The New Boardgamegeek

DSfan, I don't blame you for wanting to save money, but the administrators of BGG have to eat, too. Aldie just quit his day job to work on BGG full time, which means he's relying on ad revenues and member contributions to keep the site running and a roof over his head. BGG is still free to anyone willing to put up with the ads; if you really hate the ads then you can have your Big Macs without an apple pie for dessert for a few weeks and save up the $25 to turn off ads.

I don't like ads either, but I can't even use Google without seeing Google ads. They're part of the price of using the Web.

If too many people block the ads and don't contribute, BGG may either disappear or become a paid-subscription site, and I'm sure none of us want that!

I like the new site, as I said above, but Jeff raises a good point. The very best parts of BGG are the game database and the associated reviews, FAQs, player aids, strategy discussions, etc. I happen to enjoy geeklists, but I agree that most of them are pointless.

With the new layout, new users should be told to immediately go to the menu bar at the top of the page, and select Browse > Games > by Rank. The next thing they should understand is how to type a game name into the Search Games field. Everything else can be ignored until the newbie feels more at home.

One complaint I've always had, and which the new look hasn't helped, is the attention paid to "hot" games. Theoretically "hotness" helps me hear the buzz about up-and-coming new games, but too often a hot game is neither good nor new; it has just attracted the attention of argumentative people. I wish I could replace the Hot Games list on the left with a customized list. I'd choose "games by rank."

But on whole, for us experienced users, I think the new front page makes it easier to find interesting new content, and easier to list it the way you want. And the site's responsiveness is much better today -- on the first day of the switch, it was pretty slow.

It may be due to the $25 donation and the auto-adblock that comes with it, but the site has been very fast for me today. I am trying to get used to the new layout, customizing the front page, trying to get rid of the drivel. I agree with Jeff, Geeklists are overused and for the most part, worthless. They are a decent way to organize lists of games, but that doesn't mean we need lists of game for the sake of having lists of games.

The site DOES need a graphic designer though, for certain. I wouldn't stick around if I went to the site for the first time and I saw that.

Maybe they could use a front page, with a simple picture, welcome, and links to the Main page and maybe FAQ or whatever. Experienced users could easily bookmark past that, but newcomers could actually see what the siter is about and not be overwhelmed with ads and text.

These are the same issues I was worried about with our own move to the wiki format. Maybe we can watch and learn from BGG's transformation.

- Seth

Personally, I'm considering doing just that. The site as it stands, while not unusable, is not enjoyable to visit, and as I don't feel I use the geek enough to justify the ad-free purchase, I suspect that my visits will simply tail off.

I'm a web designer by trade, and I find both the old and the new BGG poor examples user-friendly sites. I understand the site is no-frills, free and ad driven. So are many, many other sites. Ad revenue is no excuse to make your site so cluttered with information that no one can navigate it.

I have messed around with the "module" feature. This is good for organizing to some extent, but the most egregious errors are the dominance of ads over content. The two can live in harmony, but compromise is the key factor.

Design-wise, my issue is that the tables/modules/lists are not distinct from other elements. They float in a sea of white with no borders or visual cues to help the user categorize what is important and what is clutter.

Getting used to the new site may take some time, but GUI-wise, the new site is a step sideways, not forward.

It's late on Friday, but I'll see what I can do over the weekend or on Monday. I will gladly use Photoshop to move some things around and make a faux screenshot.

I'm no Da Vinci for site design, mind you. There are just some design tenets that don't seem to stick for BGG. The criteria I'm using are:

- Does the site control line-length? This used to mean, "does it fit on and 800x600 resolution monitor?" Now, it should mean, "does the reader have to scan 8+ inches of monitor to find the next line of text?" This has a huge impact on readability, especially for those who use higher resolutions on their monitors.
- Does the site use a color scheme that defines areas that offer different information?
- Does the site prominently and consistently brand the business it represents?
- At any time, can I look at the site and know where I am in relation to where I want to be?
- Is screen real estate shared between ads and content both above and below “the fold?” (the point where a user must scroll to view more content)

BGG would be well served by adding a few borders and not trying to "fill up the page" just for the sake of filling up the page. It's not a huge redesign, just some work with their CSS and all is well.

In contrast, BGDF does a pretty good job of making a mountain of information fairly well categorized and easy to navigate.

Well, I wanted to use the BGG a bit before commenting on it. Now that I have, I must say that I really dislike the new BGG look. Even after editing my preferences, the frontpage remains a disorganized mess, with very little actual content that interests me. It's also a fair tad slower then the "old" BGG. I understand the need for adds, but I think there must be a better way of organizing things to make it appear less cluttered. Thumbs down.

Seth, could you post a screenshot of what the BGG frontpage looks like without banners and adds?