Tell Iaaf to stop screwing up their site.

[Conor Dary]

If they dont have it then we should attack them.

Attack them? I think someone is getting a little carried away.

[fasttrack85]

I am armed and dangerous. One wrong move and someone is getting hurt.

[Pego]

I am armed and dangerous. One wrong move and someone is getting hurt.

Dirty Harry ?

[toyracer]

I just realized the top lists only have the seasons best for each athletes instead of all the marks. It looks like that is something they did on purpose and plan to keep. Does anyone know where on the site i can find the old list with all the marks for the year? If they dont have it then we should attack them.

They messed with that as well?

- sigh -

Okay, one more email to write.

Edit: good thing I checked: the info is still there. The default display is "best by athlete", simply select "all" and you get the full list for the year etc.

[nevetsllim]

Can't find anything I want to view on the new website. Can anyone find the PDF athlete biographies from the Olympics?

[mump boy]

I had lunch today with the publisher who created the website, he was very interested to hear that there were problems with the site and wants me to email him with suggestions of how it can be corrected and improved

If people want to post here with specific issues i'll make sure he hears about them and hopefully we can get them sorted

[mump boy]

and now something that has me up in arms as well (because I think it's of import to more than just a small group of hardcores): the archive of past Olympic and World Champs results no longer shows series in the field events or the Q/q system of IDing qualifiers from one round to another (track and field).

Click on the '>' in the very first column on the left-hand side, and it expands to show their series. And to see the qualifiers, click on the 'summary' tab just above the results.

Jon, don't know if you're making excuses for the webdesigner but this is the most impossible website I've ever used. No Hyperbole! It's like the IAAF paid the the person by how many clicks it takes the user to find the simplest information. It's horrible!

Of course, when you have IAAF VP's who don't even write emails...then the user experience of the website might not be of much concern.

i couldn't agree more

I only ever go on there to look up results and now can't find anything

Just to find out the yearly lists you have to about 8 times. Why are all events grouped into sprints/vertical jumps etc ?? why would anyone want to see a list of all time performers instead of all time performances ?? and why can't you just click on all the change instead of doing the whole search again ? Why does it default to men if you want to look up something else and you have to start from beginning every time ?

The same on the athletes profiles. Pics are good but it's so messy why not have all the info in front of you instead of on different pages ?

Why can't i find results for specific events in at the WC, you can only look by day :-S

Why is every page cluttered up with news stories and irrelevant photos ?

Why are there no results from 83 or 87

[preston]

Mump, apparently the rule is that the top strata of an organization are absolved if you've known them for "decades" and have had drinks/dinners with them

...(disclaimer of sorts: I've been on a first-name basis with Seb, Sergey & Bob for years/decades, so if you think that might cast doubt on my journalistic integrity here, so be it.) (Diack, on the other hand, wouldn't know me if I fell in his soup)

There is NO WAY that a dedicated track fan would have made those changes. No way. But, its part of the problem with the people in these organizations. Yes, these people are stewards of the organization that administer the sport but I think the adulation, patronage, venues, rules, pomp etc has removed their ability to be FANS. They're so used to being adored, genuflected to and held up as "heroes" that they've forgotten what really drives the sport.

gh, says that we should pay Tilastopaja, etc...well, doesn't the IAAF and many of the meet directors already do that? (who is Tilastopaja paying to get the info?) And, it would be one thing if it were only the results but it's the whole FREAKING site. Nothing works intuitively and NOTHING works better than what they had before. So it begs the question: why change? Surely it had many man-hours to redo the site. Was that a donation? Was there no cost involved? This is an organization that had to put out public messages barely 4 years ago that it wasn't broke yet they spend money to build THAT? And, did no one consider the user experience? Just, "hey we changed it" and everyone who should have given a damn said "ok" and went back to their continental breakfast.

Corrections:
1. go back to the old site and don't change back until they have something better. There are so many changes to list that it really just makes more sense to scrap this.

-once you choose an athlete you can't just look up other athletes quickly in the same country like you used to.
-Are they being paid by the click? cut out the seperate tabs for progression, honours and personal bests
-why have they NEVER had the original World Juniors from 1986?
-how come Greg Foster's name has NO honors?
-Roger Kingdom isn't recognized for winning the Olympics in 1984?

