I hate it when you're so understated.

So sad. I love the columns by Prof. Mike Adams, but the impossible design of the Townhall web site forces you through a labyrinth to find them.
And the RSS feeds are all screwed up. I've tried subscribing in my reader to several. I get the wrong columnists, and at odd intervals I get an RSS dump of a dozen columns over the past 3 months - for an author I didn't subscribe to!
Pull the plug. Start over. Keep it clean & simple. Remember who your users/readers are.

Michele Malken is speaking truth. An Inconvenient Truth. But she has shown how a Marxist can use gangsterism to promote tyranny. They have been doing it since 1917

I like Adams' and Prager's columns, but yes, the Townhall design is quite heinous -- half the time all the popups and doodads crash my browser.
Sometimes I just look for a Google cache of the column.

Worst is that when the comment thread goes over about 20 or 30 it eats up all my spare computer cycles. Every thing slows down to a snail's crawl.

Well, THAT was chock fulla quotey goodness, Gerard!

I had TH as my homepage and just became too frustrated by it and switched to CNS. Before TH I had Fox but it was right after MJ died and.. well, you know...

Let's just say TH is a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to live there -- I don't bother posting anymore, but I still check in daily and I subscribe to the mag by mail. Good group of writers. and great cartoons. not bad enough to earn the headline here on this blog (someone's cranky today!).

Well said Gerald, and RedHatRob cites the other reason to ignore that crappy site.

Oops! Sorry about the typo, Gerard.

Actually, I used to despise reading Washington Times for the very same reason: the design sucked, and it was as unfriendly as hell. I even wrote Tony Blankely a letter about it, so upset was I. They changed some things, but it's still so bad I seldom go over there.

I secretly wonder if these sites were designed by graphic designers and UI specialists who are liberal and are trying to undermine the message. Seriously.

"the site design isn't any worse than the writing"

To translate for Arthurstone: "I don't agree with the ideas expressed there, regardless of how cogent or well-presented they may be. Oh, and the site design leaves something to be desired, as well..."

Uggh! I just went to the site. I despise roll-downs and pop-ups! Townhall has never been (and likely will never be) among my regular sites.

I thought it was a good article. Yes, there were a lot of different ads on each page, but if you don't click on them they aren't really an issue. The main point to me is that they were printing articles that may get voters to think for themselves. This, in my mind, is reason enough to put up with the ads. Sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with your appraisal of the site. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Picking on Boy Scouts???? Insted of purple shirts, they should wear yellow! Next time I get to that part of the country (I have a house about an hour from there) I'll see if I can donate some of my time to assist the Scouts. I seriously doubt that the SEIU cowards will like my friends and I.

Gerard,

I'm guessing you triggered this:

Christians and conservatives have long believed in objective beauty. [...] How then did they end up on a site where Stalinist aesthetics meet Sham-Wow! subtlety.

Is there in Truth no Beauty?

You're drunk, Vanderleun. Get some rest.

Um, I went over there and while the screen is a bit busy I've seen a lot worse. Didn't have any problems on the site either with speed or my browser. The blog seems a little over the top.

Yup. Crappy way to treat your friends, very annoying. I enjoy Sowell, Coulter, Adams, Geller, etc. but I have been wondering about protesting the invasive ads, yes Netflix I'm even mad at you. I think you have thier attention now. If nothing changes in the next few weeks I guess I'll mosey on.

Townhall used to be very simple - authors listed chronologically on a white background with green borders. Does anyone remember that? They revised the site a couple of years back, with the new version timed to coincide with the 4th of July. I liked the old version better. No annoying popups or rolldowns, fewer bells and whistles to wade through. And evidently lower overall site traffic as well, because the comment threads were not utterly infested with moonbat trolls like they are now.

Someone mentioned Mike Adams, whom I love and have even exchanged correspondence with. His column, however, is always commented-on by some hateful, homosexual, empty-brained asswipe calling himself "Will." It's impossible to have a civilized discussion in any of Adams' comment threads because this troll manages to hijack every single one of them.

Hummm, 30something must be, well, young. Seldom drunk ever and never at 9:09 in the morning.

The site looks like someone attended one of those "Make Money With The Internets!" seminars. What a dog's breakfast.

Hell, Vanderleun, I was drunk when I posted that comment. But, I happen to agree with you on Townhall.com.

You are correct, never drunk at 9:09 in the morning. By that time, I'm up on the wagon supporting warfighters in two theaters of war.

Lighten up you old fart.

I hear that an inability to focus is the sign of something, but I can't recall right now what that is and... Oh look, a kitty!

THEY SHOULD HIRE YOU TO REDO IT

I know you've been doing this web stuff for along time, Gerard, but you realize that you've hardcoded the width of your logo--which means if anybody views your site with a resolution of less than 1152x864 pixels (or I guess, a width of 1120--the hardcoded value) say for instance, 1064x768, which was what I did have, that your page runs off the screen to the right, and you have use the horizontal scroll bar to see the hidden part of the page.

Now I reset the resolution to 1152x864 (I don't know why I didn't think of that before) and now it displays everything fine with no horizontal scroll bar.

Since you brought up the subject of website design, I figured I'd mention it. Is there some requirement that the your page has to be that wide?

Here is an example of a website that is easy to navigate:

http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc

I imagine dealing with Townhall (and I stay away from there) like this:

It is Saturday. I got up, cleaned up, and breakfast and coffee-d up. I have crawled under the kitchen sink, removed the garbage disposal and various blocked lines and drains. I have the type of disposal written down, a list of the lines and fastenings, and have arrived at the hardware store to get the parts and other supplies I need.

Instead of directing me to plumbing I have to go through a series of clowns ("Come to landscaping!"). And then more clowns ("I have the lumber you know you need!). And then even more clowns ("Electric lights!"). All the while time is running, and my temper is getting shorter.

Get me to plumbing. ("Fountains galore!") And let me get what I want. ("Faucets and bidets!") And let me get the devil out and back to what I need to get done (repairing the kitchen sink).

When I am on a mission to get something actually done, then God help anyone who gets in my way.

(I have thought that banning duelling was one of the most uncivilized things ever done.)

I don't know - the site isn't too intolerable with Firefox with the AdBlock Plus plugin activated. I dislike not having the entire article on one page, but I usually click the link at the top of the article for the print version; the whole story, no moonbat comments. It's a free country, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Trying to use the Townhall site was like trying to use a roll of toilet paper that fell into the commode.