Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ammoseek's New Look

I have used Ammoseek for several years. Looks like they have a new interface. Not sure why they did this. Anyone know what is better? Are there more search parameters available?

I saw that, too. I liked the old setup better, but that may be just because I was use to it. I've done a little searching on the new format and I dont see any advantage or nothing new.

The old system was much easier to use, and to read. The new setup is almost worthless on a phone.

Liked the old set-up better. Oh well, a little getting used to.

Hi, everyone. We stumbled across this thread and wanted to give some feedback.

There were many reasons for the redesign, and we have still more changes coming, some of which may address your concerns. Please see this article, which will hopefully answer some questions:

https://blog.ammoseek.com/posts/why-ammoseek-changed

Constructive feedback is welcome.

Appreciated,

--Mike Miller, AmmoSeek.com

tag

SUCKS. Is that constructive enough?

I hate when chit changes.😁

On a serious note I could find, refine and drill down much quicker on your old platform than this new one.

Ill make it work though as its still the best out there.

Don’t like it. You have to sign up for an account to view more than 100 results. Probably selling your contact info.

If the cheapest price, including shipping, is in the top 100, I don't need more results.

I searched out Federal 711B with free shipping pretty fast. Seemed easy using filtered search parameters.
I did not like the shipping filter. Omit higher shipper, omit higher and average shippers, etc. Free, should be an option.

It wouldn’t let me organize any category the way it used to.see what you think ....

Dont like it. Cant filter it like it used to.
All fancied up with too many distractions.
Why the change ? If it aint broke, why try to fix it ?

I know me, get used to something, hate change. But this hasn't been too bad. Trying to give it a chance before I bitch.

The other worked well IMO, if it ain't broke,?

Mike,

Thanks for joining and posting here. I read the article and it was helpful in understanding why and what changed. Some thoughts for your consideration.

First - "Constructive feedback is welcome." Well this is the fire and folks here say pretty much what they want to say. No one person here has control over what other folks say/think here. Arguing with folks here is a waste of time. So you are just going to have to filter through the comments and decide what you think is helpful.

I see from the article that one can still use the classic version of your site.

https://classic.ammoseek.com/

How long will it be available? If you are willing to keep it functional and give folks an easy way to keep using it this would go a long way towards keeping us old timers happy.

I see that a better mobile experience was a key part of the re-design motivation. I get that because more and more people - esp. the younger folks use their phone as the primary interface. Not me and not a lot of folks on the fire. Those youngsters are the future and we are not. OTOH please remember that it was us oldsters who made your site successful.



Everyone Else - FYI - I read the article linked in Mike's post. It's short and to the point. We may not like the new look but at least according to the article they plan to improve it in time.

We like the pop-out sidebar for the filtering options on the results pages, but we understand that not everyone does, and it certainly does require an extra click. So we're working on implementing a solution for large (non-mobile screen) screen sizes to have the filtering options right on the results page, more like the old site did. Hopefully this will help address your concern once we roll it out.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Mike

The old site also required you to get an account to view more than 100 results. So this is not new with the new design.

1 - If you're specific enough with your search parameters, you won't likely need more than 100 results, as the prices that far down won't likely be good deals.

2 - We're a couple of 2A-friendly guys who also happen to be programmers and web developers. We hate the idea of selling anyone contact info, and we would never stoop to that level. We even took away the field for "Last Name" because we don't want to hold your personal information. It's more of a liability for us than anything else.

3 - We require a login/account to get more than 100 results to discourage bots from constantly crawling/scraping our site to get all our information. It's a bigger problem than you can imagine.

Thanks,

-Mike

We'd like to add the option for "free shipping" but there are a couple of technical barriers to implementing that idea, some of which is hard to explain. But it's on our roadmap to figure out; we understand the desire for this feature!

AmmoSeekMike, welcome to the fire. I posted earlier that I didn't like the new site as much as the old, but I figured I could get use to it. What I didn't realize was that folks that use their phone for their computer, were having problems. I use a laptop or desk top and am glad to see that you are trying to address the issue for users like me.

I have an account, but like you said, if you have an idea what you are looking for, 100 results is not needed. Not knowing anything about programming, I never imagined the bots being a problem. Live and learn.

Thanks for your site, it's one of the best for finding ammo deals, and your explaining what's going on and why. That makes it easier to put up with the changes.

There was a lot "broke" with the old site, some of which we attempted to explain in our article:
https://blog.ammoseek.com/posts/why-ammoseek-changed

But the new site doesn't take away any functionality. You can still do all the same filtering as before, plus some new ones (range of grains, for example). What are the distractions (which don't also exist on the old site)?

Are you mainly using a mobile device, or a desktop/laptop?

-Mike

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you give more specifics on what you're trying to do?