I could go on forever. The site sucks. Tell him some asshole on a messageboard said that it sucks and he won't take it personal, but if this is his life's work he may want to consider masonry or plumbing because his hands and mind are not good for organizing a site through code.

[mump boy]

If you want to PM me with detailed specifics instead of expletive ridden rants i'll be happy to pass on

[lionelp1]

I find it a fine site with changes since last time... what a shame for crabby chaps who can't bear change. Preston is probably some old git who wants no changes if he has not given the same his approval.
Any body who cant find their way around it is possibly a little "challenged"

[toyracer]

A change should ideally result in an improvement. The IAAF site change has not improved my experience using the site. The opposite is true. So now I avoid the site. I doubt that that is the objective they hoped to achieve. Then again, who knows?

[preston]

I avoid the site, too, as the information it now has is sometimes near or below wikipedia. It's definitely not worthy of the site it replaced in any way that I can see.

[Jon]

As one of the editors of the site, I should perhaps chip in with some responses/assistance...

Just to find out the yearly lists you have to about 8 times.

On the old site, if you wanted to find any list other than a senior men's list, you'd have to click between 3-9 times and go through two page loads to get to the list you want. On the new site, the most clicks you have to make for any kind of list is seven times, and you'd only ever have to experience one page load. And remember on the old site from the home page you'd need to use the old navigation menu with that extra-sensitive hover and drop-down menu to get to the top lists section, and from there you'd then have to click/select to get to any ranking list. On the new site, with one click from the home page you can get to a rankings list (the default, men's 100m).

Why are all events grouped into sprints/vertical jumps etc ??

The old site used to display a big long list with all events merged into one with no clear dividers between event groups and which took up a load of space to display, creating a big void of white space on the right-hand side of the page. Whether you have to scroll further down the page (as you did on the old site) or click on an instantly-loading tab (like on the new site), it takes the same amount of 'finger-on-mouse' "effort".

why would anyone want to see a list of all time performers instead of all time performances ??

In case you wanted to see where someone ranks on the all-time list. I for one used to hate having to filter through the extra performances on an all-time performers list and manually count where someone ranks on that list.

and why can't you just click on all the change instead of doing the whole search again ?

Granted, this is a fair point and I know that the tech team are working on getting the 'all' option to work properly.

Why does it default to men if you want to look up something else and you have to start from beginning every time ?

Another fair point. I'll raise this with them if it hasn't been already.

The same on the athletes profiles. Pics are good but it's so messy why not have all the info in front of you instead of on different pages ?

The other info (progression, honours, etc) isn't a different 'page' as such; it's just a different tab contained within the same page. As I mentioned above, is a click much more effort than a scroll (as would have been required on the old site which displayed everything on one looooong page)?

[Jon]

(continued as character limit was reached)...

Why can't i find results for specific events in at the WC, you can only look by day :-S

One of the features of the new site is the results archive (much easier than the old site, which had past major champs results buried in a historical archive within the 'competitions' section). So from the home page, click on "Results". Open filter, tick "World Championships", select the year, click "Find results". Voila - results of every World Champs, listed by event.

Why is every page cluttered up with news stories and irrelevant photos ?

The more the site grows, the more relevant the related stories/photos will be. It's standard practice now for sites to have 'related articles' sections on the page; it's what keeps people on the same website (and is why Daily Mail is the most visited website in the world - look how many 'related articles' they have listed down the right-hand side of their web site).

Why are there no results from 83 or 87

1983:
http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world- ... thletics-3

1987:
http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world- ... thletics-4

[Jon]

A change should ideally result in an improvement. The IAAF site change has not improved my experience using the site. The opposite is true. So now I avoid the site. I doubt that that is the objective they hoped to achieve. Then again, who knows?

The reaction towards the new IAAF site reminds me of every change/development that facebook goes through. After each major change, your timeline gets full of people complaining about how crap it is (never highlighting the positive changes, of course), but within a few weeks everyone has forgotten about the old version and happily continues to use the new version. People simply don't like change. But trust me when I say that the people who have created the new IAAF site are experts in their field and they have consulted 'athletics people' throughout the whole process. With every part of the site that the designers have redeveloped, it has begun with the question: "what can we do to cut down on the amount of navigation that the user experiences to get to where they need to go? And how can we make the pages look less cluttered and more streamlined/relevant?"

