The front page of HN is a single list with headers at the top of the page and a footer at the bottom. It is a numbered list which shows me the title of the article, #votes, #comments, the domain name, who submitted it and the time since posted. At the bottom of the page there is an FAQ to explain to me what the page is if I've never been there before. Even if I've never heard of it before the title "Hacker News" gives a good indication of what it is.
The drudge report has none of that. What are the three columns? Why is there a single column of content above that? How is the content divided / presented, is it just random? How fresh is the content? Where do the links lead? Are the links user submitted or is it run by someone? There is precisely zero context on who the page is by or what the site is. In addition, in the few places where I am given a picture for context which is clearly linked to a story I can't even click on the image to take me to the story.
Baffling that someone could think this is a well designed site.
Edit: After searching on Wikipedia to discover what the Drudge Report actually is I'm still far from impressed. For an example of what I'd consider to be a good "aggregation site" here is one http://www.jimmyr.com/
Because it doesn't need most of them. It doesn't have comments or voting -- just suggests stories the Drudge guy likes.
>What are the three columns?
Just 3 columns.
>Why is there a single column of content above that?
Because those are the "headline" stories -- as evident by the larger font too.
>How fresh is the content?
Quite fresh/breaking.
>Where do the links lead?
To news stories. Just clicking one or two makes that evident.
>Are the links user submitted or is it run by someone?*
It's the Drudge Report -- so, we can assume it's Drudge's report.
These questions are basically just questions someone just landing there might have. Not issues that hurt the actual readers of the site -- like the one's the original post complaints about.
In fact I find the HN front page more than a little overwhelming too. Over time, I have learned the content is worth the parsing effort.
BTW: I assumed "heavyweight championship" referred to boxing, not to politics. See the problem?
I'll bite: what kind of news website you don't fine overwhelming?
>BTW: I assumed "heavyweight championship" referred to boxing, not to politics. See the problem?
That's not about the site's design though, just the phrasing of some particular headline.
Traditional blog-like fromats, e.g. Slashdot, where each headline comes with the top para, which you can skim. If you don't skim it, then it's welcome filler spacing out the headlines.
Of course, content matters more than presentation. HN is better than Slashdot, and probably needs to keep its denser format.
>>BTW: I assumed "heavyweight championship" referred to boxing, not to politics. See the problem?
> That's not about the site's design though, just the phrasing of some particular headline.
The problem is inadquate info on the front page. I.e. only getting a headline.
Everywhere? It's a page full of selected news headlines. You're not supposed to look at some particular place (except the big letter, highlighted few headlines that are presented as the most important), just to check which ones you want to open.
So, not totally unlike the first page of HN.
>For example the main headline right now is "TONIGHT: HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP!" What does that even mean?
That tonight is the big battle between Hillary and Trump?