Answering Your Questions About Our New Home Page

I am sure late to this party. I did not not notice a clue of a difference. I guess it's me ha-ha! I'm posting this before I read one word of the article. I want to see what the compliments and/or complaints are first, out of curiosity; then I'll read it. Interesting. :-)

I don't like the missing bylines. I don't like the ads that cut across the stories. I don't like the bad grammar that is becoming much more common on your paper. (How about hiring some copy editors to proof the stories. Spellcheck is a lousy substitute for seeing that apostrophes are being used correctly and that the correct spelling is used.) What I liked about the site is gone. I liked the verified commenters. It meant that the person commenting usually had some grasp of the subject and could write a decent sentence. Bylines on the stories told me if it was a reporter I was following. Where have the icons gone that used to tell us if we could comment on a story? You have become just another scrolling newspaper on the internet. The only reason I stay on this site is that it beats the local rag, LoHud, by a mile. But that isn't saying as much as it once did.

I agree with many of the comments. The Editors’ Picks are similar to the click-bait imposed on readers “around the web.” I’ve seen the same NYT story about 10-story waves for weeks, along with many other frequent repeats. Even when I read the stories they keep reappearing. Please bring back the desktop view of the actual NYT front page as an option on all devices, including smartphones. We just want a classic newspaper experience with no attempted personalization. As many have said, subscribers will pay for it.

While the homepage looks good I prefer that it to look just like the newspaper.

Comments have been overwhelmingly negative to the new format, and I'm am certain your survey results confirm this. You have a moral responsibility to share those results with readers. You have done a good job of infuriating your subscribers.

I've more or less moved on from the Times but this article popped up in my feed so I thought I'd weigh in. The new format was the final straw. The masthead is a giant banner ad. The format is so busy, it can easily be mistaken for NY Magagine. Clicking on a simple recipe sends you to a pay wall - which is especially offensive since the thing that sets them apart is readers' comments. What's worse: it disempowers the reader by curating the news. We should all be working hard to think independently these days, not be spoon feed by the NYT. Maybe you did me a favor, driving me elsewhere.

The NYT has decided to take up grocery store marketing, you know, where they continuously mess with product placement causing customers to be in the store much longer than when they new the layout. No bylines is nonsense, excessive negative/white space is also nonsense, grey scale text goes against the prime rule of typography: Legibility is number one! Font size under nine pts. is a joke, especially when its in grey scale.

Hate the new home page layout. Hard to see newest stories, design looks cluttered. Miss the previous design!

People are annoyed that you've begun charging an additional monthly fee for access to the Cooking pages. I feel like existing subscribers should have been grandfathered in at the existing fee and that we should have that rate as long as we maintain our subscriptions. This change in what we're getting for our monthly fee is more meaningful to me than the redesign of the home page. Please comment, NYT.

Admittedly I mostly interface with the app -so it only makes sense to universalize the UI across platforms- but I did like the maximalist look of the home page. It was a good, orderly kind of spew, not like the nightmare of, say, CNN's site.

I do not like that you keep old news articles mixed in with current news. Sometimes I will click on a headline that I think is relevant, only to discover I am reading a six-month old article. The material that is accessible on the front line ought to be completely current. Having clickable articles from the past that are related to current news should continue to remain accessible, but at the end of the current news article, not on the main page.

The only thing accomplished is that I depart for greener pastures sooner. It is continually depressing to watch the Times marketing department's efforts to ruin the paper year after year. All that has been achieved is to push more and more subscribers to other sources. Times management should get an award for their ability to ignore subscribers feedback year after year. No byline, are you insane? Stale content? Are you insane? Stupid guest contributor click bait? Are you insane? Celebrity garbage? Are you insane? Illegible gray scale? Are you insane? Mouse print? Are you insane?

I return to add the following: I have been reading the Times since 12th Grade Public High School (1960 - When I lived in Bayonne, NJ ). I read the paper edition then, and I read the paper edition today (Monday - Friday) by subscription in Gainesville, VA. When I am busy online, I read the online version because that is convenient. I read the paper edition especially when I want to look deeply into stories in print. I emphatically dislike the "Yahoo" style web page. More critically, I am disturbed that the Times is tracking my interests like Google. The expression goes "If you are getting the application product free, YOU are the product". Time adds insult to injury by making ME the product when I pay for my access via subscription.

I find the following aspect to your home page annoying: First I click on a story. Next I read the story. Then I click on the back button on my browser. Unfortunately I do not always return to the place on your home page that I left from. Five examples; Click on "Mass Burial" (story about Indonesia earthquake) Return to spot I left - satisfactory Click on "Amazon Raises Minimum Wage" Return to spot I left - satisfactory Click on "Inspectors find nooses" Return to "Editor's Picks" - annoying Click on "How to decorate your home" Return to "Editor's Picks" - annoying Click on "Who wants to eat gooey jelly fish" Return to "Editor's Picks" - annoying Could we please always come back to where we left, as in the first two examples?

Stupid simple question... what typeface is used on the site? (The readability is excellent). Thanks!

"Please offer a way for readers to opt out of this usurpation of control."

I just ran through the 34 comments in this collection, and I didn't find one that could be seen as positive. Does that tell you anything?

The NYT now looks like a lot of the other low info/high flash websites. I read the Times for discerning news and opinion--not glitz and dumbed down repetition. And not being returned to where I was on the home page after clicking on an article is distracting and some days results in my giving up and going elsewhere. If I cannot be squeezed into your new go go demographic, then you are really missing the boat. The net result is it now takes me longer to read fewer articles. If that is your intention so i can linger over your plethora of ads, you have not succeeded. Like others who have responded, I use adblockers to retain my sanity while reading the news. If $15/mo is not enough to return the NYT to some sense of dignity, then raise your rates. Don't give us the same claptrap we get for free elsewhere. You really need to do something about this.

I liked the old format with one major exception now remedied: Updates on the old format were so frequent that I could not scroll down before a new update restarted the page. That is now history. I will say that I see a Yahoo/Xfinity home page resemblance in the new format (Way too many large pictures that belong in the articles). Also, There is a feature I have seen on another web site (Phys.org 's links to MedicalXpress.com articles) that uses "hover" to add more text to a short one line description on the Phys.org page. I suggest this is worthy of consideration.

I pay you. I have paid you for years. Eliminate ads for paid subscribers. If you have to raise your rates to do so, then do so. The ads are particularly intrusive when reading articles on the smartphone. But the constant reminders to turn off my ad blocker on the computer are a p.i.t.a. also.

I can understand why comments are edited for civility. Normally I don't post comments which I note are universally negative. You have taken the privilege of providing "All the news that’s fit to print" and perverted it into a format that is frustrating and misleading for a reader. I have read the New York Times for over five decades and in one fell swoop you have destroyed the tempo with your ill conceived and even more poorly executed attempt to repackage the news with same article repetitively placed in numerous places on your home page. It took me a few days to find buried in the site map "Todays Paper". Good job in hiding this feature. I 'm not sure what I am going to do next but I suspect that it will be canceling my subscription and finding a new source for my news.

I appreciate your motives behind personalizing the news, but one of the benefits of subscribing is the group of intelligent, knowledgeable people that curate the incessant media onslaught. There are thousands of flavors to choose from -- and "fingers-on-the-pulse" folks are in a great position to know what matters. A few feeds that tack towards my interests are welcome, but I want to know the selection of main stories is based on bigger criteria.

Every one of the current top stories tonight - with the single exception of the story of the Vietnamese singer - seems to be about men. Why is that??!

How strenuously can I state that I do not want a tracking algorithm to determine what I am shown? Stop tracking my viewing activity in order to "help me." My viewing activity changes daily as the "news cycle" changes daily. A better way to handle this is either to move the "table of contents" section at the bottom of the page up higher, or provide a link to a separate, well-organized table of contents of the 150 articles so that I can open the ones I am interested in in the backgroud (or in new tabs) and then get on with my reading. Thank you for providing this additional way to send this feedback.