When you're used to a site, sometimes you almost don't notice how many clicks it can take to where you need to go. Yes, during this transitional phase while people are re-learning where their most oft-visited sections of the new site are then they may take a few wrong turns, resulting in more clicks/page loads than need be. But once you know where to go, it will most likely be quicker and more intuitive than the navigation on the old site. And if it's not, then let me know and I can consult with the developers.

[mump boy]

Without answering every individual point (i'll probably come back and do that when i get bored at work later) it will just say that as one of the editors of the site it may be easy for you to navigate but let me tell you that for the layman it doesn't make any sense at all.

As you know Jon i had a number of issues with the old site but none of these changes address those issues, it may look nicer but it is complicated, unclear and frustrating. I'm with others i'll quite happily find somewhere else to look up results rather than go through this rigmarole every time.

Constant unnecessary changes are one of the main reasons i no longer use Facebook half as much as i used to and this will go the same way.

[mump boy]

I'll go to work in a minute

On the old site, if you wanted to find any list other than a senior men's list, you'd have to click between 3-9 times and go through two page loads to get to the list you want.

Just because the old one didn't work very is no excuse for this one not to either.

there shouldn't a need for any more than 4 clicks

Click on results
Click on men/women
click on year
click on event

if you want to look at another event you should just click on it without having to start again. If i'm looking at w100 i should be able to click on 200m and see the women's list for the same year not have to start from the top again.

http://www.thepowerof10.info/

does it very well

The old site used to display a big long list with all events merged into one with no clear dividers between event groups and which took up a load of space to display, creating a big void of white space on the right-hand side of the page. Whether you have to scroll further down the page (as you did on the old site) or click on an instantly-loading tab (like on the new site), it takes the same amount of 'finger-on-mouse' "effort".

Why would anyone need events grouped into events !! there's nothing wrong with a list, i like looking at lists it's what i go to results for !! even the casual fan who is interested enough to look on here for lists knows what events they want to look up without needing a dumbed down options incase they don't know the different between horizontal and vertical !!

In case you wanted to see where someone ranks on the all-time list. I for one used to hate having to filter through the extra performances on an all-time performers list and manually count where someone ranks on that list.

each to their own, that didn't bother me at all. I still don't think it should be the default list. It's distorting and simplistic

Granted, this is a fair point and I know that the tech team are working on getting the 'all' option to work properly.

Another fair point. I'll raise this with them if it hasn't been already.

The other info (progression, honours, etc) isn't a different 'page' as such; it's just a different tab contained within the same page. As I mentioned above, is a click much more effort than a scroll (as would have been required on the old site which displayed everything on one looooong page)?

The difference between a new page and a tab is non existent to me. Yes i'd rather scroll if looking for information it is better to have it all on the same page so it's easier to compare. There would be no need for any kind of scrolling if there weren't MASSIVE pictures taking up so much space. I'm all for pics but not as the main purpose of the page, i can google pics of people, i come to this page to find out info and to just have PB on the first page (rather than honours for sample) seems rather strange.

[mump boy]

One of the features of the new site is the results archive. So from the home page, click on "Results". Open filter, tick "World Championships", select the year, click "Find results". Voila - results of every World Champs, listed by event.

I've been looking for results through competitions as i couldn't find them on results. The first thing you see when you click on competitions, info about World Champs ? It then encourages you to click on previous WC where it gives you the timetable (who would want a timetable rather than event results ?) but incomplete results and none for 83 and 87

When i click on results i don't get to choose World Champs i get a confusing load of boxes and areas to choose from

OK found it, not obvious at all that you should click on competitions and get a drop box to chose from. I've never seen a tab that says 'open filters' before i had no idea what that meant. Why wouldn't that be the default instead of Geographic ??

It's standard practice now for sites to have 'related articles' sections on the page; it's what keeps people on the same website (and is why Daily Mail is the most visited website in the world - look how many 'related articles' they have listed down the right-hand side of their web site).

