is the new Pitt Official Athletic Site as un-user friendly and frustrating to navigate as it seems to be to me? I do find/ get to everything that interests me; but, I find it far less than intuitive to do so.
Is it that I am just an old guy, or
- Thread starter DC_Area_Panther
- Start date
No, its not you. The changes on the site and overall in Pitt athletics are frustrating and are a downgrade.
Most babies on this site want everything customized to their liking. They will never be happy.
Aside from just the overall format; One of the features I really dislike is referring/linking to team Facebook pages which requires you to sign in and encourage you to join Facebook. I know the younger generation (including my kids) is into Facebook; but I am not. I don't want to need Facebook for my Pitt sports fix. I am as e-private as it is possible to be in the current age and I want to keep it that way. I treasure my personal privacy!
So someone asks a legitimate question and asks for feedback and you decide to attack? Sounds to me you're the one who is the baby and a bit immature. No need to attack another poster for asking a good question.
I agree. I don't want or need Facebook and linking Facebook on the site is not acceptable. All of this Facebook, twitter, pinterest, snapchat or whatever other nonsense is out there is not part of my life and I want to keep it that way. I don't have a need to plaster some webpage with announcements every time I take a piss or sneeze. And I resent the invasion into my privacy. So Pitt requiring the link is an invasion into my privacy and I don't want any parts of that.
But if you don't mind that and are into all of this social media stuff, go knock yourself out. I can't wait for the day when I retire and turn in my company cell phone and disconnect from the constant emails and phone calls.
Yep. And usually, all of his posts are eventually removed. People with empty minds usually do become bored when ignored and not the center of attention.
If you haven't noticed, there are some that take every criticism as an attack on Pitt. It is frightening. It is very Nitter like. Anyone who criticizes or questions anything about Pitt is knocked down. I made a post a few months ago about UPMC's bullying behavior and you thought I was questioning the existence of Jesus to some.
Pitt deserves criticism. When when every fing thing they do is criticized by the same people over and over it gets old. They could say the sky is blue and some fans on here will criticize.
Yep, I hear ya'. I don't know why the natural reaction to criticism of an institution is to attack the person who makes the criticism as not a loyal person or follower of precious Pitt. Pitt is very far from perfect and they need to be criticized and brought to task for their stupidity at times. It won't change anything, but there is nothing wrong with voicing opinions and not being attacked for doing it.
One example is the poster saying everything Pitt is doing is a downgrade. Guess what. These changes are actually an upgrade and getting on par with today's technology.
Yet I'm sure the same person complains saying Pitt has the same bored thinking and is not willing to improve anything.
Yet I'm sure the same person complains saying Pitt has the same bored thinking and is not willing to improve anything.
And I have no problem with the op criticism. He fully admits it is not his style without bashing pitt.
It follows the evolution of the internet. Early in the lifecycle, web pages were crude and simplistic. Some might say "clean", others would say "boring/ugly/etc", but typically easy to navigate ... thanks to an ironic focus on the content (not the tricks and hype) yet because there was LESS actual content. Plus, most pages typically were done by one person.
Then as it evolved, became more commercialized, more as a revenue source, the committees and focus groups and professional designers got involved. Plus there's a perceived need to have to "keep it fresh", with the attitude that even if the new design is an aesthetic or functional failure, the key word there is NEW. Old is not seen as "classic", it's seen as ... old.
The trend toward video adds to the difficulty. To this day, it's not easy to integrate well into a web site. There tend to be factions that hate it, want to read everything, another that scoff at having to read anything, want a site to basically stream all information. Trying to compromise that typically satisfies nobody.
Leadership changes, as happens a lot (especially in Pitt athletics), also lead to change. Nobody ever gets hired/appointed/elected by vowing to keep things the same.
So bigger/crappier/convoluted sites tend to be the norm.
Then as it evolved, became more commercialized, more as a revenue source, the committees and focus groups and professional designers got involved. Plus there's a perceived need to have to "keep it fresh", with the attitude that even if the new design is an aesthetic or functional failure, the key word there is NEW. Old is not seen as "classic", it's seen as ... old.
The trend toward video adds to the difficulty. To this day, it's not easy to integrate well into a web site. There tend to be factions that hate it, want to read everything, another that scoff at having to read anything, want a site to basically stream all information. Trying to compromise that typically satisfies nobody.
Leadership changes, as happens a lot (especially in Pitt athletics), also lead to change. Nobody ever gets hired/appointed/elected by vowing to keep things the same.
So bigger/crappier/convoluted sites tend to be the norm.
Last edited:
IMHO, one could easily broaden the direction this discussion is headed to the seemingly present current mind set of many that all change is progress and therefore good. Any thoughtful examination of history reveals that as untrue. Some (maybe even most) change, especially that driven by increasing scientific and technical knowledge, has been beneficial. On the other hand, societal change, not so much, as evidenced by the mass murders of large populations in the name of the Nazi and Communist ideologies which were intended by their proponents to improve the human condition when adopted. If all change were good, there would be no need to learn from mistakes--even disaterous ones--and no need for even the constructive criticism that leads to genuine improvements and true progress. Let's drop this here.
It wasn't my objective to bash the Pitt Athletic Department. It was merely to observe that I personally found the new website design to not be an improvement--and I like and enjoy the written word, photos and videos--not just one or the other of them. I just find the way the website has them integrated and linked less than ideal. Is this just personal preference? Perhaps, or maybe I am far from alone? I haven't seen a survey or poll of Pitt fans so I don't know.
No bashing intended here either. Usually, change is good. But when the change is politically or career motivated and not with actual functional improvement as an objective, the chances of the changes being beneficial become nearly random. I think in this case it was merely a new AD regime that made it a mandate to put its stamp on its content.
Perhaps Lyke (or hell, maybe this began back after Barnes was hired, even) emphasized doing this in her (his) interviews. We all know the true changes needed to lift Pitt athletics would have a financial and ethical cost violently distasteful to the cheap and winning-queasy Pitt administration. Yet they'd want an interviewee to come in a "wow" them with ideas for "change". A web site change is relatively cheap and benign in comparison (especially if you make it a "group project" of the Information Sciences dept).
