1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

css side by side boxes

Discussion in 'CSS' started by fadetoblack22, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #21

    so true and I was just playing devils advocate ;)
    SEMrush
     
    sundaybrew, May 24, 2016 IP
    SEMrush
  2. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #22

    Whats your thoughts on Genesis ? By Studiopress?
     
    sundaybrew, May 24, 2016 IP
  3. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #23
    Completely ignorant of what numbered headings are for, endless pointless DIV and SPAN with endless pointless classes for nothing, complete accessibility disaster since by default it uses pixel metric fonts... much less the pathetically broken attempt at being responsive.

    In other words the typical ignorant turdpress train wreck of how NOT to build a website, give a middle finger to users with accessibility needs, and to waste 1.9 megabytes in 81 files on delivering 9.5k of plaintext and four content images (based on their demo) -- with the ridiculously absurd 731k of Scripttardery spanning 51 files on pages that really shouldn't even have JavaScript, mated to an outright insanely inept 660k of CSS spanning 17 files when there is NO legitimate reason for an ENTIRE WEBSITE to need more than 48k of CSS in one file apart from developer ignorance and ineptitude.

    Such as that illustrated by their 27k of HTML doing probably 12k's job... worse on deployed websites using it most of that bloat remains as it's ignorant asshattery like static scripting in the markup, static style in the markup, static SVG in the markup, and a host of other "HTML, what's that?!?" bullshit that shows they are completely ignorant of accessibility norms, semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, or how to leverage caching models.

    ENTIRELY what I've come to expect from off the shelf templates in off the shelf CMS systems. Cute if it's a blog for grandma that nobody but family will give a **** about, has zero business being used for anything business related.

    THAT SAID, the overall layout concept and default colours are sound. It's the implementation and accessibility woes that are faulty. There is NO excuse for any legitimate site to waste more than 16k of markup, 32k of CSS and 24k of javascript (3 files in TOTAL) for the functionality they are providing... and I'd prefer to do it without the scripttardery, since regardless of if I'd have scripting enhancements or not I'd write it to work without JS FIRST...

    As per the "unwritten rule of JavaScript" that I got from Dan that made a hell of a lot of sense: "If you can't write a fully functioning page without JavaScript first, you likely have zero business adding scripting to it!"

    To go with his other bits of brilliance like "The only thing about Dreamweaver that can be considered professional grade tools are the people promoting its use" or any of the dozens of others I'm always quoting.

    Hence why my site is a posthumous collaboration, a good third of the content written by him before he passed away. (with some input from Aaron Swartz before he too passed, leaving me holding the bag)
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
    deathshadow, May 24, 2016 IP
    sundaybrew likes this.
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #24
    Oh, and for the love of Christmas, PLACEHOLDER IS NOT A LABEL!!! (much less halfwit scripttardery to replicate the behavior of same!) You know rubbish like Genesis is put together by people not qualified to make websites when they can't even code a form properly.
     
    deathshadow, May 25, 2016 IP
    sundaybrew likes this.
  5. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #25

    TELL ME ( Please <3 )
    What you see wrong with this THEME / CODE / WEBSITE

    ====> https://webhostingharvest.com

    It loads fast, indexes well and Runs on GENESIS and Wordpress

    PICK IT APART - I WANT YOU TO

    Please be specific as possible

    I LOVE FEEDBACK AND WANT TO TWEAK IT TO BE THE BEST ( And yes I am looking for someone to make this 100000% )

    Hope you are well ;)

    - Joseph
     
    sundaybrew, May 25, 2016 IP
  6. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #26

    You should call me sometime - You seem cool as heck !

    Would love too get to know you better !
     
    sundaybrew, May 25, 2016 IP
  7. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #27
    Well, you gutted away most of the crap like the excess CSS, JS, etc... but it's still problematic.

    For example, the document structure and use of numbered headings is gibberish, since ALL the headings are H1 and even with the HTML 5-tard section tags, that's STILL not right.

