reviews.” Yeah, the “editorials” are fine — they can be all over the map. But, “reviews” need to have some basis in facts and in comparison with vehicles in their respective market segments — they can’t be “just editorials.”

In the end, I’d like to see some improvement in that aspect of TTAC, rather than breaking things up into different web sites. I call it “a good start,” with some areas ripe for a bit of improvement, but it fits well in the size of the single web site it now occupies. I vote “stay whole and grow.”

2. How about a more newsy type of look? Newspapers mix editorial, news and “reviews” quite well online. It’s not revolutionary.

3. Does the navel-gazing ever end?

I think what you propose (a “discuss this article” link on the bottom of every editorial, article, and review) is a workable solution. The current Responses section is no substitute for threaded discussion, which is desperately needed.

Go out and find a cheapie hosted threaded discussion package (CommunityServer, Pringo, ONEsite, et.al.) and be done with it. Just make sure it is well integrated.

Personally, as a regular reader, I find it easier to get everything in one place.

The problem with your question, Robert, is that you’re asking people who already visit the site. While of course you don’t want to alienate your existing reader base, we’re not the ones the proposed changes are intended to appeal to – it’s the people who don’t already come here. The incremental traffic, if you will.

How about keeping this site as is (all three together) and making a separate reviews site and a separate editorials site – with the latter sites simply automatically populated with content from the main site (or vice versa)?

The biking.com site is way too busy. It shouldn’t have three menu bars (the top one, “mtb reviews”, and “expert advice’). I would remove the daily poll, site statistics, put a current article or two on the left, and consolidate everything else to the right column and menu-bar on the top (which should expand to be more useful).

I really appreciate the uncomplicated TTAC interface, and feel that it is an integral part of your “brand”.

And speaking of RSS – I will admit, I visit the actual site pretty infrequently. I’ve subscribed to the main RSS feed, and yes, for editorials and reviews, I click through Google Reader to reach the relevant TTAC page – otherwise, the news blurbs and podcasts are consumed entirely off-site.

* * * * * *

As far as splitting TTAC into three sites – I can see the argument that the “brand” is still strong. Of course it is, the strength comes from the (honest) writing and the (honest) comments. As long as we have that, yes, in essence, the TTAC brand is strong. However, in terms of having three disparate sites… won’t that just create three sub-markets, or sub-groups, really, of readers?

I’m confused, a little, as to what the real driver behind the desire to change is. If the design feels clumsy, I think it’s a sign to change it (the design) not the site. Yes, these are three different and wildly divergent topics, and trying to rope them in is a challenge. Yes, for the first-time reader, it’s horrible. And maybe that’s just it.

The example given, biking.com, I think displays what’s wrong with widgetry. It’s ADD, OCD, and well, maybe alphabet soup.

Perhaps what’s needed is a change in design only. Structurally, TTAC is strong. Any reader will testify to that. But maybe what you need is a logo, a new home page, or a new navigation system. Bring the content to the front and let the writing – what’s always made the site stand high above everyone else – shine.