<BR>The only 3 things I don't like with the new format are 1) the self-loading of the text of the first question 2) the delay between a message being pushed to the top and actually being available to read and 3) the message script frequently requiring use of slide bar. <BR>

Well, today was absolutely dreadful trying to get this site up, so I don't know that a return to the old is such a great thing. I love the new hyperlink url, not having to post name and email address every time you reply, and personally (with just a 56modem) the new site loaded faster on my home PC than the old.

I was just getting used to the new format, and now really miss two features of it when I go back to this old format: <BR>1)being able to click on the email address of a poster and email him directly <BR>2)having posters list a web site, and being able to go directly to it, not losing your spot in Fodor's, and return at will.

Another vote for the old format. So much easier. Thanks, Fodor.

I also vote for the OLD format. <BR>Thank you.

Frankly, Fodor's bulletin board software is probably the suckiest I have ever used. <BR> <BR>Most of the better sites are using Ultimate Bulletin Board Software, by http://www.infopop.com/

The old Fodor's format is like a familiar old friend. Please keep it this way, with the possible exception of the "jump to most recent" feature.

I'm one of those who doesn't often reply, but I check daily for my Fodor's Fix on Germany, Switzerland, and Austria before I can retire. When the new format came out I quit checking and I haven't slept as well since. I always go to the threads on these countries, and although the new format has a seach option, whenever you typed in Germany you only got threads that had the word Germany in the text and some of them were over a year old. Places like München, Berlin, Romantic Road, Berchtesgaden, Black Forest, etc. were completely left out unless they actually had the search word in the text. My choice is for the old format.

I agree with Sam - the old way was easier on the eyes, easier to navigate (love the way you can jump to the next 50 and not change the post on the right hand side), and the speed of the old format with the new one apart from the animated bannars that gave me eye strain I hated the way the posts returned to the top after you posted a reply and therefore losing your place in the lists <BR>BUT <BR>I did like the most active, being able to click on the email address of a poster and being able to list a web site and to go directly to it. <BR> <BR>So the lesson to be learnt is that there is good and bad to both ways perhaps Danny and the folks could after they have eaten their Easter eggs combine the best of both worlds, <BR> <BR>Happy Easter <BR> <BR>Cathy

I think the old format was great. Glad to see it back on and hope you will keep it like this. It's sooo much easier to read. Thanks for providing this forum.

New format please. It is faster, more user friendly and whislt I'd prefer a two phase search function, at least the search function worked.

In the hopes that Fodors will listen to its users, here are the things that I liked about the Old and the New Forums. Maybe Fodors can combine some of the good features of the Old Forums with some of the features of the New Forums. <BR> <BR>Things I like about the New Forums: <BR> <BR>1) The clickable URL are great! <BR> <BR>2) The short "unique thread" number - for a while I was not topping anymore! Now I'm back to topping, which clutters the "new" message area with old messages <BR> <BR>3) The fill-in-the Name and E-mail address <BR> <BR>Things I like about the Old Forums: <BR> <BR>1) MUCH faster - I have a cable connection and the Old Forums is instantaneous gratification. For some reason the New Forums took a while to load and, after clicking on any message, it took a while to display on the right-hand page. With a high-speed connection, NOTHING should take a while to display. <BR> <BR>2) The fact that after you respond to a message it does not take you back to message #1, which is a waste of time. <BR> <BR>3) The Old Forums has a much cleaner and readable look. All the "e-mail message" is useless and it only served to clutter up the information, making it harder to process. <BR> <BR>Thanks Fodors for listening!

Somebody else said it before, too many bells and whistles on the newer version. Whenever Microsoft, for example, updates its software, is it always an improvement, or was the old version often better? The KISS rule (Keep It Simple Stupid -- sorry, not meaning to call anyone stupid) really applies to web sites too I think. The cleaner the page, the faster it loads, and the easier to navigate. I love this old format, please don't "improve" it!!!

I agree -- I'm so glad the old format is back & hope it stays. I like it better than the "new" format -- plus, that was the second time that they tried the "new improved" format and both times they tried it, the site was slow with lots of errors and ultimately was down for days. Please leave well enough alone! This site is great but it's no good if you can't access it.

I went a way for a week and camne back to find the old format was back. Hey, what happened? Was I the only one who like the new format? I liked the clickable URL's, that I did not need to retype my name and e-mail address each time, that I could jump to different forums without going "home" and then to a new forum. Maybe it had some room for improvement but overall I much preferred it.Whenver our local newspaper changes something in its format, it seems there are always people who can't cope with the change and can't work out that the TV guide has moved to a new section. <BR> <BR> Fodors, can't you take a vote? Not all change is bad. <BR> <BR>I am sure there were people who complained when electric lights started taking over from gas and color tv replaced B&W.

Oh, great. Lisa likes the new format, so she has to say a bunch of nasty stuff about people who like the old format. We are not fossils. We just like the features and reliability of the old version. What's so horrible about that?

Apparently there are no performances of Shakespeare plays during the dates you seek. The website - - http://www.shakespeares-globe.org/home.htm - - says: <BR> <BR>"The theatre season runs from May to September 2001 and features King Lear, Macbeth, Cymbeline and a Kyogen Comedy of Errors and many special events. In advance of the theatre season itself, Shakespeare's Globe welcomes back Umabatha, the Zulu Macbeth." <BR> <BR>King Lear starts May 12. <BR> <BR>Apparently, the Globe has now contracted all ticketing out to Ticketmaster. <BR> <BR>Best wishes, <BR> <BR>Rex <BR>

So happy to return from a short trip and to find the forum working again and in its old fast, easy-to-read state. Thank you so much, Fodors!

Very interesting - - some manual tinkering behind the scenes? - - my sot about the Globe theatre was on a different thread - - and has somehow ended up here. <BR>

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease bring back the NEW format!!!! I'm inclined to agree with Lisa - soem people just don't like change & don't want to take the time to get to know the new improved features not to mention the benefits of a search function where my hair won't go grey waiting for it to spit out an incomplete list of threads!! <BR>