{"id":31992,"date":"2014-07-20T21:17:16","date_gmt":"2014-07-20T20:17:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=31992"},"modified":"2017-07-02T21:45:46","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T20:45:46","slug":"readers-editor-a-website-needing-more-soft-fruit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/07\/20\/readers-editor-a-website-needing-more-soft-fruit\/","title":{"rendered":"Readers’ editor: A website needing more soft fruit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"davidpayne\"<\/a>We like it when readers take the time and trouble to give us feedback. We’ve been particularly appreciative in the last two weeks as The BMJ’s<\/em>\u00a0new website<\/a> beds down following its launch on 30 June. Some readers responded<\/a> to the editorial<\/a> published to mark the new website and the journal’s new name and logo. \u00a0Eighty readers replied to an email we sent out about the new site. Others used our customer service feedback form<\/a>, and contacted us directly via email. Last week we did our first technical release since the new site went live, and we used it to tweak the design (based on your feedback), implement some changes we\u00a0couldn’t squeeze in before launch, and fix some bugs.<\/p>\n

Search<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some readers struggled with the magnifying glass search icon: \u201cI hope the definitive, ALPHA, version will not have the same compressed header bar that currently loses the search function and the old link to advanced search,\u201d was a typical response. We have now replaced the icon with the term “Search” on the top navigation bar for desktops. We have also removed the “beta” badge.<\/p>\n

We also discovered that the search simple and advanced search wasn’t working properly. We are continuing to refine this, but the problem we were having with results displaying 1970 publication dates for recently published articles is now resolved. If you find any, please let us know.<\/p>\n

PDFs and printing<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’ve made it easier to download pdfs, and to print articles after clicking the “Print” button. This was broken when we launched. A couple of readers fed back about not being able to print articles in their “print” section. These are now back, and link from the print table of contents. Here, for instance, is the pdf of \u00a0the latest four “pico” research articles that appear in our current print issue<\/a>.<\/p>\n

“Empty” pages<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sometimes we don’t need to wait for readers to alert us to a problem. Shortly after the new site launched, Google’s Webmaster tool indicated that around 800 of the site’s 2m pages were not displaying any content. We identified three fixes to this problem, all of which were deployed. We hope this is now fixed, but do let us know if you find any more.<\/p>\n

Here are some other changes that went live at the end of last week:<\/strong><\/p>\n