OK, Bad Astro bloggees, it’s time for me to shamelessly plug this blog, and ask for a favor or two. It’ll be easy, I promise.
It looks like the blog is here to stay on the front page of the site. There have been some issues, and some are still floating around, but most have been resolved. Even Safari users can read the site, though why they use it instead of Firefox is beyond me.
Anyway, if you have a site that links to the BA blog, please update it to point to www.badastronomy.com, and not www.badastronomy.com/bablog. I’m trying to consolidate the links coming in to here; that helps me rise in the search engines and blog metasites (like Technorati).
Also, if you have a blog, then why not blogroll me? I’m fun, I’m easy, I sometimes launch into unpredictable tirades that tick off half my audience. I have many blogs b’rolled, and I might add more– if you b’roll me, it’s more likely I’ll reciprocate. It’s not a guarantee, and, really, I probably won’t, but I’m asking anyway. When was the last time you saw such raw honesty in a blog? Hmmm?
I still have plans for this blog; I’m far from done tinkering with it. The commenting system needs a major change (in the works!) and some people (<cough> Chris Pirillo <cough>) think the template is boring. Well, they’re right. I worked hard on it, but it’s a bit rectilinear, don’t you think? So I’m thinking of redoing it again. Since WordPress is going to release yet another update soon, I might as well redo the whole thing again. If you see templates you like, link to them in the comments! Chris liked this one, but I think it’s too garish. But it might be the right idea. I do need more astro-spaciness on the blog.
So there you go. I’ll return to the usual astronomy/skeptical/political/timesinking/cool stuff in the next post.
August 6th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Don’t be dissing Safari, though Firefox has its strengths too.
Let us know if we need to change the RSS link to your page.
August 7th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Yes, “this one” is hard on the eyes. And please don’t lose the forward and back navigation on the individual pages; I use that all the time.
Also, I really think you need the moon hoax in the menu. Probably Hoagland too because of his C2C airtime, and astrology ’cause it’s bad. “Bad Astro Intro” is not where I would click if I were looking for that stuff–especially since you do have a menu.
August 7th, 2006 at 2:49 am
Changed my online bookmarks.
I think the Chris’ template is very pretty and well-designed for a blog, but the downside is that it is only suitable as a blog. As I understand it, this is now your portal for your entire site. So I suggest you stick with three columns:
Left: BA topics. Make it a bit wider, so it gains more prominence, and list the important stuff like the moon hoax debunking, astrology, egg + equinox, etc. When you click on these links, the content can then appear in the middle column:
Middle: The main content. When you get to http://www.badastronomy.com you can read the latest blog entry in the middle column, but I think that when you click on a link in the left column, the corresponding article should appear here. You don’t have to use the dreaded frames (or iframes) either: with php you can include a common header and footer, such that all you different pages are indeed different files with only the content in them.
Right: Blogroll, who are you, etc.
I also agree with Dan that you should keep as many navigational tools as possible.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:58 am
Perfect timing on the request… I just happened to be updating my blogroll and links page. Done and done.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:30 am
How does one know whether they have Firefox or Safari?
I have no clue which one my computer has.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Grand Lunar -
Are you using a Mac? Safari only runs on a Mac based on OSX. If you ARE on a Mac, it has the compass as its icon.
Safari and Firefox are browsers. If you use a Windows PC (as opposed to a Mac, which is, technically, a PC), you are most likely running either the AOL browser or Internet Explorer (the blue lower-case “e”.)
Phil -
It wouldn’t hurt to snaz it up a little. I agree with those before me – keep the navigation and make it more clear to the first-time visitor how to find things They are looking for on the site.
Aside – Some of us stay with Safari because it’s good enough for what we need. I may go to Firefox at some point, but I don’t NEED to.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:23 am
If you change the theme, avoid white (or light-colored) text on black (or dark-colored). Whenever I get to such a site, if I want to read it, I hit my “zap colors” bookmarklet so it’s legible.
Nick
August 7th, 2006 at 5:24 am
The white on dark lettering is very difficult to read. Boring isn’t necessarily bad.
August 7th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Personally, I think the long menu should be on the left. Based on what I see on this page, I’d move everything from “Categories” down to the end of “Blogroll” over to the left.
RSS Feed and Meta should be together, preferably at the bottom.
That’s said, it’s fine the way it is too.
