Welcome to the blog-o-sphere!

New site looks super overall and is very user friendly; love the easy 1-click access to many of the content areas: CME, Eductation, Discussion/Opinions and Features.

 BUT, I am concerned that the "cornerstone" of the site, the heartwire news stories, has gotten overly condensed; especially when much of that condensation yields room for "Info from Industry" and advertisements-a frankly dissappointing (verging on nauseating) allocation of space. And many of the other link-out sections could be made a bit smaller without compromising access/visibility.

 How about linking out to the industry info and getting back to the up-front presentation of the broader spectrum of current news stories.

 While we can "personalize" for our area of interest, the most valuable feature of the site for me has been to help keep up with disciplines beyond our focused interest, where we may not otherwise keep up quite as closely. Kind of like delivering only the Sports section of the newspaper and making me take an action to get the front page, metro, business, and/or entertainment sections.

 Thanks for the chance to comment.

I agree strongly with Darren. It appears that much of the site has been ceded to sponsored content. A real value was the ability to see the list of heartwire stories and to scan a range of contributions that are part of the excellent independent content of theheart.org. The writers and editors of theheart.org make a wonderful contribution -- their articles are thorough and insightful. They are what keep the large number of cardiologists coming back to the site -- along with some strong features like the Topol/Califf series and the wrap-ups from the national meetings. I understand that the sponsored content pays the bills -- but the new format needs to maintain the welcome page as a place where people can scan the most recent stories -- and the distinction between directly sponsored content and the independent content (not targeted sponsorship)should be very clear.

At first glance, I was seduced by the “shiny new décor” of the website until I counted the number of articles with perceived or potential commercial slant. For example, on the ACS webpage, I counted 6 articles in the “INSIDE” section, 5 in the “Information from industry section” and two advertisement pieces that have a not-too subtle commercial bias! What made theheart.org the preeminent cardiology website (a veritable repository of information and knowledge) was its unwavering commitment to providing unbiased access to information, especially in its news stories. I am afraid I see that commitment being vulnerable to erosion in its latest incarnation. The editorial leadership needs to be commended (up until now) for shepherding the readership, opinion leaders and the journalists in providing a platform for exchange of ideas and information in a balanced, thoughtful and credible manner. As a loyal stakeholder, I would hate to see the precious “cache” that theheart.org has painstakingly built over the years become undone by the myopic “cash-first” philosophy. Bottom line, I applaud the attempt to improve the organizational structure (no issues with making it more appealing and use friendly), but it is the content, unencumbered by commercial bias, that ultimately appeals to the readership and will be the arbiter of the website’s success. Hope my comments are taken in a constructive manner. Thank you.

Ooh bright shiny!  The new look is an attempt to fix what isn't broken.  I have found many serendipitous references when on the website that the new, customized format would not give me.  Very busy looking.  I do look forward to the interaction with others in the medical field.  I have been recommending theheart.org for as long as I have known it to all the EMT and Paramedic students and practitioners that have asked me for a user firiendly, comprehensive website for anything related to coronary news.  I find navigating the site to be more confusing than the old website.  Primarily due to the attempt to break the site up for Doctors and their Fellows.  I am a Paramedic and educator and have found the site in the past to be balanced, insightful, with full disclosure to help evaluate bias.  I hope the new layout can live up to the standard that you have already established.

I appreciate the publisher’s response, but I am afraid it misses the point. In my opinion, the raison d’être for theheart.org is the content of the Heartwire news stories – clear, factual, independent and unembellished. I feel that the commercial bias within the sponsored content will quickly metastasize rendering a BLEAK PROGNOSIS for theheart.org. The perception of an independent voice is essential to readership’s ability to trust theheart.org. If this perception is compromised through the association of content with a commercial sponsor, this diminishes the trust value of theheart.org in the eyes of the audience. The heart.org will be well advised not to allow advertisers to co-opt trusted content. It is absolutely critical to draw a line between education and promotion, between trusted content and advertising. Only by doing so will theheart.org "attract eyeballs and not criticism"!