For readers like me the 100% font is too tiny to read. So I instead zoom to 200% which makes the articles easier to read but makes navigation impossible. I'm constantly zooming in and out, alternating between reading and navigating. If only there were two versions of the NYT.... regular and large print.... it would really benefit those of us that need that extra bit of help. Obviously I'm referring only to the computer version of the NYT. Trying to read on a phone is impossible even if the font is extra large. Easier still.... have one version.... one layout.... and don't reformat your main page like you do now whenever the zoom changes. Believe me when I say that your current main page is unreadable at 200%. Instead let us set our zoom and scroll left and right across one fixed unchanging layout.... as well as up and down. Thank you for asking my opinion.

Bottom line....I'm reading fewer articles in the NYT's now with the new format than I dd before!

I'm well aware that NYTimes doesn't like ad blockers - but, as a reader, I don't like ads. On your new layout, I now get ~3" solid white blocks across the middle of the page - near the top, middle, and bottom while scrolling. My punishment for using an ad blocker I assume, but very annoying nonetheless.

Something I find very irritating is the repetition of articles on the home page. For example, a story about a tech company will appear at the top of the page, then again under Business Day, then again under Technology. I know for a fact that the Times is putting out enough articles not to do repeats.

Back button doesn't take you back to your place on the previous page. Very annoying. Also, too many stories, too much repetition from previous days.

You say you need our comments, Dear Times, but you didn't read them, apparently. You say you want to hear our voices, Dear Times, but you didn't listen to them, for sure. The new home page is muddled and messy. It's insulting our intelligence. It's poorly designed. It's moving in the direction of tabloid. Or maybe tweeting. Do something!

I don't appreciate huge gray area atop the banner, a result of blocking your ad. I'm paying enough to subscribe. It's not a problem I have with my Washington Post subscription

I also much prefer the old arrangement to the new "designer" layout. I do like the 5 column by 7 row matrix of sections near the end of the web page except for the fact that it is hard to bring back once I have read one of the articles listed for one of the sections. When I return from reading the article, I am put back on the main web page but without the sections matrix. To retrieve the sections matrix, I have to scroll to the top of the web page and then back to the bottom of the web page. When I complete this tedious exercise, the matrix of the sections does then return after a brief delay. Very annoying. (I am using a current Firefox browser on Windows 10 on a desktop computer)

This is another fine example of fixing something that ain't broken. The old way worked just fine; it actually resembled reading a newspaper. I liked it.

I would appreciate a way to stop looping videos. Having, for example, neighborhoods in New York moving in and out, is annoying. I'd like to turn the loop off. Most motion shouldn't be looped endlessly.. The tsunami story had an optional video. I watched it, then turned it off. Perfect! That clip was quite upsetting for a reader in my home area to have to watch repeatedly or move to a different page.

I definitely do NOT want to be personalised! I do NOT want some computer formula to present me with what it deems as relevant content. It's bad enough that Facebook decides for me what I see. I am that thing called an adult. I decide for myself. I demand to see the exact same content in the same order as every one of the other million or whatever readers you have. And while we are at it, I just hate your new layout. I'm not at all old fashioned but the classic look was not broke, so why fix it. Whatever you do though, please don't think for me. It's unethical and not principled.

