4 ms·

Fundamentally, classic sites works differently than new sites. It's basically not possible, for example, to make a classic sites website mobile responsive. Th

Fundamentally, classic sites works differently than new sites. It's basically not possible, for example, to make a classic sites website mobile responsive. That's a table-stakes feature for website builders today. To your Squarespace comparison, Squarespace went through a similar transition - Squarespace 5 worked very similar to Classic Sites, and was replaced with Squarespace 6, which was a complete end-to-end rewrite.

fermienrico 6y ago
Yea, I think Google should continue to revamp things under the same product name. It is giving it a bad reputation for discontinuation of products left and right. Could have called it Classic Sites 2.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The product name is Google Sites. With the introduction of the new configuration for that product in parallel, “classic” and “new” distinguished the available configuration. Classic now stops being the default and in a little over a year goes away, but the product (Google Sites) stays.
dwheeler 6y ago
> It's basically not possible, for example, to make a classic sites website mobile responsive. Huh? Did that 10 years ago. Perhaps we have a different definition of a "classic site". To me a "classic site" is another name for a static site, that is, a website where the HTML to be served is pregenerated. Static sites are now coming back, not going away. But I always assumed that a website should reflow. Perhaps when you say "classic site" you mean "site that assumes that all users have the same display size". I agree that such classic sites are nonsense today. But they were always nonsense. At no time was there a guarantee of any particular screen size for HTML, and it's always been easy to write HTML that just reflows. If you do that, your site works just fine.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Perhaps we have a different definition of a "classic site". GP didn't say “classic site” they said “classic sites website”. You seem to be interpreting that as intended to be a somewhat redundant and mispunctuated rendering of “classic site’s website”, but given that the context is a discussion for the shutdown of Google’s classic Sites in favor of only supporting Google’s new Sites mode, I think that it's just a capitalization-omitted rendering of “classic Sites website”, that is, a website using classic Google Sites as opposed to new Google Sites.
rhizome 6y ago
It's starting to sound like this "mobilization" process is the marquee project pushing this, if Google is still a "nothing gets done that won't result in a promotion" shop, which is another stereotype the company has built for itself. Also, people have technical knowledge here, even if they've never been hired by someone as "the best of the best," or having graduated from a top 10 CS school, so handwaving "fundamentally works differently" is not actually likely to be the enlightening description you might hope it would be.

fermienrico 6y ago

Yea, I think Google should continue to revamp things under the same product name. It is giving it a bad reputation for discontinuation of products left and right. Could have called it Classic Sites 2.

dragonwriter 6y ago
The product name is Google Sites. With the introduction of the new configuration for that product in parallel, “classic” and “new” distinguished the available configuration. Classic now stops being the default and in a little over a year goes away, but the product (Google Sites) stays.

dwheeler 6y ago

> It's basically not possible, for example, to make a classic sites website mobile responsive. Huh? Did that 10 years ago. Perhaps we have a different definition of a "classic site". To me a "classic site" is another name for a static site, that is, a website where the HTML to be served is pregenerated. Static sites are now coming back, not going away. But I always assumed that a website should reflow. Perhaps when you say "classic site" you mean "site that assumes that all users have the same display size". I agree that such classic sites are nonsense today. But they were always nonsense. At no time was there a guarantee of any particular screen size for HTML, and it's always been easy to write HTML that just reflows. If you do that, your site works just fine.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Perhaps we have a different definition of a "classic site". GP didn't say “classic site” they said “classic sites website”. You seem to be interpreting that as intended to be a somewhat redundant and mispunctuated rendering of “classic site’s website”, but given that the context is a discussion for the shutdown of Google’s classic Sites in favor of only supporting Google’s new Sites mode, I think that it's just a capitalization-omitted rendering of “classic Sites website”, that is, a website using classic Google Sites as opposed to new Google Sites.

rhizome 6y ago

It's starting to sound like this "mobilization" process is the marquee project pushing this, if Google is still a "nothing gets done that won't result in a promotion" shop, which is another stereotype the company has built for itself. Also, people have technical knowledge here, even if they've never been hired by someone as "the best of the best," or having graduated from a top 10 CS school, so handwaving "fundamentally works differently" is not actually likely to be the enlightening description you might hope it would be.