Its been a while since our last site upgrade. In the intervening months, a number of good suggestions were made by readers, colleagues and random strangers stopping me on the streets of Manhattan.
Some of these ideas were great . . . some were impossible . . . but all revealed a degree of involvement that is, well, wonderful.
And so, in response you will notice a few tweaks:
• Masthead is narrower, with less wasted space — the single most requested design change.
• The Main Post page layout was “tightened up”
• Navigation was improved — Tabs are wider, submenus (about, contact, etc.) are cleaner and easier to read.
• The sarcastic suggestion I made last week generated lots of mail — so I moved that to the default message whenever anyone goes to comment. It doesn’t apply to most of you (but 2% of commenters should pay heed!).
• Twitter, RSS and Mail icons are coming top right
• I am cutting out most of the social network icons after each post, leaving just Digg, Twitter and Facebook.
• Bailout Nation is embedded into the sidebar;
You may have to refresh your cache to see the full changes; I see it in Safari but not in Firefox! If you see Book Shelf where Book Club was, you are seeing the new site.
Another thing: I have been adding more curated content to the Think Tank — not just the usual circle of authors, but additional people who you may not be familiar with. Bruce Bartlett, Bob Lefsetz, Macroman, and Washington’s Blog, amongst others. Marion Maneker will also be more active in helping to curate this, and contribute his own perspectives. Some folks have positions that I do not agree with — but I think they are very smart independent thinkers whose analyses provoke debate and a fresh perspective on current issues.
One last item: I am debating bringing on a researcher/intern. I am not sure about the position — it will probably be an unpaid gig more structured for a college student. Some colleagues swear by the process, others much less so. Anyone who can shed insight as to its merits, please let me know your thoughts!
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.