Strongly agree with those who don’t like or want to keep the new homepage style. Your style has become the LA Times which I think is awful. In addition, I read The Guardian which has also switched to a similar format and I don’t find that good either. Took me an entire day to realize “your daily briefing” and “New York Today” are now at the top line. I thought they were mini ads. And the Mini Puzzle is so far down. These were how I started by daily reading online. Algorithms and following us? What? The joy of reading a paper in print or online is to find things I didn’t know about. And Big Brother thinks he knows what I want? This is scary. So much for neutrality in reporting. Too long and too much scrolling. Geesh. Before, I could look at the front page in a few minutes and get an idea of what the paper is reporting on various topics. Not any longer. The scrolling to find things is time wasting and annoying. After scrolling you find repeated articles. And articles that stay on the site for days making your news seem old and stale. Too many photos take up useful space. I’m lucky that someone recommended this Bulletin Board article about the new format. Don’t know how my friend even found it. Articles have many ads (know ads support the paper), but you can barely read one paragraph without an ad before the next. Loading pages takes so long on my iPad; consulted Apple w/Conclusion ithat it’s liking needing to load ads. Displeased is too gentle a word.

I concur with McCloskey and Carr - absolutely exasperating that I can't immediately return to where I was when I close an article. It is so annoying that I have consider whether I am sufficiently interested in a particular article to make it worth all the scrolling to get back to my point of departure. This greatly detracts from the pleasure I usually take in reading the NYT. The old format was infinitely preferable.

I agree with William McCloskey here and also Karr who says the same. Having to scroll so much to go back to where you last clicked has become a real annoyance.

Around 300 million Americans do not live in the NYC metro area. Yet the home page is filled with NYC-area stories, and even a "New York" section. Is this supposed to be a local website or a national one? On the Washington Post's website, one can choose between "U.S. & World" and "Regional" editions. If you choose the former, all the local DC-area stuff goes away. That makes the Post a truly national website. It would be extremely easy for the NY Times to add such a button. Why not do it? The NY Times's message to all who don't live in the NYC metro area: go away, you are not welcome here.

So very annoying that the page doesn't return to the point of departure ... have to scroll down, down, down to try to figure out where I was before clicking on and reading an individual story. That can't so difficult to fix , can it? One finds oneself reluctant even to go into a story because of the hassle of getting back in place

Mercy, mercy. The new home page has me scrolling my fingers to the bone. After reading an article and hitting return, I don’t return to the point of departure but to somewhere way near the top of the home page. Then I have to scroll scroll scroll to get back to where I left off. What can be done to end this endless scrolling?

While personalization of the page I view at a retail site like REI or Amazon, or even a more fixed reference site like the Library of Congress might be convenient and helpful, I have concerns about tailoring a news site to my "tastes" via algorithm. There are those who would argue the Times is already some kind of echo chamber of social and political ideas, but at least when we're all seeing the same news in the same format we're able to move on from that initial curatorial decision to our own informed choices. I don't want participate unwittingly in a silo-spiral where I'm eventually only reading about the same twenty topics. I hope my concern is exaggerated and unfounded, but in today's news environment, even our own biases can quickly work against us.

Well, you made the changes despite my vigorous objections to the new layout. I guess either I am in the minority or your staff plunged ahead regardless of what your readers wanted. I prefer to see the top stories of the moment and then I prefer to see what you have now relegated all the way to the bottom: top stories by category. And I want to click on the category header to see what else is in that bucket. The intervening stories and white space between the top stories and the bottom section are usually not of interest to me and thus I have to waste time scrolling through ads and other detritus to get to where I want to be. I also object to your tracking what I read and then using that data to guess via algorithm what I am interested in. Even if your calculations rose above the primitive level of Netflix's algorithm (which it doesn't - NYT is wrong most of the time), I am still uncomfortable with being tracked. I am perfectly capable of finding what I want without your help. Please offer a way for readers to opt out of this usurpation of control. Further - I suspect that, like me, many of your readers select what to read by which reporter(s) wrote the article. Plus - the reporter earned the byline, so he/she should be acknowledged per custom. Your explanation for the byline omission is weak - it sounds an IT justification, not that of a newspaper reader - in any medium. I am sure no reporter agrees with this move. So...change it back!

I don’t like it at all. Other version so much better. I only read Social Q’s now. Considering canceling. If it’s not broke...don’t fix it!

As to the question of permanency. . .nothing is permanent

Did you actually change anything on your home page based on feedback from readers after teh fact?

Bring back THE front page headline. Bring back bylines.