    You've got the endless pointless aria role crap in there which not one legitimate UA cares about, and the endless pointless classes for nothing that are a a turdpress hallmark. The end result is easily TWICE the markup such a simple page should have since if you can't say it with semantic markup and MAYBE a few "rel" attributes, throwing more attributes in there isn't gonna fix that.

    Let's just take a simple section of the HTML, and for laughs let's TRY and format it into something legible.

    
    <body
    	class="home blog full-width-content agency-pro-blue"
    	itemscope
    	itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"
    >
    	<header
    		class="site-header"
    		itemscope
    		itemtype="http://schema.org/WPHeader"
    	>
    		<div class="wrap">
    			<div class="title-area">
    				<h1
    					class="site-title"
    					itemprop="headline"
    				>
    					<a href="https://webhostingharvest.com/">
    						Web Hosting Harvest
    					</a>
    				</h1>
    			</div>
    			<div class="widget-area header-widget-area">
    				<section id="nav_menu-2" class="widget widget_nav_menu">
    					<div class="widget-wrap">
    						<nav
    							class="nav-header"
    							itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement"
    						>
    							<ul
    								id="menu-extra"
    								class="menu genesis-nav-menu"
    							>
    								<li
    									id="menu-item-150"
    									class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-150"
    								>
    									<a href="https://webhostingharvest.com/ask/" itemprop="url">
    										<span itemprop="name">Ask</span>
    									</a>
    								</li>
    								<li
    									id="menu-item-151"
    									class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-151"
    								>
    									<a href="https://webhostingharvest.com/about/" itemprop="url">
    										<span itemprop="name">About</span>
    									</a>
    								</li>
    							</ul>
    						</nav>
    					</div>
    				</section>
    
    Code (markup):
    Nav is a type of section, so that's redunant semantics and an excess DOM element. If you're going to use a header tag, why the HELL would you waste code to then tell Aria crap (that doesn't actually exist) that it's a header? Doesn't that seem a little redundant? You have anchors with href... OF COURSE they're URL's... if you need to say itemprop="url" to say that an anchor with a href pointing at a http address is a "url", there is something CRIMINALLY wrong with whatever UA "needs" that. Much less how freaking herpaderp is it that BODY on a web page needs a frelling itemtype to say it's a webpage? Or the extra wrappers around paragraphs with a text itemprop... really? Paragraphs contain text?!? WHO KNEW?

    It's why I think the whole schema.org bullshit is nothing more than scam artist nonsense designed to make data scraping content thieves happy... it seems to serve NO other legitimate purpose that the markup shouldn't already be providing.

    Of course, its' filled with absolute URI's for no good reason, that could easily just refer to the http root. Likewise it has the turdpress "let's throw ten classes on EVERY blasted element" asshattery.

    Formatted, that's 1.37k of markup, basically looking at the layout as presented and given what the proper semantics of the page should be, that's doing the job of this:

    
    <body>
    
    <div id="top"><div class="widthWrapper">
    	<h1><a href="/">Web Hosting Harvest</a></h1>
    	<ul id="mainMenu">
    		<li><a href="/ask">Ask</a></li>
    		<li><a href="/about">About</a></li>
    	</ul>
    
    Code (markup):
    202 bytes, aka a full sixth the code... and providing MORE than enough semantic meaning for any legitimate UA to work with. The rest of what is in there? Pointless code-bloat rubbish and developer ineptitude.

    You apply that across the entire page, and you could deploy using a fraction the bandwidth while leaving the white-space in the page! Less code without minification than turdpress is vomiting up WITH it.

    The problems run deeper though - the uselessly overstuffed title tag that's guaranteed to get you slapped down by search for abuse, particularly since it's redundant to your description meta. (duplicate content), the pointless canonical link (as if you're actually serving that same page from OTHER URI's?), static scripting in the HEAD, static style in the HEAD, multiple stylesheets and scripts upping the file counts (more files == more handshakes == bad), IE conditional crap for the stupid malfing 5 shiv nonsense that wouldn't be needed if the pointlessly redundant HTML 5 "structural tags' weren't in there in the first place.