I'm all for pics and related stories to be listed DOWN THE SIDE OF THE WEBPAGE

these aren't down the side they're all over the place and they're not even related. One of the best/worst things about DM, youtube etc if the related stories but they are specifically don't interfere with the main page. On this site it's difficult to even see that you're trying to look up because an unrelated stories dominates each page. If i click on World Championships on the front page i get this

http://www.iaaf.org/competitions/iaaf-w ... mpionships. A story about the Jen Suhr competing indoors this winter !! Only if i scroll down do i get some info (timetables once again) about Deagu !! which isn't really what you would have expected anyway. Underneath that i can get more pics of things like Darren Cambell in Paris 03

1983: http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world- ... thletics-3

1987:
http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world- ... thletics-4

I still can't get this to work. i click on results, competitions, World champs, Helsinki and nothing just the same page refreshing. If you try and click on a year from the drop box it only goes down to 97 !! The results also need be in the competition archive.

The links you provide work but for a site that wants to be so easy on the eye the page is ugly and not as user friendly as previous one was.

Sorry to moan a lot but this site has the feel of changes having been made by people who would never use it and doesn't feel like it's actually been tested by anyone who might.

[Pego]

Jon, do you know if IAAF will continue to offer fantasy and if yes, are they going to improve the product?

[preston]

The reaction towards the new IAAF site reminds me of every change/development that facebook goes through. After each major change, your timeline gets full of people complaining about how crap it is (never highlighting the positive changes, of course), but within a few weeks everyone has forgotten about the old version and happily continues to use the new version. People simply don't like change.

Because companies have never made bad and embarrassingly short-sighted changes, no? Coca-Cola with New Coke? Apple with Apple Maps? It just come down to people bitching because they don't like change, right? The crazy part is that you barely acknowledge that the site has utterly failed to do what it ostensibly sets out to do: present the information in a more intuitive way. This, imo, was nothing more than patronage (like a Mayor's Brother-in-Law getting the contract to repave a road that doesn't need paving.)...graft.

... But trust me when I say that the people who have created the new IAAF site are experts in their field and they have consulted 'athletics people' throughout the whole process. With every part of the site that the designers have redeveloped, it has begun with the question: "what can we do to cut down on the amount of navigation that the user experiences to get to where they need to go? And how can we make the pages look less cluttered and more streamlined/relevant?"

But what seems most apparent and what shocks me that you confessed that you were involved are said best by the person who I agree with on EVERYTHING in life!

...this site has the feel of changes having been made by people who would never use it and doesn't feel like it's actually been tested by anyone who might.

[toyracer]

A change should ideally result in an improvement. The IAAF site change has not improved my experience using the site. The opposite is true. So now I avoid the site. I doubt that that is the objective they hoped to achieve. Then again, who knows?

The reaction towards the new IAAF site reminds me of every change/development that facebook goes through. After each major change, your timeline gets full of people complaining about how crap it is (never highlighting the positive changes, of course), but within a few weeks everyone has forgotten about the old version and happily continues to use the new version. People simply don't like change. But trust me when I say that the people who have created the new IAAF site are experts in their field and they have consulted 'athletics people' throughout the whole process. With every part of the site that the designers have redeveloped, it has begun with the question: "what can we do to cut down on the amount of navigation that the user experiences to get to where they need to go? And how can we make the pages look less cluttered and more streamlined/relevant?"

I'm not one of those facebook complainers you speak of, nor was I making any such comparison. I simply wrote of my experience with the new site, which is by no means improved in relation to the old site. It looks hideous. Others have expressed sentiment similar to mine, with more specifics, so I need not repeat it all.

[vencio2]

it's just dreadful. the old site was bad enough, but this really is bad, and I have been going back and forth to it to try and get used to it, but it's just getting worse.

for me the biggest problem is that i find that on each page my eye isn't really drawn in and anchored. i'm on the homepage and there seems to be so much stuff (pictures, links, HUGE social media boxes, etc.) everywhere and while the headache-inducing vomit of colours on the old site has gone, now this new site is mostly white or pale turquoise - while that may be a little more soothing, it's hard to read and it just feels like everything is floating on a page that hasn't been quite finished yet.

and is there a reason why athlete bios are positioned to the right of the web page? for me the eye is naturally drawn more to the left of the page ... so little things like this just make it a very counter-intuitive browsing experience that really puts me off wanting to come back.

