Congratulations Els, for the new version. This new version is better than the previous version especially when open in mobile phone.

Bug report:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/missingscore2014.html

Click any profile under voters:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/test/profiles/provile.php?User=1

-> The requested URL /test/profiles/provile.php was not found on this server.

Should be: /profiles/profile.php?User=1

General remark: Like the new layout a lot.

Other observations:

http://www.worldheritagesite.org/worldheritagelist.html

* The top list per region could be linked here.
* The number in brackets means included sites, I presume. Initially I thought visits and was wondering about "Paris (1)". If possible, listing both information, e.g. in a table would be nice.

Sites, e.g.: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/wettropicsofqueensland.html
* Generally I like the formatting for comments, if users are registered on the site.
* However, if a user has no profile it doesn't look like a new entry. E.g.:
"Date posted: May 2012
SWIT Guide (Australia):
Hi,"
* Ideas: Separate entries more clearly and format first row per entry more striking. Alternate backcolor, ...
* Move the date posted information to the header row.

Thanks. I've changed it.

Writing my first reviews today... A useful list would be reviews by site. This way we could try to cover missing sites first.

Hi Els,
I also really like the new layout - looks much "fresher" in my eyes!
I have one thing, I observed but am not sure if it has to do with the new version: I have the impression that the "TOP 25 Enthusiasts" list isn't updated automatically any more, when changes happen, while the "complete list" is up-to-date immediately after submitting new visits.
I am observing the TOP 25 list particularly, since I am always "fighting" for staying in ;)

Yes you are right. It's always a choice between keeping a page dynamic (so it updates automatically, but is more vulnerable also because it needs a database connection), or make it static (which always works).

I'll see if I can change this specific page back to dynamic.

The new homepage is dynamic by the way.

Hi Els,

I was just wondering if there was anyway of linking from your blog posts to the reviewed sites. I like the blog set up, but there is no direct link from your current review to the page for the sites in question.

Would a textual link be enough, or do you miss the total overview a page like this provides: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/gebelbarkal.html

I too had found it "inconvenient" when reading your review of Gebel Barkal not to be able to link directly to the page for the site!! Since only some of your blogs are going to be reviews isn't it easiest merely to include the link on the first (or early) line of your blog when it is a review or refers to a single WHS?

Another "loss" I have come across v the previous version is the lack of visibility now as to which sites have reviews and which don't - this applies mainly of course to the T List sites since nearly all inscribed sites have been reviewed but even the number of reviews is still of interest. I appreciate that the introduction of the number of locations for inscribed sites (An interesting and useful piece of info) overtook the previous "count" of reviews but couldn't it be re-introduced as a second number on inscribed sites and the only number on T Lists - the "meaning" of the single number is shown at the top of the Inscribed list and could be changed to something along the lines of e.g "followed by counts of
a. The number of locations
b. The number of reviews on this Web site"
(the TList sites would onyl have the latter since only occasionally is the likely number of locations shown on the UNESCO site - e.g for the Bhutanese site I have just been reviewing!)

Yeah I was thinking just a quick link in the text somewhere would be useful.

Oh just noticed you put a link in at the start, yep that was what I was after. The blogs were just missing that onward path, so it is better now.

Done!

Thanks for (very!!) speedy update.

With that update I thought people may be interested to know that there are 50 sites that don't have a review yet.

Here is a list, they mostly breakdown to remote and inaccessible or recent additions: