New Website?

[Barry the bird boggler]

Lorem ipsum is text used by publishers and the like as place-text when designing layouts when they don't yet have the actual text. As far as I know it doesn't actually mean anything (corrections?) but is simply there to act as stock text.

This is quite correct it's just a design aid (or placeholder) so obviously the site hasn't been completed or loaded yet. If this is the case the link to it shouldn't have been activated!

[madstadblues]

My understanding is that the Football League sit used a commercial solution called Vignette owned by Opentext which was based on an agreement with a big systems integrator a few years ago. All the league club sites were the same layout with each club entering it's own content (check our Birmingham City or Oxford), maybe as we are PL we can't use this. Either way the new site looks like it is a home build by someone who is devoid of any creativty and has only one font available to them.

[Tazewell Royal]

Working properly on Safari now, but as of 9pm last night still some problems on Chrome.

Maybe the guys who have done it can learn, one day, how to place photos and logos without distorting them to make people fatter or logos thinner. e.g. Federici's "Player" photo lower down the front page, and the "Waitrose" logo near the bottom of the page.

Not very respectful to our major sponsor.

[CavershamRoyal]

My understanding is that the Football League sit used a commercial solution called Vignette owned by Opentext which was based on an agreement with a big systems integrator a few years ago. All the league club sites were the same layout with each club entering it's own content (check our Birmingham City or Oxford), maybe as we are PL we can't use this. Either way the new site looks like it is a home build by someone who is devoid of any creativty and has only one font available to them.

As mentioned earlier, we may just have a new template, as it is the same as Sheff Wed: http://www.swfc.co.uk/

[Stuka]

New website is very Facebook Timeline

[Turns8]

My understanding is that the Football League sit used a commercial solution called Vignette owned by Opentext which was based on an agreement with a big systems integrator a few years ago. All the league club sites were the same layout with each club entering it's own content (check our Birmingham City or Oxford), maybe as we are PL we can't use this. Either way the new site looks like it is a home build by someone who is devoid of any creativty and has only one font available to them.

As mentioned earlier, we may just have a new template, as it is the same as Sheff Wed: http://www.swfc.co.uk/

If that's the case then if I was the clubs I'd be asking for compensation...you'd think the clubs would have had some involvement in the design discussions...having seen the SWFC one I'm glad it suffers from the same issues...ie slow loading time...the stupid cookie pop...the horrible blocky font...the list goes on...

Shame that the RFC web team are seemingly all in Portugal...although I'm loving the fact that facebook and twitter are being used for more of updates on the tour rather than the official site...

[72 bus]

After using it for a few days, I like it now.
Just like the home strip it represents a step in the right direction
well done RFC

[Reading4eva]

As much as I hate West Ham, there website is albeit half decent. Another decent website is Everton's. Why cant we chuck the football league design and have a website of our own with Reading TV or suchlike (it would make perfect sense too as all profits would go to RFC and not a third party)

[Alexander Litvinenko]

It's lowest common denominator stuff - we're signed into an agreement just like so many other FL clubs (or ex FL-clubs).

So the CMS that sits behind it has to be suitable both for clubs like us which have high traffic and for clubs like Hereford & Rochdale where one person does updates as well as lots of other jobs at the club.

A fine example of where once size doesn't fit all!

[Reading4eva]

It's lowest common denominator stuff - we're signed into an agreement just like so many other FL clubs (or ex FL-clubs).

So the CMS that sits behind it has to be suitable both for clubs like us which have high traffic and for clubs like Hereford & Rochdale where one person does updates as well as lots of other jobs at the club.

A fine example of where once size doesn't fit all!

Its great for those clubs, but we're not on par with Hereford, Rochdale and some would argue even Doncaster. Now for those clubs, this is great. I expect they get a chunk of the revenue being paid by Reading fans & fans of other clubs who have a similar setup (suprisingly Blackburn). It makes sense for them. For us, we should be following the lead of the Man United's, Liverpool's and Tottenham's of this world. I would urge the club to pull out of it ASAP, and to the benefit of the club, I design websites... I would do it for free, with a Royals TV ap, where fans can watch highlights (at a price), and all the revenue goes into the club, not the third party who takes a bit then passes the rest across all the clubs so in other words gives it to all sorts of sh*t like Macclesfield, AFC Wimbledon, Hereford, Rochdale... and shudder, we're even giving money to the Pox & Swine.

Funnily enough though, the Aldershit havent got one. Then again, down the road they've only just discovered the internet and have only just realised Maggie Thatcher is no longer in charge

[Alexander Litvinenko]

This Premium TV (as was) deal was signed up to by FL clubs, at the time of deal Aldershot weren't close to the FL.

I do believe that the income is shared proportionately to the number of hits generated, and Reading regularly gets the biggest share (as you'd expect from the football club with has the highest proportion of supporters who are Broadband-connected).

And it does have teh advantages that ads can be sold on a national basis - if if you were doing it yourself then you'd be trying to sell ads as well, and could only promise the reach of Reading supporters. PTV can get much better advert sales and rates promising the reach of 72 clubs' supporters.

Because don't forget that the whole point of the club's website isn't to bring useful information to existing or potential supporters - that's only a side-benefit. the real aim of this website, assisted by the club's Twitter and Facebook output, is to deliver as many page views as possible to advertisers.

[ZacNaloen]

If Reading were getting all the revenue themselves, how likely would they need adverts?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

If Reading were getting all the revenue themselves, how likely would they need adverts?

It's the adverts that provide the revenue. Or have I misunderstood the question?

[ZacNaloen]

Well I pay 10p a day for Player...

How many subscribers are there? I can't help but suspect that if all those fee payers moved to something managed WELL by RFC, that the same fee would more than cover the cost of the rest of the site as well. Especially if what you say about RFC getting such a large share of the existing pot is true.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Well I pay 10p a day for Player...

How many subscribers are there? I can't help but suspect that if all those fee payers moved to something managed WELL by RFC, that the same fee would more than cover the cost of the rest of the site as well. Especially if what you say about RFC getting such a large share of the existing pot is true.

the player is an add-on, though, and RFC will get 100% of the revenue from that. But the vast, vast majority of website views will be from people browsing the website who don't have player - and that's where the advertising revenue comes in.

[ZacNaloen]

I guess my point is that I don't think advertising will necessarily be needed if the club get 100% of all the revenue for player, except as extra income.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Yes, but the number of people accessing the website who don't have player is thousands of times greater than that of those who do have player. I'm pretty sure that advertising revenue from website visits is worth a lot more than player subscriptions.

[glenroyal]

Never like to grumble when sites are refreshed in terms of design,look & feel, etc ... change is always uncomfortable ... given it a few days ...

But the new site is SO SLOW !!!! Just too many dynamic components popping up and whizzing around - no time to actually deliver the page whose link you've clicked on ...

Every bloody page a has a different large hi-res graphic background too FFS - utterly lousy functional design.

And all the images scaled and distorted to fit the various widgets ... so amateurish ...

[TheLawnMowerMan]

After using it for a few days, I like it now.
Just like the home strip it represents a step in the right direction
well done RFC

I have BT Infinity, IE9 and W7 and the site looks and acts shocking.
What are you doing that I'm not?
I don't think my platform could be more "standard" but the OS is (finally) completely unusable.

[SLAMMED]

I have IE9

So you're the one!