CostPerNews 2.0

work-in-progress.gifWhen CostPerNews officially launched on November 1, two of my five one year statistic goals included crossing a level 3 Google PR rank and being within the top 50,000 blogs on Technorati.

I’m proud to say that within three months, I’ve met those two goals and the site is now a level 5 on the Google rank and ranks in the top 40,000 on Technorati. I don’t give a lot of credence to page view metrics, but the Google and Technorati ranks are not just about page views. They also represent consistent quality and lots of discussion. I think we’ve achieved some of that here on CostPerNews.

So, to celebrate, I’m pushing CPN out of “beta” and into a more stable backend. I decided while I was at it that I would give the site a complete redesign. If you’re reading the feed, please visit and let me know what you think.

Click around, see what you think and poke holes in the site structure (Jangro). Let me know what I need to improve, what you like, what you hate and what I can do to continue to make this an interesting space for discussion and investigation.

CostPerNews, like life and our conceptions of online marketing, is a constant work in progress! I’ll be upgrading to WordPress 2.1 over the weekend, so a few more tweaks will be coming…

heart.png heart.png heart.png

(Thanks for the Love, Carsten!)

20 Replies to “CostPerNews 2.0”

  1. Honestly. I don’t like it, but that’s just me. At least make the Post titles links (in addition to the “view” link) Cheers!


  2. Jonathan (Trust) January 26, 2007 at 01:58

    “Honestly. I don’t like it, but that’s just me.”

    Not just you πŸ™‚ I already told Sam I didn’t think most would like it. It’s just really bad. It looked fine the way you had it, hopefully it goes back that way.


  3. Thanks for the input guys. Let’s see how it goes this weekend with the WordPress 2.1 upgrade. I may be switching back if all goes well, but wanted to try something new to get some thoughts on the design future of the site.

    So, the design is 0 for 2 right now. One more strike and it might be out!


  4. I wish I had the time for that kind of games :). In the case that you ever get bored, let me know. I have plenty of things that would keep you busy πŸ˜‰


  5. OK – a Positive point. The old design took a while to load due to the amount of graphics in your posts. This loads a lot faster, which is good.

    Negative points – I don’t like the design, sorry.


  6. Haha… best negative point ever, James.

    “I don’t like the design, sorry.”

    Pretty much says it all!

    OK… we’re at 0-3 with the late night crowd. Maybe some morning feed readers and visitors will like? Eh, at this rate probably not!

    Looks like we may be switching back to the oldie-but-goodie.

    BTW, the reason I used this design was that it a) loaded quickly, b) is clean (I’m a big fan of simplicity), and c) looked something like a journal table of contents. I do like the way this design emphasizes the posts themselves rather than the date they are posted.

    However, if people are not finding it ascetically pleasing, I’m definitely willing to go back to the original “1.0” design. It’s all (constantly) under construction and nothing is set in stone.


  7. It is also not as user friendly IMO. The references to previous posts and last comments helps to see them better. This is especially important when you post 3,4 or 5 articles in a row. Some of the most recent comments are for a post that is already on page 2 πŸ™‚

    The new design gets also quite confusing if you “open” multiple articles at the same time, because the separation between individual articles and articles and comments is not very clear if you scroll the page and scan it.


  8. Good point about the comments. I need to figure out a better way to publicly display the “most recent comments” if I’m going to stick with this design.


  9. I just had my first cup of coffee. So, with a clear mind – I vote on a no. Although regular readers might not mind (the content will still be brilliant!), you will probably lose a few potential addicts.

    Change or no change – I will be back!



  10. Thanks for the kind words, RJ.

    Looks like I’ll probably be switching back soon… gotta give people what they came to see, right?


  11. BTW, (for what it’s worth)… you can see the most recent 12 comments down below the posts now πŸ™‚


  12. When I got here today, I thought I’d typed in the url wrong and then figured something must have blown up with a CSS or something.

    Count me as another who preferred 1.0.


  13. Ditto. The old site, though it took a bit long to download, had a personality and a life to it, and the graphics you use in the posts always drew me to read them.


  14. Lisa Picarille January 26, 2007 at 11:11

    Count me in as one who preferred the old version. It was more fun and really drew me in.


  15. CPN 2.0 was more like CPN DOA.

    Alright, we’re back to where we started. I am upgrading to the next version of WordPress over the weekend, so there may be a few changes and tweaks here and there, but nothing major.

    Thanks for all of your input. I think the final vote count (including blistering emails this morning) was 0 in favor and 19 against. Nice to see industry consensus!


  16. Make it 20 against. Glad to see v 1.0 back.


  17. Much better – democracy in action!


    1. Exactly, James!

      Now if only more merchants, affiliates and marketing related blogs used the power of community decision to influence designs and even layouts…


  18. *shameless plug*

    And of course if only more merchants and affiliate stated blogging, they could even do so for free at



  19. “Nice to see industry consensus! ”

    Let’s use this opportunity to tackle one of the more serious issues.. just kidding.

    Good to see the old design again. Small tip. The only thing that bugged me in this design.

    Add a Home link to the top of the 2 columns to the right. Above “Cost Per News Pages” and “About Cost Per News”. Or you make the two headlines to a link to the homepage.

    It’s a minor thing, but reminded me of the book “Don’t make me think” and the missing logo to the left with a link to the homepage did made me think. Not finding it at all first made me think even more. πŸ™‚


Leave a Reply