It is always hard to improve something that everybody likes. The key attraction of THO to the very busy cardiologist consists of two components: 1) to get AT ONE GLANCE all relevant new info in regards to cardiovascular medicine

and 2) to get this info in a package, which contains the important facts together with a balanced discussion .

THO mastered both and that’s why the site is so popular. All relevant info is right there when you open the site and the writers of THO are doing an outstanding job putting the reports together.

While I am confident that the writers will continue to excel, the new beta site is losing on the first component. The home page is much busier and the key info (all relevant new info in regards to cardiovascular medicine) is more difficult to retrieve. While one can organize the info similar to the current site, it requires extra steps and it then still is not as clear as the current site. While some of this may be related to familiarity, the most important aspect, again, is info AT A GLANCE – without much navigation.

All other new features, including the blogs/discussion forum, sub-specialty sites etc are great, however they appeal only to those who have time to navigate the site, which, again, is the MINORITY of cardiologists. Trainees, researchers etc however will find these features useful.

Lastly, I agree with the previous comments in regards to the concerns of commercial bias. Industry information should be banned from the home page and should go on a different, clearly marked page for industry.

THO has become an excellent source for CV info and I am confident it will remain the leader in this genre. With all these great ideas one just has to be careful not to forget one’s strengths.

Rationale for heart.org 2.0
Can someone explain the rationale for the new look? As a faithful user of the site I have always enjoyed the prominence of heartwire, the "just about right" length of the story capsules, and the ability to quickly catch up without much mousework if I'd missed a few days. It seems the new site diminishes the emphasis on the news and increases the prominence of satellites etc. Did regular users ask for this? Did advertisers ask for this? Did staff ask for it? I understand the need for change in response to problems or the need not to get stale or old. Somehow this looks like it is going in the wrong direction. What did your pilots or focus groups tell you about the new look? What do other regular users think - should there be a poll? Should there be a choice to select THO new or THO "classic" - after all, even Coke went back when new Coke didn't work!
c

Since 1999, when we launched theheart.org, the web has changed in ways that no one could have imagined. Over 10 years, web technologies have matured, become more standardized, and more accessible. We evolved from a dial-up environment (remember the 56k modem?) to a broadband, high-speed world, meaning that it is now possible to effectively deliver rich content, like streaming video. With this evolution in technology comes an expectation amongst web users that their experience of the net should involve multimedia components, blogs, “sharing”, and collaborative tools. 

 

While evaluating our development plan back in 2007, it became obvious that the design and supporting technology of theheart.org were incompatible with our plans for the future and that in order to make the most of new technologies and to stay at the leading edge of cardiology news, we would need to chart a new course.

 

Keeping the news center stage has been the guiding principle of our redesign; we have always realized the importance of our news service to our readership and there is no possible compromise on this subject. From the initial plans for the new site, we shared our thoughts with doctors like you, we talked to web specialists in different areas, and we also reviewed the practices of leading news organizations such as The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, and The Guardian.  We feel that we have been faithful to our guiding principle and that we have strived to make the news more prominent than ever.  By reorganizing the content into clinical conditions we have sought to give the news a longer life beyond the home page and by implementing RSS feeds we aim to extend the reach of our news even further. Our goal is to broaden the reach of our news service and to adapt the site to the needs of a diverse population of healthcare professionals that now numbers over 115,000 individuals. Through feedback we have received and the discussions we have had with physicians throughout this process, we feel that we have chosen the right course and, yes!, as with all transitions of this nature we are aiming to make the outcome even better! We value your feedback and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with us so that we can remain the leading source of high quality cardiology news and information. Thank you!

I'm sorry, I love change and always love "new" versions of software even when the increment is relatively small. BUT .... the heart.org's strength was simplicity of it's interface. Lately even the 1.0 version has gotten a little crowded but it's still relatively simple and "new" stuff hits you in the face as soon as you load up the page - something that's really good for busy clinicians. Google's strength also lies in the simplicity of the front page. THO 2.0 is way too crowded and really doesn't offer much increment that I could easily pick on.