Gee, such negativity some folk have...

Now I've had a chance to have much more of a look and you know what you folk are right, it is indeed pish  

Re IF's various very good points, the CHs wouldn't be too bad as they are on players' overview pages as well as rankings pages, but yes no exact date 

And re the seemingly good point of getting historical ranking pages it doesn't change for me when I try run it on a new date    ( have others got that to work ? )

I also used to really like the dates of birth in the ranking lists   

So ignore my first post above.  it's actually both pish sylistically AND statswise.

I'd like to think much might still improve, but I'm not sure given that it has gone live like this.  

There is no excuse for all these regressive steps even if stylistically they are changing things for tablets and other devices.

When I click on the last link, I do get Serena's page. That must have been a glitch that they have corrected. Unless Laura has suddenly acquired 46 titles. . .

I have been out all day so missed most the 'fun' of the WTA site revamp.

My immediate thought is have they ever heard of beta testing? A quick scan of the website and I have already noticed several errors.

For example in Laura's results page alone:

The US Open is missing from the list.
She got 0 WTA points from the Olympics.
The qualifying results and main draw results are all mixed up so in Beijing her matches are shown in the order R1 q1 R2 q2 with no explanation for which is which.

Also not an error as such but all results show the winning player's score first and result is the other side of the table which makes it hard to read.

On the positive side:

Rankings breakdown on the player page is good to have
Historic rankings also nice, but I can't get it to work yet (edit: worked in Chrome and rankings go back to 1999)
Releasing the website in early December was a good idea as they have a few weeks to sort out all the problems

So whilst there are initially some annoying features of the new ebsite, we should probably wait till the start of the season to judge it properly.

insomniacfolder wrote:

---

Allow me a moment to be instantaneously and irresponsibly reactionary and judgmental... AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

Almost everything I hate about modern website design is there. If this is how the final versions gonna look then I'll go spare.

Less information across a wider area so it's harder to assess it effectively, endless rollovers, 

 

---

Yes, yet another tennis website gets a usability downgrade - in the WTA's case, yet another one.

The first things I noticed were that the new rankings pages look awful and as well as making them look worse (though they do at last seem to have matched the ATP by letting you pick a date to see past ranking lists, which is long overdue), they've removed info from them, such as the previous ranking column (and the hence the week on week change), the dates of birth (the one thing they included that the ATP didn't) and the no. of tours.  They have also changed the URL and removed the link to the printable rankings pdf, though I'm hoping in that case they've just removed the link by mistake, since that list is invaluable for the projected rankings on the RHS of the top 25 table.

What hacks me off more than anything though is that yet again they have changed the URL format of the player profile and ranking pages. No doubt this is something I can cope with on the GB top 25 table by amending the formula that produces the links and you could argue that few people will notice that change in general (though the WTA seemed to have confused even itself this morning because all the links from the player index page when to the wrong players), but it means all the player and ranking links on past GB top 25 tables will no longer work (which to a casual user probably appears to be my fault) and my tables can't be the only things affected (e.g. it has probably made a few thousand links on TF invalid at a stroke) and what makes it even more annoying is that it's so pointless and unnecessary - even if they couldn't resist changing the page format, why did they need to change the URLs - surely it's harder to change them than to leave them the same?

As for getting used to it, sometimes changes do look better when you get used to them, but not always - I still find myself cursing the "upgraded" ITF site at least once a day (missing info, no chronological order within any given year on H2Hs, etc, and most of all, an order of magnitude slower than it used to be )

insomniacfolder wrote:

---

Here's some things I found after a very quick look round, now the site is apparently live.

Negatives

• No hyperlinks to player pages from rankings list
• No quick links to #'s 101-end of rankings list (There is a drop down, inconveniently bottom right)
• Only top 1000 available in rankings list (from aforementioned drop down) cannot see a way to go 1000+ and UNR
• No indication of rise/fall on week in rankings listings
• No indication of # events played in rankings listings 
• No ability to call up a single countries players in rankings listings. (you can do this [ponitlessly ?] for the top 100 from the Players page)
• Career highs now at obscure page of player profile and bottom of the page, and undated (beyond the year)
• Results pages ranking points & prize money details are huge
• New rankings breakdowns don't include ITF constituent tournament results and is not relevant to the current ranking for the player

Positives

• Can now call up historical rankings lists in full, by week (with the above reservations)

 

I got quite depressed about it, so stopped looking further.

If you follow the top 100 then perhaps this will be an improvement, but for me I hope many things are still to be added.

---

 I've tweeted to the WTA twitter feed who asked for feedback, about points one, four and five from the above negatives. They then tweeted back saying thanks for the suggestions, good points ! Hopefully they will make those changes.

indiana wrote:

---

[...] And re the seemingly good point of getting historical ranking pages it doesn't change for me when I try run it on a new date    ( have others got that to work ? ) [...]

---

I managed to get it to work in Chrome, Firefox, Opera & IE. I checked the rankings for GB players against Stephens historical top 25 lists over the last 3 years, and the positions of GB players at least were correct, and the top 100 seemed aboujt what I expected, and definitely changed on each occasion.