    There are other flubs, like made up rel values like 'categories" when it should probably be "archives" -- but NOT that one legitimate UA out there ACTUALLY uses rel attributes on anchors for anything meaningful.

    It's 17.2k of markup that's probably doing 8k's job.

    If I were writing the same page, there would be NO legitimate reason for it to be much more than this for the HTML:

    
    <!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8">
    
    <meta
    	name="viewport"
    	content="width=device-width,height=device-height,initial-scale=1"
    >
    <meta
    	name="description"
    	content="Collecting, grouping, and categorizing all web hosting."
    >
    <meta
    	name="robots"
    	content="noodp,noydir"
    >
    
    <link
    	rel="alternate"
    	type="application/rss+xml"
    	title="Web Hosting Harvest RSS Feed"
    	href="/feed"
    >
    <link
    	rel="alternate"
    	type="application/rss+xml"
    	title="Web Hosting Harvest &raquo; Comments Feed"
    	href="/comments/feed"
    >
    <link
    	rel="stylesheet"
    	href="/template/screen.css"
    	media="screen,projection,tv"
    >
    
    <title>
    	Web Hosting Harvest
    </title>
    
    </head><body>
    
    <div id="top"><div class="widthWrapper">
    	<h1><a href="/">Web Hosting Harvest</a></h1>
    	<ul id="mainMenu">
    		<li><a href="/ask">Ask</a></li>
    		<li><a href="/about">About</a></li>
    	</ul>
    <!-- .widthWrapper, #top --></div></div>
    
