Geocore vs Flynax classifieds scripts? Are they really the best?

If I had a shotgun to my head, and was told to choose between those two options, I'd reach over and pull the trigger for you.

What part of "sleazy scam artist bullshit NO sane person should even CONSIDER using unless you like being taken for a ride" are you having trouble grasping?

You'd see more success out of outright pyramid scams like Amway or Mary Kay... You know, where the typical person DUMB ENOUGH to fall for those scams ends up $40k in the hole before they smarten up enough to realize they've been ****'ed?

 

Hahahaha...come on man!
Is that so bad? :O

So...let me switch the question for you then, what would be the cost for a custom build classified ads script?

 

Actually, I'm being rather polite about it.

At this point given the odds of going head to head with the 800 pound gorilla in the room -- Craigslist -- to make something that's an "also ran" and has no chance of success we're probably talking 2-3k, at which point DON'T EVEN BOTHER.

You want an actual success with a chance of cutting into CL's prominence, we're talking 5k minimum, probably closer to 15k on the high end...

Which is STILL half what starting a brick and mortar usually costs up-front if building a REAL business. ... and that's assuming renting the property and not having your own structure built.

The only reason anything cheaper than that even exists is to take advantage of people who don't know any better. A money pit that the person DUPED into buying will likely walk away from in a year or two out of frustration and/or bankrupcy.

See the giant scam known as "affiliate marketing" for more. All the business legitimacy of your typical Kevin Trudeau late-night informercial.

 

No more scam in craigslist.

If you real then everyone is real.

But sad to know that so many people give scam post on CL.

I also post on CL but not for me for others.

CL is really best site get LEAD

 

I am thoroughly confused. What in hell does all this mean? And what does it have to do with the topic of this thread? Looks like spam to me.

 

I own a domain with high traffic from an old giant on classifieds. It has much traffic for our standards (Greece)...more than 3000 members with the demo site (!).

I own both scripts...flynax and geodesic.

I ll ask again...in terms of code/ui/features etc. ...isn't flynax better?

Flynax has many features/add-ons etc. and it looks more up to date. Also in terms of speed it is much faster.
Geodesic has a great past and name...but i don't know if they are still the leaders on the game.

p.s. Ofcourse if the project goes well i will switch to a custom site.

@deathshadow speak up! What would you choose ?

 

I'd probably still go with the shotgun blast to the head. You couldn't afford to pay me enough to work with EITHER of them!

The sheer INCOMPETENCE of even just something as simple as this:

<span class="circle" id="user-navbar">
	<span class="default"><span>Sign in</span></span>
	<span class="content  hide">
					<span class="user-navbar-container">
								
				<form  action="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/en/united-states/new-hampshire/swanzey/login.html" method="post">
					<input type="hidden" name="action" value="login" />
					
					<input placeholder="Username" type="text" name="username" maxlength="100" value=""  />
					<input placeholder="Password" type="password" name="password" maxlength="100"  />
					
					<div class="nowrap">
					<input type="submit" value="Sign in"  />
					<span class="hookUserNavbar"><img onclick="fcLogin();" id="fb-nav-bar" style="cursor:pointer;" src="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/plugins/facebookConnect/static/fb_ico.png" title="Log in with Facebook" alt="" /></span>
					</div>

Code (markup):

Should be reason enough to warn anyone who knows the first damned thing about HTML away from even CONSIDERING Flynax an option.

Or mind-numbing halfwit idiocy like the endless:

 <a title="" class="font1"

Code (markup):

(if they're all in a parent container getting the same class, none of them should have classes. If you need title, there's something wrong with the contents of the anchor)

Or how about this level of derpitude?

				</table>
			<table class="stats">
		<tr>
			<td class="stat-caption">Jobs</td>
					</tr>
		<tr>
			<td class="dotted"><a class="block_bg" href="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/en/united-states/new-hampshire/swanzey/recently-added.html#jobs_tab">Total</a></td>
							<td class="counter">30</td>
					</tr>
				</table>

Code (markup):

They went full Pakled -- you never go full Pakled. IF that were tabular data the first TD would be a CAPTION or TH in THEAD, but since there's only one column it is NOT tabular data by any stretch of the imagination so those should be H2 (or maybe H3) and a UL.

... and that's before we talk static scripttardery in the markup, static style in the markup, <style> inside <body> where the tag isn't even valid, blocking scripts in the <head>, endless pointless scripttardery with ZERO graceful degradation plan -- it's hardly a shock it wastes 133k on delivering 1.85k of plaintext and ZERO content images/media -- EASILY ten times what a simple layout should be using.

... and that their stock default demo has illegible colour contrasts and font metrics failing to meet WCAG minimums? means they aren't qualified to design a blasted thing EITHER.

No, it's garbage made by people not qualified to be working in HTML, CSS, or JavaScript -- and if the stock front end is THAT incompetently cobbled together, it is VERY unlikely the server-side codebase is one iota better!

 

So in compare with the Geodesicsolution ...you would go Geodesic ah?
And how is it possible if Geodesic has better code...flynax is faster?

Like i already said...luck of budjet i will have to choose between them.

Once profit comes in...i ll switch to a better solution.

So the question still stands...Geodesic or Flynax?

p.s. What would be the cost for you to build a script like that?

 

Did I mention that steaming pile of shit? No, I said between the two I'd prefer a shotgun blast to the head.

Well then you're right and truly buggered, and probably NOT serious about building a real business. REAL businesses rarely go for the off the shelf solution unless it's something they really don't give a flying **** about, or are so ignorant and/or incompetent they have no business working on such a project.

Around 20k, have to bring on two others, take around 30 days for working prototype, another 2-4 weeks for testing.

Though said result would be accessible to as many potential users as possible and meet WCAG minimums. Probably cost a fraction to host too.

You're not willing to pay, OF COURSE you're going to get shit on by whatever halfwit answer you choose.

That people even think that they can just take some garbage off the shelf answer, slop out a crap site and make a buck REEKS of falling for the same type of idiotic halfwit scam artist get-rich-quick bull you find on late-night infomercials. If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it... If you're just going to cookie cutter what's been done hundreds of times to no avail, what exactly do you expect apart from the same "also ran" status everyone else who has tried and failed has gotten?!?

Admittedly, when such noodle doodle idiocy as faith is still a "thing" in society, gullibility is job one. Once you have the majority of feeble minded fools believing in a fairy tale about a magical man in the sky, all bets are off on the sheer amount of manure they'll gobble up like it was soft serve.

 

I compared the two scripts and it seems that both Flynax and Geodesic solutions are solid classified platforms. As for Deathshadow's tips and his aspiration to stand out by trashing virtually all scripts - I don't think you should listen to him. Yes, he knows a thing about HTML/CSS, probably watched a couple of tutorials on YouTube and thinks that makes him an expert allowing him to criticise others.

However, what he is failing to understand - is that Flynax is not simply a blog, like deathshadow.com - it's a feature-rich script with hundreds of features and Plugins and each of this feature needs to be referenced in HTML code and that is why the markup may seem unusual. If it were just a blog, like deathshadow's mediocre blog from the early 90s - the markup would be perfect.

 

Thanks for the reply Elator. (y)

p.s. I am guessing you are beggining a war here with Deathshadow

 

You obviously have not read ds's posts and support articles or you read them without comprehension. His points, over and over, are that generic scripts, themes and plugins are, and must be bloated, steaming piles. They are inexorably more expensive to update, maintain and debug; thus a drain on the resources of the company.

At its core, every classified ad project is a database application with simple scripting and templating. Writing the db schema and queries is the important part. (Here's where ds and I disagree.) The server side scripting's job is to give the dbms a query key and receive the results, which are passed to the templating engine as variables.

Like ds, I have never seen a generic WP app, theme or plugin that isn't an embarrassment to the craft of writing html and css (the finished product).

g

//edit: I did not mention his rants on inaccessible designs, which are generally the failure of the graphic designer. In that we are in agreement — it is stupid and highlights the incompetence of too many soi-disant designers. ~g

 

Boy, I said boy... made me change my avatar just to reply if you know what I'm sayin'... stick with me here boy. I'm about to eludicate.

@Elator did make a comical attempt -- going after my silly little personal blog barely updated YEARLY whilst skipping past both the sites in my signature that are entirely focused on the topic of web development; making that same claim about the 1990's that shows that they clearly never used the internet in that decade AND that basically gives away that they are using one of many sock-puppet accounts web-wide probably held in place with occasional posts so that when one gets banned another is up and ready to go, right "Drak"? Naturally being a ghost ACTUALLY getting a response anytime over the next few months after their silly drive-by is unlikely -- as unlikely as their putting together a coherent response filled with anything resembling facts.

See the praising it with NO details or explanations of WHY they hold the view they do -- reducing their tenth post ever on these forums to little more than a glorified "me too" mated to "wah wah, is not".

Just have a look at the pathetic EXCUSE:

That doesn't explain 100% grade A DERP like (again):

			<table class="stats">
		<tr>
			<td class="stat-caption">Jobs</td>
					</tr>
		<tr>
			<td class="dotted"><a class="block_bg" href="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/en/united-states/new-hampshire/swanzey/recently-added.html#jobs_tab">Total</a></td>
							<td class="counter">30</td>
					</tr>
				</table>

Code (markup):

Since the number of TD per TR don't match, the absolute URI is code bloat for NO reason if served off the same domain, none of the TD would need classes if proper semantics were used, and the first one the CLASS even says what TAG it should be... much less where the *** is the TBODY? Assuming that should even be a table, any COMPETENT HTML developer would have written:

	<table class="stats">
		<caption>Jobs</caption>
		<tbody>
			<tr>
				<th scope="row"><a href="/en/united-states/new-hampshire/swanzey/recently-added.html#jobs_tab">Total</a></th>
				<td>30</td>
			</tr>
		</tbody>
	</table>

Code (markup):

Aka the PROPER semantics -- If you have a caption, use a bloody <caption> not a colspanning TD! "total" clearly is NOT data, it's a heading describing the data so use a bloody <th> with SCOPE so you know which axis it applies on! Since you have the proper semantics, boom -- you don't need to shit all over it with classes!!!. The one on the parent is all you need. And you don't need dipshit presentational classes like "dotted" either only further illustrating incompetence!

Though a proper depth numbered heading and DL would probably also be an acceptable alternative. There is NO reason for ANY of that to have extra classes or for "everything to be a TD" apart from the developer not knowing enough HTML to be writing HTML professionally!

That's part of what makes all these stupid low-cost off the shelf answers giant scams written by fly-by-nights looking to make a fast buck without putting in any real effort; much less Joe forbid learning enough to even have the APPEARANCE of competence or quality.

Again, if their bloody demo can't even get something that simple right, are we REALLY supposed to trust that anything else they've done is worth a damn?

AGAIN see how even the websites for their products are such useless inaccessible broken disasters of incompetence that if they were a bank, utility, healthcare, or government agency they could/would be fined THOUSANDS DAILY for failing to meet even the most basic concepts of WCAG 2.0 or ACTUAL design norms as set by specifications. (see the classic "white text on light blue" that so many designers get wood for even if it tells 40%+ of the population to go *** itself!)

LIKE the clients I keep coming out of retirment to help -- like the multinational banking group I just pulled down what most people would consider a years income for 4 weeks work because they were being fined in the UK and Canada, and had civil suits in the US, Canada, Australia, and Greece pending for exactly those reasons. Or their unbridled joy at finding out I just extended their existing hosting's life by around six years when they were about to have to upgrade just to keep up with traffic! Since you know, banking interfaces actually have traffic of value and security needs. Some derps had pretty much done all the stuff wrong I repeatedly outline in posts on this forums, and even during fixing it made the typical lame excuses about appearance, style, and difficulty that's more their personal feelings than based on FACTS like specifications and research!

Almost like dealing with cultists.

Which is why said financial group is BACK in the courts for the exact same thing since NOT EVEN THREE DAYS after we finally got the last court case to settle, their CTO and Marketing Director went in, changed all the colours to their "personal tastes", all the font sizes back to px, and put third party advertising into the bloody account management areas... So now they're facing DOUBLE fines and contempt of court -- and if they want me to help fix it I'm billing by the hour at DOUBLE my normal rate; and I flat out told them "fire those two or find someone other than me to help you, because I'm DONE with them!"

Which of course is why this feeble attempt:

Of "Engrish moist goodry me love you long time" with wild unfounded assertions just further emphasizes their inability to come up with anything more than "wah wah, is not".

@Elator, drak, flynax, whatever sock-puppet account you're using this week; child... can I call you child? I suspect compared to my crippy ass bordering upon dotage that is the correct term. Child, I've been programming for a little over (by like a month and a half) four decades, dealing with websites for a little under HALF of that, though I've not been doing websites "correctly" for more than around fifteen years since for that first few years I was doing the same incompetent trash that the majority of nubes and rubes still vomit up today. Admittedly at the time all we had was HTML 3.2 based tutorials since NOBODY was embracing using 4 Strict correctly.

It is pure comedy for you to make comparisons to the 1990's as you clearly weren't there, never saw a website from that time, and don't know enough about websites to even be offering an opinion as to the "quality" of any of these software packages.

<drippingly deprecating>
Meaning I work in VERY <buzzword>feature rich</buzzword> environments -- specifically financial applications; and have been knee deep in accounting systems (mostly double entry based) from before you were even likely a twinkle in your daddy's eye! I was writing user interfaces and database code when you were still in diapers!
</drippingly>

See, I can make wild unfounded assumptions about you too! I say, I say, that's a joke son... I swear, boy's sharp as a sack of wet mice.

My specialty these days -- despite being on doctors orders not to work and allegedly retiring years ago - is meeting WCAG 2.0 minimums and assisting banking, healthcare, and government organizations at meeting required regulations... and that means an understanding of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, WCAG 2.0, country specific guidelines, and usability studies by reputable sources like nnGroup in ways that you cannot possibly even conceive of given your vague general claims and statements.

 

First of all, it seems you are trying to confuse the good people of this forum by cutting out some lines of code to make it look inferior. I checked out Flynax demo site and here is what I’ve found.

[code]<table class="stats">
  <tbody>
      <tr>
         <td class="stat-caption">Motors</td>
         <td class="column">New</td>
         <td class="column">Used</td>
     </tr>
     <tr>
    <td class="dotted"><a class="block_bg"     href="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/recently-added.html#motors_tab">Total</a>
  </td>
  <td class="counter">23</td>
  <td class="counter">45</td>
  </tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>[/code]

HTML:

So, the table body is there! Perhaps you deliberately overlooked it to mislead others.

As for classes, once again, please stop comparing simple blogs to feature-rich complicated websites, and my advice to you, read this article (https://css-tricks.com/bem-101/) on CSS tricks - it is about BEM methodology, have you heard about it? A little crash course for you - in short, BEM means Block, Element, Modifier used to help developers better understand the relationship between the HTML and CSS. Flynax does a good job of following this methodology and

The Block, Element, Modifier methodology (commonly referred to as BEM) is a popular naming convention for classes in HTML and CSS. Developed by the team at Yandex, its goal is to help developers better understand the relationship between the HTML and CSS in a given project. Obviously, BEM is better applied to major and feature-rich websites, which Flynax is - with hundreds of features and Plugins.

Since you are dealing only with static blogs where users may only read a post and comment on it, nothing more - you simply can’t understand the logic and the concept of complicated php platforms where users are given hundreds of features from posting a listing, messaging, uploading photos, videos, making purchases through integrated payment providers and more. A complex php project does require a handful of classes and IDs so that it may easily be maintained by third-party developers who may later modify each of the element by simply targeting it by its class.

Again, for a simple blog like yours - these many classes are redundant and unnecessary, however, if you were hired to work on a large-scale project, you would have to create these many classes, otherwise, without sticking to BEM methodology, your could would not be maintainable.

I also read some of your previous replies in this thread where you mentioned that - style and classes inside a ‘body’ tag is bad practice. I checked out your website http://www.cutcodedown.com/ and found THREE classes inside a ‘body’ tag!

<body class="hasExtraFirst hasExtraSecond elementals">

HTML:

How would you explain this if you were so meticulously removing classes from the body tag and placing them inside of a wrapper or container after it?

Rounding up, I should say once again, that to understand major successful classifieds portals like Geocore and Flynax - the biggest players in the classifieds market, you need to learn to think outside the box (by the box - I mean your oversimplified blog with no features whatsoever). You need to think how would your blog change were you to add at least 50 features, posting, paying for memberships, signing in, uploading media, filter search, fields, variables, options and more.

Once you have learned to understand the difference between an HTML/CSS website and a php/javascript platform - you’ll be able to understand better the world of web, which is more than just HTML/CSS, which you think it is.

 

Well, we're either looking at two different demo's, or we're being served different code.

https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/

Code (markup):

Had to wrap it in code tags to deal with these forums stupid ***ing TITLE resolving not even letting it post

Is what I'm referring to. Where I see:

<section class="side_block">
	<h3>Statistics</h3>	<div class="clearfix">

	<!-- statistics block -->

			<table class="stats">
		<tr>
			<td class="stat-caption">Motors</td>
															<td class="column">New</td>
												<td class="column">Used</td>
									</tr>
		<tr>
			<td class="dotted"><a class="block_bg" href="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/recently-added.html#motors_tab">Total</a></td>
												<td class="counter">23</td>
									<td class="counter">45</td>
									</tr>
				</table>

Code (markup):

Where on top of the mental huffing midget indentation, pointless redundant comment, we also have no TBODY or proper THEAD, and a H3 doing CAPTIONS job.

BUT, let's go with the code you quoted:

<table class="stats">
  <tbody>
      <tr>
         <td class="stat-caption">Motors</td>
         <td class="column">New</td>
         <td class="column">Used</td>
     </tr>
     <tr>
    <td class="dotted"><a class="block_bg"     href="https://classifieds.demoflynax.com/recently-added.html#motors_tab">Total</a>
  </td>
  <td class="counter">23</td>
  <td class="counter">45</td>
  </tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>

Code (markup):

AGAIN utter and complete incompetant nonsense since that first row of TD should be TH with scope, they are dheadings FOR the columns. Likewise they do not belong in TBODY since they are HEADINGS... just as the latter TD should ALSO be a TH.

Basically that train wreck of incompetent markup should be:

<table class="stats">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th scope="col">Motors</th>
			<th scope="col">New</th>
			<td scope="col">Used</th>
		</tr>
	</thead><tbody>
		<tr>
			<th scope="row"><a href="/recently-added.html#motors_tab">Total</a></th>
			<td>23</td>
			<td>45</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

Code (markup):

Aka the PROPER semantics for headings and data. NOT that the entire section makes a lick of sense since iit's putting a column TH for what should be the ROW TH since obviously it's totals. Hence that ENTIRE existing <section class="side_block> is shoehorning four separate tables into one, to the point one has to question if that even is tabular data, or perhaps it's time to use AXIS instead of SCOPE.

THOUGH if you want to get technical "motors" is NOT the heading for "total" and should be in a CAPTION before the THEAD for semantics, even if that does screw with the appearance but that's either why you leverage CSS to fix that, or you just come out and admit it's not tabular data and shouldn't be presented that way.

Either way the TBODY isn't there, so I'm wondering what demo you pulled that code from as it's not any demo pages I'm looking at, and even if it were it's malformed.

Again, 100% derp. BEM is as self-defeating in concept as the mind-numbingly idiotic OOCSS. Designed by it's very nature to make you slap classes on everything and flip your middle finger at using selectors.

Just because something's popular doesn't make it good, right, or proper.

Take just their most basic example:

<button class="button">
	Normal button
</button>
<button class="button button--state-success">
	Success button
</button>
<button class="button button--state-danger">
	Danger button
</button>

Code (markup):

WTF does a button tag need a class="button" on it for. Isn't that just a bit derp? Much less button--state-success? Again button-- is redundant to the bloody huffing TAG, and it states a whole bunch of extra crap for NOTHING.

<button>
	Normal button
</button>
<button class="success">
	Success button
</button>
<button class="danger">
	Danger button
</button>

Code (markup):

... and if you're worried about specificity, that's what a class or ID on the PARENT wrapper is for. Naturally by omitting a parent wrapper they are able to card stack it to dupe people into thinking this:

.button--state-danger {

is somehow magically better than:

button.danger {

Ermahgerd aherpaderp!

BEM is how you end up with idiotic halfwit ignorant dumbass BULLSHIT like this:

<div class="menu">
	<ul class="menu--ul">
		<li class="menu--li menu--li-current">
			<a href="#" class="menu--a menu--a-current">Home</a>
		</li>
		<li class="menu--li">
			<a href="#" class="menu--a">Reference</a>
		</li>
		<li class="menu--li">
			<a href="#" class="menu--a">FAQ</a>
		</li>
	</ul>
</div>

Code (markup):

Doing the job of:

<ul id="mainMenu">
	<li class="current"><a href="#">Home</a></li>
	<li><a href="#">Reference</a></li>
	<li><a href="#">FAQ</a></li>
</ul>

Code (markup):

Operating on the assumption that's a <div> for nothing, which is around three quarters the time the case.

... and if people would start leveraging the damned selectors they'd be able to make HTML that clean and simple.

BEM is another STUNNING example of code bloat asshattery made by people who quite clearly do NOT know enough about HTML or CSS to be telling others how to bloody well code a website!

Again CHILD with the unfounded wild assumptions that have no basis in reality. Did you even bother reading my last post? Oh, what am I saying, of course not -- and even if you did that would require comprehension something you are clearly incapable of.

Again, I can make wild unfounded assertions about you as well.

I've worked on plenty of large PHP projects with modding systems, and ALL of your wild claims about the "logic of complicated php platforms" holds water like a steel sieve -- and given your painfully obvious lack of front end code (see tbody aroudn a row of what SHOULD be TH above) I am HIGHLY skeptical you know enough about server side programming to be flapping your gums about that either.

Probably why you keep having to drag it back to JUST my personal blog, which you know jack *** about the under the hood implementation or what it's capable of.

Particularly since it has stack based templating with injectability, meaning it doesn't need to magically match the perfect markup just to create mods for it. NATURALLY you have no clue what that even means.

If you are targeting things like mods and extensions in the template by CLASS, there is something horrifyingly and terrifyingly WRONG with how you are handling templates -- MOST likely some of the "crippy aids" like smarty that let mouth-breathers THINK they can make website templates.

Instead of the proper approach of stacking actions and creating an execution tree, so you can hook by procedure NOT THE MARKUP, since forcing the output to be fixed restricts what you can do to SKIN it. Naturally this is why most piss poor shoddily coded systems break extensions if you try to drag the markup kicking and screaming out of the 1990's becuase some halfwit not qualified to work in PHP or HTML thinks hooking the markup to add mods was the smart way to go. It isn't -- not by a long shot.

NOT that a well formed HTML should need more than one or two div/span to be added or removed for a complete reskinning, but that involves using semantic markup, leveraging selectors, and all the other proper markup techniques that leads to using 16k of markup where framework dipshits use 100k, and 32k of CSS where most framework dipshits push half a megabyte to do the same bloody job.

THEN they make the equally unfounded claim that writing five to ten times the code was somehow "easier" or made them "more productive" because they don't know enough about any of the underlying technologies to recognize how badly they've screwed themselves!

AGAIN, what does my stupid fucking barely maintained personal blog have to do with what I do for WORK? AGAIN did you even read my previous huffing post about what I do FOR WORK?!? You know, banks, financial institutions, government organizations, healthcare providers? Stuff that's a thousand times more mission critical and significantly larger in scale than some tinkertoy classifieds?...

...and AGAIN glossing right past the actual sites in my signature which are CLOSER to the ideal.

Of course it's great to talk the talk when we have no examples of YOUR work on which to base your ALLEGED knowledge.

Because vomiting up two to ten times the markup and making it rely on endless pointless classes with endless pointless specificity hell makes that EASIER? BULLSHIT!

Makes me think you've never worked on an actual large scale project, or if you have you've never seen it done right.

Actually, thank you for that. That was added by someone I kicked off the damned project and is part of a experimental columnar layout routine that should NOT have been deployed.

Though for the elementals class to be there you had to pull it off the document inspector -- EVERY rule has an exception, and a great example is adding a class to body as a trigger so that you know the JavaScript is working -- see, that "elementals" class is NOT hardcoded in the markup. Compare a "view source" against "inspect".

There's a world of difference between progressive enhancement via scripting and the static non-scripted fallback.

I pulled the CSS for it, apparently I missed those being dynamically added in the template. My bad. You ever give a partner the boot, and then spend a year cleaning up what they did. Yeah, that. Wait... hrm actually the CSS hasn't been fixed. Ok, I've got some work to do there.

The two column count indicators DO INDEED have no business on body. The elementals class does because it's added by the scripting to trigger any style changes that only apply if elementals is working. So in fact YES, two of those SHOULD be removed. If they belong anywhere it's on #content, not body.

AGAIN making wild unfounded assumptions on the scale of projects I've worked on JUST because of my stupid ***ING personal blog. AGAIN assuming anything I'm saying cannot be applied on the scale projects you mention when it can and the projects would be SIMPLER AND EASIER TO MAINTAIN if you did. ASSUMING one is completely willing to ignore how such half-assed coding tells large swaths of users to go **** themselves with a pineapple.

I bet you're one of these derps that still makes up excuses for half-assed systems like smarty and still sees nothing wrong with mysql_ functions or slopping variables into your query strings. ASSUMING you know enough to even know what that means either. Which I doubt given the rest of the bullshit you're spouting.

Since again, I'm SO sure that making the PHP have to vomit up two to ten times the markup it needs to makes creating changes moving forward SO much easier. RIGHT, tell me another one Josephine.

 

Now i am just here for the fight. Zero fucks given for Geocore or Flynax :O
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

 

I don't know why you stubbornly refuse to see the tbody when it is clearly there - here is a screenshot for you:
http://photouploads.com/image/aQA

Tell that to bbc, the guardian, linkedin and other huge market players for whom BEM is an HTML bible. I'll leave a link so that people can see other examples of websites sticking to BEM.

https://github.com/coreybruyere/bem-real-world-examples

So, this markup, although idiotic to you is perfectly fine and is a MUST for a big project:

<ul class="items__list">
    <li class="item"><a href="#" class="item_link"></a></li>
    <li class="item"><a href="#" class="item_link"></a></li>
    <li class="item"><a href="#" class="item_link"></a></li>
    <li class="item"><a href="#" class="item_link"></a></li>
</ul>

HTML:

When you do the markup for a simple blog or a landing page, I agree - these many classes are redundant, however, for large projects, there's a price to pay and you need to have those many classes.

 

That's the document inspector, it represents the live DOM, NOT THE HUFFING SOURCE CODE. View source you get an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CODE -- aka the code the server sent to the browser. Omitting the TBODY in the code means the browser has to blindly guess where it goes. That guess is NOT always correct.

Choose "view source" instead of the document inspector -- see, TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SETS OF CODE. One is the live dom, one is what the server sent.

AGAIN proving you don't know enough on the topic to be flapping your yap. What you see in the document inspector includes ALL sorts of things the browser had to guess to fill in, stuff the scripting can add, etc, etc. Which is why you do NOT use it if talking about the ACTUAL code being sent by the server to the browser!!!

...and who's sites are accessibility train wrecks that SHOULD be landing them in court -- particularly in the BBC's case since that's a government run organization. though I wonder just where under the 2010 EQA the line on that definition falls. I'm not a lawyer, I'm the guy lawyers call to evaluate WCAG and other contract complaince, or to fix it.

WHY? What POSSIBLE REASON is there for doing that? I mean, the class on the UL is ok "I guess" but those inner classes are just developer ineptitude, and if you need those for ANYTHING you either don't know how to leverage selectors, don't know how to walk the DOM, or are using some bloated slow templating system that needs a bullet to the head!

... in fact, FIXING stupidity like that is one of the things I'm hired to do regularly. Again, see my client back in August who was utterly screwed over by that type of asshattery.

Enlighten me, WHAT legitimate reason is there for all those clases other than INTENTIONALLY sabotaging the HTML, ignoring inheritance, ignoring how to use selectors, and making certain you vomit up endless amounts of markup for no good reason?

If that's a "price to pay" then there is something fundementally WRONG with either the CSS, the JavaScript, or the server-side code.

... and again makes me think you're talking out yer arse.

Though if you've only ever used idiotic slow bloated templating crap like smarty and never built with stack or tree based execution models server-side, I could see your being under the DELUSION that crap is necessary. It never is if you have even the slightest clue what you are doing. In fact NOT doing that simplifies the code making it EASIER to maintain, EASIER to hook, EASIEIR to style, and of course lightens the load.

Blindly throwing more code at it in ignorance is NOT the huffing answer! But again, what can one expect in an age where people will throw half a megabyte of CSS spanning dozens of files at doing 48k or less' in one file's job -- and most of the dimwits writing these systems aren't even knowledgeable to know what a media="" attribute does. Where somehow writing 100k of LESS/SASS/SCSS is "easier" than 16k of normal CSS.

What the HELL is in the bloody kool-aid? Can people REALLY be this ***ing stupid. Looks at 45... Oh. Nevermind.

 

Just to illustrate the point, VIEW SOURCE:

http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/elator/ACTUAL_SOURCE_CODE.jpg

If you don't know what you're talking about -- which you CLEARLY do not -- you might want to do the world a favor and sierra tango foxtrot uniform. You don't even know that what's shown in the document inspector is NOT the actual source code but is instead the live DOM... WOW.

There it is folks, arse cheeks flapping for the world to see.

I knew a nobleman who used to have a servant follow him into battle with a hammer and a cork should his bowels loosen. He called him his "retainer"

-- edit --

Even simpler example:

<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Scripted addition demo</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Scripted addition demo</h1>
<script>
	var d = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('p'));
	d.appendChild(document.createTextNode(
		'this <p> is NOT in the markup, but will show up in the document inspector!'
	));
</script>
</body></html>

Code (markup):

Is the P in the markup as a <p>? No. Will it show up as a P inside the <body> in the document inspector? YES.

Document inspector !== source code!!! DERP!!!

 

For anyone that has had a bad experience with Flynax please visit http://www.facebook.com/flynaxreviews and share your story as it will help stop the scams being perpetrated by these people.
DO NOT SPEND YOUR MONEY WITH THESE PEOPLE. I am speaking from personal experience. Before I purchased this script, Flynax was giving me super support, answering all my questions very quickly. After I uploaded the files to my server and accepted the license, the support ended there! They stopped responding to messages and they turned off live chat for my account. Had another IT specialist look at the script, and was told that the language was redundant and unnecessary. I purchased the script on a Thursday...they waited until Monday to attempt installing on my server(I had already attempted this twice because I kept getting error from php session saying that needed to be installed properly). Sent many messages and they answered none after purchase. I believe Flynax is a scam site so DO NOT purchase any of there products. http://www.facebook.com/flynaxreviews