I’ve added you to my (not very exciting) blog’s favourite links list, and you come up right under the current graphic for the aurora (there’s a storm going on right now)
http://darincowan.typepad.com
August 7th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Rectilinear is good because… wait for the circular logic coming… it doesn’t suck. Really, too much form over function is bad. bablog is good partially because it is simple, there’s enough space (Shostak-level pun intended) in the blog-text-containing column that I’m not forever scrolling down, and the straight lines make it easy to figure out what’s where.
Cuteness is bad. Regular Geometry is good. Hmmm… Orwell anyone: “RG Good, cuteness Bad; RG good, cuteness bad…”
And you were right when you made the blog the front page: loading a page only to have to scroll or click around to find what you came for means the site is designed badly. We all come most often for the blog, so the text of the most recent blog should be the middle, top-most section, not cute galaxy-picture banners.
August 7th, 2006 at 7:16 am
[...] That happened to me today when I read Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog this morning, something I do every day. In today’s post he asked everyone to make sure they were linking to the correct page on his site and when I went to make sure I had it correct I realized I never even added the link. It’s doubly stupid on my part because it is one my top 5 most visited sites on the web I’m sure. [...]
August 7th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Done and done. Funny thing is that I thought I had linked to you a long time ago, but obviously hadn’t. Anyway, great site, keep it up, and thanks.
August 7th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Phil, make sure you update the URL in your RSS feed as well. It still says http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog
August 7th, 2006 at 8:05 am
BA, just remember that it isn’t how pretty your blog looks, it’s your notices and ideas that keep us coming back.
BTW, have you seen the new show, “Three Moons over Milford,” yet?
August 7th, 2006 at 8:25 am
It’s true that the layout is a bit bland, but what I come here to see is the words, not the graphical packaging.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:47 am
What’s a blogroll?
August 7th, 2006 at 9:21 am
My only comment on the layout is that (ideally) it look “similar” across the whole site (kind of the point of themes, no?). As it is, the blog has one “look,” and the rest of the site another.
As for blogrolls, BA has been on my links page since last September. A little reciprocation would be appreciated (ahem…).
Lorne
http://geekcounterpoint.net
August 7th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Whoops — in the first sentence of my previous comment, I should have said “…it SHOULD look similar…”
Lorne
August 7th, 2006 at 9:34 am
I like bland. Bland is good. Bland saves me headaches.
I would also expand the content linked on the Left to include the Moon Hoax, Hoagland, Astrology, whatever. I’d also probably move the blog Categories column to the left. Seems more consistent – internal content on left, ads and external links right. Plus, it would help balance the columns. Come on, Monk would hate this site – it’s not balanced.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Well, I DID change my bookmark to the main site URL, but then the caching problem reappeared a week or so ago. So I changed it back.
If you can fix the bug permanently, I’ll be happy to change my bookmark once again. But till then, it stays as it is – it saves you bandwidth because I’m not having to ctrl-reload every time I visit. And that means I’m not reloading the page graphics.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I’ve updated my links a few days ago to point to the main page.
And BA, you’ve always been listed on my site.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:04 am
I usually come in from the RSS feed (which I’ve got as part of my homepage) – that seems to still point at the old link, so maybe that needs changing too?
August 7th, 2006 at 11:41 am
BA, I like the colours you use now. I like the alternating white then grey backgrounds (they help with navigating through the many, many comments that sometimes appear when you’re being a bit controversial).
I find the current text format (font, size, colour etc.) easy to read.
And, OK, so rectilinear is a bit dull, but what will you replace it with? A rectangular hyperbola (so people could rightly accuse you of hyperbole!!!:) )?? Comments boxes in triangles or hexagons? I like rectilinear text boxes.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:42 am
But we need emoticons like on baut forum!
August 7th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Phil -
Because nothing should be beyond you…I use Safari because 1) it looks more Mac-like than FireFox, 2) it does a much better job of automatically decompressing downloaded files, and 3) it behaves better with my automation scripts. I use FireFox for those occasional sites that don’t display well (or work at all) with Safaris, though those occasions are getting less frequent.
August 7th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Done and done. Reciprication is nice but not necessary. And I need to write about your link to the Impact video, that was amazing!
August 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
BA Brother,
Nope, not a Mac. I’m using a Dell.
August 7th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Phil, I’m an old developer who still edits HTML with text editors, and sticks to HTML 2.0 + tables – in other words, I’m a function-over-form person. So as long as I can still read your prose easily, and the navigation isn’t hidden behind flash animations, I’m happy. The current layout is fine from where I’m sitting.
