Okay, so the NY Times just changed its real estate listing service, and it sucks. It is a major downgrade in so many ways. I won't bore you with all the details, but the search function is terrible, the specific criteria you can set is lacking (and often comes back with error messages), and it is utterly un-streamlined. Whoever did this should be fired. The only good thing is that the pictures seem to be a little more crisp.
The new system went into effect last week and other blogs like Curbed, Brownstoner, and Street Easy have hooted and hollered about it as well. BoogieDowner agrees that the new search system is an utter failure at upgrading the functionality of the service.
BoogieDowner decided to chime in for a very Bronx-centric reason. We also noticed that the Times decided to revamp its neighborhood function for the Bronx. BoogieDowner applauds the intent. Under the old system everything from 180th street to Woodlawn Cemetery and from the Bronx River to the Harlem River was called "Fordham."
While the Times did make some inroads by adding a separate neighborhood tab for Norwood and Belmont, there was still no tab for Bedford Park or University Heights.
There were, although, tabs for seemingly non-existent nabes like Versailles Park, Woodstock, North New York, Fordham Manor, Jeromes [sic] Park (I guess this is what they're calling Van Corlandt Village because of the Reservoir?), and Foxhurst.
Also displaying its ignorance of the Bronx, the Times decided to list Woodlawn Heights instead of just Woodlawn, and only had Kingsbridge, but no Kingsbridge Heights. Kinda backwards, no?
We know that Bronx neighborhoods are notoriously fluid and ambiguous, but come on NY Times. If anyone would like to shed some light on the non-existent nabes that the Times created tabs for, please do.
*both pics courtesy of www.nytimes.com, map photo from Marilynn K. Lee for NY Times*