It is a shame that we're not seeing tester's notes on CP picks all of a sudden. I would love to know whom to thank for giving something a try and saying nice words about it.
cynthia, they've been moved. Look down, after the recipe. I think I like them much better up top.
Thanks for the heads up! I didn't even think to look elsewhere in the recipe. Though I still like it up on top. They make good headnotes for the recipe :)
I saw that too and was really sad because those notes have good info that can be extremely helpful to anyone else interested in trying that recipe.
I am glad to hear that testing notes are there, I was sad not to see them but also prefer them on top.
I agree! If I could only see one or the other of the author's headnotes or the tester's review, I'd want to see the latter. But with the abbreviated format, really, both should be visible. The tester's notes are buried, in the last place where they'll be of any use . . . . which is at the top, where people who have not yet decided whether a recipe interests them can read the review to determine whether even to scroll down to look at the ingredients, instructions, etc. ;o)
P.S. I'd really like to know what the user interface designer/decision makers on the FOOD52 team were thinking when they made this change. ;o)
Thank you, friends! I'd never have found the comments buried there. I agree with AntoniaJames that the tester's are of greater value. They are what distinguish Food52 from other cooking sites; they lend any recipe a legitimacy that other sites completely lack. They contribute heavily to one's wish or decision to engage in the experience of preparing a recipe, which makes them a very pertinent cooking issue. Why were they buried?
agree with all - i also like them better on the top...
Agree with you all. For all of the reasons cited here, I prefer the tester's notes above the recipe too.
Another vote for keeping the testers' notes at the top of the recipe. Thanks for bringing this up, Cynthia.
Count me in for keeping notes at the top. I actually like reading both the tester's notes together with recipe author's headnotes.
I completely agree. The testers' notes are easier on the eye directly at the top of the recipe, and is more time-saving for busy cooks.
Yes, yes, definitely top. It's extraordinarily confusing to find them hidden at the bottom, if you find them at all.
I agree. At the top again, please!
My vote is with the majority! Top, please!
I thought it was a glitch when I saw them at the bottom...
I want it at the top, too! :)
Community comments (other than testers) also amplify the recipe. Many valuable suggestions, variations and questions turn up there, and some second thoughts or amplifications from the cook. All this input is so helpful!
Oh, Susan, what great thoughts; thank you!
It's always interesting to read how a testing cook has modified the recipe for what she/he had on hand in replacement for something called for. Recipe testing is supposed to follow rigid rules, but life is rarely successfully rigid.
Oh, I love this Hotline thread, such great feedback!!! I like to see the notes up top, too. :)
This seems like a pretty universal wish for the testers' notes to return to the top of the recipe.
And while we're at it, why the change in the search box from "COOKS" to "USERS"? I like COOKS better! USERS just sounds so wrong!
cbc, I wonder if there are actually more "users" than there are cooks. It seems that in recent months many new members have signed up, but they don't have a recipe archive. When there are contests posted here and all you need to do is leave a comment on the post, you can see multitudes of names that one may never see otherwise. I am just guessing, but "user" may be a more representative term for the viewership(??)
I actually like the notes on the bottom of the recipe instead of above the headnotes. The reason being that if the recipe is submitted to another contest at some time the headnote and recipe are the focus instead of someone else's opinion even though positive.
That's a good point if the cook enters numerous contests. But neither the headnote nor the tester's notes are usually written out in totality. A user needs to click on the "more" link to read the entire headnote or review.
I agree with Top vs Bottom - it's helpful to have all my information in one place and not have to go scrolling around. And I appreciate the More/Less function. To the very talented and hard-working Food52'ers... perhaps more UI testing before making site changes? It would probably make your lives easier, when all is said and done!
I see your point, Bevi. Maybe there's a better word, though? Members rather than Users? Because you would have had to sign up to be listed there. Or..?
I don't know - maybe "viewers"?
Anyone can be a user of anything on any site, but here, to be among Cooks reinforces the notion of the community. Users is bland, generic.
I agree, Cynthia. What was wrong with Cooks? Users is a bit too IT-ish, I think. I was taken aback by the change, tiny though it is. Again, that menu choice is of Food52 members, cooks of all skill levels -- experienced cooks, fair-to-middling cooks, beginner cooks, and even aspiring cooks.. Cooks. Not users.
It does seem very IT-ish, which may be why it seems so generic to me. Cold, even. Cooks is a warmer term, maybe a group one wants to be part of.
If Cook was not appropriate, how about Foodie? Anything but User please.
Hooray! The tester's notes are back at the top of the recipes! Thank you, Food52, for responding to the preferences of your community!
Now about that word "Users"...
Seeking to understand before seeking to be understood . . . I'm with you on finding "Users" to be quite sterile, but I could see how people who don't consider themselves cooks (yet) but are interested in the site, learning, maybe becoming cooks eventually, etc. might be put off by "Cooks." "Members" would work for me. We are, a community after all, the individual units of which are, of course, members. It's not as pleasant as "Cooks," but considerably better than "Users." And with all due respect, I would never (ever!) want to be described as a Foodie. ;o)
I'm with AJ on the label "foodie". It's like the sound of fingernails on a blackboard. I'm a "cook". I don't call myself "chef" except on those occasions when I actually am cheffing. At least with the term "cook" it's all inclusive. If you don't cook, why are you here? But a "foodie"? Ick!!
Foodie?? Oh, no, no, no! :-) But I do like "members" because, as I think I mentioned above, one does have to be a Food52 member to be on that list.
Yes to "Top" and No to "Users". But the new recipe collection for sorting saved recipes is FANTASTIC!
Please, not "foodie." Bring back Cooks! Or if that's not all-inclusive enough, I like Members, too.