    <div id="content" class="widthWrapper">
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/liquid-web-hosting/" rel="bookmark">
    				Liquid Web Hosting
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/stacy" rel="author">Stacy Sckalor</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			Liquid Web Hosting has been providing quality hosting plans for webmasters for over 15 years. Liquid Web Hosting offers the customer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year support for all of their hosting needs. One thing that Liquid Web Hosting prides themselves on is their experienced support team that [&hellip;]
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:</h3>
    			<a href="/goto/liquid-web-hosting/" rel="archives">Liquid Web Hosting</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/liquid-web-hosting/" rel="tag">Liquid Web Hosting</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/flywheel-hosting/" rel="bookmark">
    				Flywheel Hosting
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/stacy" rel="author">Stacy Sckalor</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			Flywheel Web Hosting was started in 2012, they are not one of those companies that have hundreds of employees who you never know who you are talking to, they have a small experienced team but a huge product. When you are choosing a hosting plan for your website, you want to choose the company that [&hellip;]
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:</h3>
    			<a href="/goto/flywheel-web-hosting/" rel="archives">Flywheel Web Hosting</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/flywheel-hosting/" rel="tag">Flywheel Hosting</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/web-hosting-companies-2016/" rel="bookmark">
    				Web Hosting Companies 2016
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/joseph" rel="author">Joseph Tamargo</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			Here is a list of some of the most popular web hosting companies in 2016. Please note this list will grow and this page will be updated throughout the year 2016. So come on back and check in once and while, ya&#8217;ll hear? Bluehost Godaddy Liquid Web Hostgator Flywheel Hostmonster SingleHop
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:<h3>
    			<a href="/goto/web-hosting-companies/" rel="archives">Web Hosting Companies</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/bluehost/" rel="tag">Bluehost</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/flywheel/" rel="tag">Flywheel</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/godaddy/" rel="tag">Godaddy</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/hostgator/" rel="tag">Hostgator</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/hostmonster/" rel="tag">Hostmonster</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/liquid-web/" rel="tag">Liquid Web</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/singlehop/" rel="tag">SingleHop</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/web-hosting-companies/" rel="tag">Web Hosting Companies</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/definition-of-cloud-technology/" rel="bookmark">
    				Definition Of Cloud Technology
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/joseph" rel="author">Joseph Tamargo</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			You might have heard the phrase lately &#8220;cloud&#8221; or hosted private cloud and that has got you interested. Let&#8217;s try to give you the best and a simple understanding of the definition of cloud technology. So your probably thinking, what is a Hosted Cloud / or cloud technology for that matter? A cloud is a [&hellip;]
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:<h3>
    			<a href="/goto/cloud-platforms/" rel="archives">Cloud Platforms</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/cloud-hosting-comparison/" rel="tag">Cloud Hosting Comparison</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/cloud-technology/" rel="tag">Cloud Technology</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/hosted-private-cloud/" rel="tag">Hosted Private Cloud</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/managed-cloud-hosting/" rel="tag">Managed Cloud Hosting</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/wordpress-cloud-hosting/" rel="tag">Wordpress Cloud Hosting</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/ssl-certificate-buyers-guide/" rel="bookmark">
    				SSL Certificate Buyers Guide
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/joseph" rel="author">Joseph Tamargo</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			An SSL certificate for your website can add security to your domain. SSL certificates are a secure digital handshake between the web browser and the website server or in super technical terms a &#8220;secure socket layer&#8221; is security that encrypts a link between the server and client. There are three types of SSL certificates; SSL [&hellip;]
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:<h3>
    			<a href="/goto/ssl-certificates/" rel="archives">SSL Certificates</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/ssl-certificate/" rel="tag">SSL Certificate</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/hostgator/" rel="bookmark">
    				Hostgator Managed &#038; Dedicated Hosting
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/joseph" rel="author">Joseph Tamargo</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			Hostgator Offers web hosting, managed WordPress hosting, VPS servers, Dedicated Servers, domain names and SSL certificates.
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:<h3>
    			<a href="/goto/web-hosting-companies/" rel="archives">Web Hosting Companies</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/hostgator/" rel="tag">Hostgator</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    	<div class="postSummary">
    		<h2>
    			<a href="/googlecloud/" rel="bookmark">
    				Google Cloud Platform Features &#038; Services
    			</a><br>
    			<small>
    				By <a href="/author/joseph" rel="author">Joseph Tamargo</a>
    			</small>
    		</h2>
    		<p>
    			You can now start building on the same cloud platform that is used to power Googles largest apps, sites, and services.
    		</p>
    		<div class="info">
    			<h3>Filed Under:<h3>
    			<a href="/goto/cloud-platforms/" rel="archives">Cloud Platforms</a>
    			<h3>Tagged With:</h3>
    			<a href="/tag/autoscaling-web-applications/" rel="tag">Autoscaling Web Applications</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/etl-and-realtime-queries/" rel="tag">ETL And Realtime Queries</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/google-cloud-platform/" rel="tag">Google Cloud Platform</a>,
    			<a href="/tag/virtual-machines/" rel="tag">Virtual Machines</a>
    		<!-- .info --></div>
    	<!-- .postSummary --></div>
    
    <!-- #content.widthWrapper --></div>
    
    <div id="footer">
    	<hr><!-- or H2 if footer will have heading -->
    	Of course since you had a footer, you might have wanted to put your disclaimer in it?
    <!-- #footer --></div>
    
    </body></html>
    
    Code (markup):
    Apart from fairy tale nonsense like schema's and an ignorance of what numbered headings mean and why they even HAVE numbers. That's 7.52k of code, basically 2/5ths what was present... and from a user interaction AND search engine point of view, there is ZERO loss of functionality.

    The design itself has issues -- serif fonts on screen media for example make it hard to read. The use of the lighter grey color with those serif fonts means that once you figure in font smoothing, the entire design is an accessiibility mess. That mess is only further compounded by all the font-sizes being declared in pixels -- at which point you may as well be telling users with accessibility needs to BOHICA.

    The ATTEMPT at being responsive also borders on the silly and isn't all that useful since the massive paddings are retained. It's almost like padding and white-space was trying to be used to make up for a lack of content, when the page actually DOES seem to have content.

    For a site like that, I'd be SHOCKED if it even NEEDS JavaScript present, or more than 24k of CSS in ONE file for the ENTIRE site's screen media target!...

    That's why despite being 11 files in a mere 253k, I see no legitimate reason for it to be more than 2 files of around 32k or less!

    Of course I'd also kick that Google Analytics crap to the curb. