Friday, January 14, 2005

What do you think of the new 2000days format?

8 Comments:

At 2:37 PM, serenity_ii said...

I think it was sort of unexpected. After 1500 days or whatever, it was kind of weird to change the format--and I'm not big on blog sites, to be honest. I'd rather write plain old simple straightforward HTML myself than have some unfeeling system design something for me. Plus, I liked that our first names & locations were used rather than IDs--I think changing our names partway through is confusing, and I liked that our ages were posted before without birthdates. But, you know, we're most of the way through the days, so whatever works.

 
At 11:24 AM, Jane said...

It's always hard to accept change. I don't especially like the new format, and I think the fact that you see some postings when you add your own can alter your response. But I am primarily glad that the project has started up again. It was too close to the goal to cancel.

 
At 6:59 AM, Samantha said...

Its alright. I preferred the old format but understand how that would grow unmanageable. Its kind of nice to be able to skip a few days and just scroll down the list of questions and see which i missed and answer late. (rather than letting emails pile up in my inbox) So there is definatly some convenience for those of us who slack.

 
At 3:37 PM, Anonymous said...

Steve said . . .

I know this way is easier for Felicia but I really prefer the old look.

 
At 3:20 PM, Tam said...

I prefer the old look, too...but I can get used to this.

 
At 5:47 AM, Laura from Lowell said...

Given the choice between 2000days not continuing and 2000days continuing in a format that is easier for Felicia... not doubt about it, I'll take the new version.

 
At 7:55 AM, Jill said...

Change is inevitable. I'll save my discontent for more important issues.

 
At 11:43 AM, Anonymous said...

I wasn't a part of 2000 days in the old format. I started posting in January 2005. So, I can't compare.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home