As for Safari – I guess I’m just lazy, and with the auto-updates I don’t have to worry when 1.5.0.5 comes out and has a security hole – oops, better upgrade again. Although I do use Firefox on my Linux and Windoze boxen.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
you should listen to chris, that design and header are beautiful. join the new century science guy!
August 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
I have Safari and Firefox. I prefer Firefox, but use Safari because it has all of my bookmarks and I haven’t found an easy way to export them to something “normal” that Firefox can read. Any pointers would be appreciated. I know it’s a dumb reason to use Safari but I only use my Mac for work (and reading this site. That’s almost work, right?)
August 7th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Happy to oblige! And it would be a distinct honor to have my humble work linked on such a standout blog.
Did that seem like groveling? I can tone it down a little if need be.
August 7th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Cuteness is bad. Regular Geometry is good. Hmmm… Orwell anyone: “RG Good, cuteness Bad; RG good, cuteness bad…â€
So using java to make my blog open in circular or trapezoidal windows would be right out?
August 7th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I was gonna point out that your email update thingie still links to http://www.badastronomy.com/bablong/, but people have been talking about RSS feeds, and I think they’re the same thing, so I guess you know already.
And since my original reason for posting is gone, I’d like to say that you’re doing a great job. I stumbled across your site way before you started a blog, transitioned to your yahoo mailing list, and am now back here. Your website is great (or, your content is great, since as long as the site itself isn’t flashing or doing wierd colors or sparkling at me I don’t pay that much attention to it) and I really enjoy reading it. It’s also informative, which is a major plus.
I’m glad you’re doing what you’re doing.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Hey BA, speaking of Chris…you should talk to him and set him straight regarding his Loose Change post.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I liked the one in the link. That’s just me though.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Thanks O Random Lurker. I appreciate it! I’m going to look into the RSS feed, but to be honest it terrifies me. The last time I fooled with it I lost 1000 readers! I’ll be more careful this time.
And Kevin, Chris and I have talked about a few things. He enjoys the mystery surrounding some things (like weird shapes on Mars, and such) and I have to admit I do too — though I don’t think Mars features are artificial. But curiosity and investigation are two of the biggest characteristics of science! So I find it encouraging that people want answers.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I can certainly appreciate the need to be curious and encouraging investigation…but Loose Change is to an engineer as the Fox Did We Land on the Moon? tv special is to an astronomer. Worse, some would say, since it operates on the premise there were no victims on 9/11 and so can disrespect and mock them. It’s actually really hurtful.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Last time you fooled with the RSS it broke my link to your feed, but I got it working again. I doubt I’m going to the correct spot though:
Link
However, it works, so I haven’t made a huge effort (ok, no effort at all) to find the “correct” way.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Hi,
I like the site (and templates) a lot, I just have one request:
Please use relative font sizes!
Unless you have some magic insight into the monitor I use, the resolution it is set to and know how good my eyes are you have no chance to ever get your site right with fixed pixel sizes.
(I use a 21″ at work set to 1280×1024 and a 15″ laptop at home set to 1400×1050, that is a big difference)
Browsers have a default font size, a user can set this to whatever they think a normal font size should be. (Imagine someone with bad eyes making it 20, and someone with good eyes making it 10)
When you use a relative font size the user gets to see a page scaled to what they think is normal. (ie a small font is something a little smaller than their “normal” size, and a big font becomes something bigger than their “normal” size) The big thing here is that the user gets to decide what is normal.
I hate it when some idiot web designer decides that I should be viewing his site with a 7pixel font. Although I am sure his site looked great on his 25″ widescreen equipped workstation….
Please think about changing that.
Besides my little nitpick your site is great!
Thanks,
Jeroen
August 8th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Hoi Jeroen,
You can change the font size with CTRL-+/-. The reason I personally use fixed font sizes is that relative font sizes become disproportionate relative to pictures (especially if there is text in them).
August 8th, 2006 at 5:20 am
The link in from the feedblitz e-mail still goes to …com/bablog. Should I unsubscribe and resubscribe, or will it change automatically (from my end)?
Thanks.
August 8th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I don’t come to this site for pretty colours, I come to the site for words. Make the words easy to read and I’ll keep coming back!
August 8th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
(in fact, a good site design is defined by me by how non-flashy it is)