Well, congratulations on repelling me from the ranks of your daily readers. Salon used to be one of the most truly unique Web sites around, with a look-and-feel and editorial style unmatched by any other online publication. Now, with your "site update," you've assumed the blandest common elements of every other commercial Web site and definitively killed the Salon aesthetic. Your gutless revamp incorporates every corporate Web site cliché, from newspaper-style column widths to the cheesy logotype to sickly, generic category titles: Are we to understand that "Sexpert Opinion" and "Urge" will now be found under "Health and Sex"? It's sad and disheartening -- Salon could have been the New York Times of the Web, upholding a certain editorial vision that held fast against ugly design trends. Your redesign absolutely reeks of market research and focus groups, with an obvious bent towards jacking up advertising revenue. Hey, I'm a realist -- I know Salon needs advertisers in order to stay afloat, but I guarantee you're going to lose a large part of the readership that brought you those advertisers in the first place. I hope to God you lost good people over this, and that they will go elsewhere to finish the job Salon started. Au revoir, sellouts!

-- Jay O'Rear

I'm sorry to see you repudiating your "magazine" title and resorting to the information-overload layout so common to other news sites. The old categorized layout I came to know and love eased navigation and put the focus where it should be: on the excellent writing. Suddenly my beloved Salon has become just another caffeinated portal-wannabe trying to be all Web things to all people, and I'm being forced back to the newstand.

-- Courtney Graff

I couldn't believe what I read in this morning's N.Y. Times, but, here I am, and it's true! You've had a fantastic makeover, and captured www.salon.com, while you were at it .

Your changes impress and excite me. I can't help but feel a bit proud, too, even though I've been part of your community for only a few months. You maintain balance on the Web, and you've continued to mature as you grow.

Intelligent, witty, on the spot.

-- Rick Adair

What's up with the new graphics? They're pedestrian and ugly. It's like running into an old friend who's had unfortunate plastic surgery and a really bad haircut.

What's up with the content? Can't find the columns for the ads, and the "new" stuff, like Amy Reiter's People column, is old and redundant. It's as bad as returning to that favorite neighborhood boîte and finding it's now a Pizza Hut.

Do these changes have anything to do with the new and very prominently displayed relationship with Microsoft? Please tell us you haven't sold out ... if you can't do that, then please publish a link to the new site where your creative team has gone, because this new look isn't the smart site with the slick graphics I've come to know.

-- Mary Alice Thring
Toronto

Love the site, and have been reading for months, but after reading Joe Conason's review of the Isikoff book, and then seeing the "printer friendly version" button at the bottom of the article, I had to write to say "well done." I often print out your articles to share with friends and family (especially those who are Webless). Thank you for thinking of this. Keep up the good work, both in writing and design.

-- Bruce R. Wolff, Ph.D.
Waterloo, Ontario

Next page | You don't understand: It isn't a "race thing"