[lionelp1]

find it a great site with plenty of info; what are posters whingeing about?. Its not perfect , that will never do

[18.99s]

Nothing happens when I click the "All" link (beside the "Best by athlete" link) at the header of the lists. Same problem all 3 browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Opera). Is it just me?

[skiboo]

find it a great site with plenty of info; what are posters whingeing about?. Its not perfect , that will never do

You must be joking. The new site is utterly atrocious, one cannot navigate to where they wish to go without jumping through numerous hoops, and even that does not guarantee one arrives where they desire. I think the new site is a piece of shit, and they should have left well enough alone. If there were a way to say it is worse than a piece of shit, I would type it. Utterly garbageous chunk of dung?

[Daisy]

Definitely a little clunky and very buggy. Here is an example. I was looking at the year lists for the men's 100m. http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/sp ... enior/2012

At the top there are two options Best by Athlete or All. All is in bold but it is obviously the 'Best by Athlete' list that is shown. When I hit the All link still shows the Best by Athlete option. To get the All option I had to hit the Best by Athlete link and then hit the All link. This can't be designed to work this way so it must be a bug.

[pauluk63]

I would like to add my complaint. I still find the new site incredibally difficult to navigate.. I have not got used to it as suggested earlier.

I am also still saddened that in Top Lists they have removed the breakdown of events for the Heptathlon and Decathlon. You used to be able to see what result they had gained from the indvidual event as well as the total score. Often this was a great way of seeing form or if one event had cost them. For example, Jessica Ennis 69** (12.54, 1.86, 14.61... ) etc. Why in improving the site, have they taken away stats?? It makes no sense. I have complained to the IAAF I hope they add this back to the results or at least in a PDF form if they can't add to the main site.

[mump boy]

I'm having a meeting with the developers next week so if people do have specifics they would like brought up please PM me

[gh]

Definitely a little clunky and very buggy. Here is an example. I was looking at the year lists for the men's 100m. http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/sp ... enior/2012

At the top there are two options Best by Athlete or All. All is in bold but it is obviously the 'Best by Athlete' list that is shown. When I hit the All link still shows the Best by Athlete option. To get the All option I had to hit the Best by Athlete link and then hit the All link. This can't be designed to work this way so it must be a bug.

Why can't they just name it "performers" and "performances"? I find "all" just a tad nebulous!

[Daisy]

Why can't they just name it "performers" and "performances"? I find "all" just a tad nebulous!

Agree, there is a problem if you have to look at the list to figure out what they mean.

[gh]

also makes me crazy that if you go to Olympic field-event results there are no series available, but if you click on the >> next to each person it will.

Maybe it's just me, but those look just like arrows pointing to each of the people. What possible clue is there that something lies buried underneath? This isn't an Easter Egg hunt.

And if you've got the data, why not just show it from the get-go?

[mump boy]

Definitely a little clunky and very buggy. Here is an example. I was looking at the year lists for the men's 100m. http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/sp ... enior/2012

At the top there are two options Best by Athlete or All. All is in bold but it is obviously the 'Best by Athlete' list that is shown. When I hit the All link still shows the Best by Athlete option. To get the All option I had to hit the Best by Athlete link and then hit the All link. This can't be designed to work this way so it must be a bug.

Why can't they just name it "performers" and "performances"? I find "all" just a tad nebulous!

I wouldn't even mind it it actually worked, you can click on 'All' all day and nothing happens

[mump boy]

On relay results don't bother clicking on the arrow hoping to find out the team or split times you get this

REACTION TIME
0.199 S

800M
1:38.63

1200M
2:28.58 1

what use is that to anyone ?!!

in the lists you don't even get that info

[pauluk63]

I had a look again yesterday you can emphasise enough how bad it is! So much data missing surely they must know the only people looking want as much data as possible! No teams in the relay, no date of births on 2012 lists, no relay teams is terrible! Re clicking the year and event and update EVERTIME you want to swap events!

It's not just like changing Facebook like Jon said its dreadful and has of some reason taken away data that they had. I really hope they read this page and make the changes.

[skiboo]

I've been trying unsuccessfully to find the London Olympic results - anywhere. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.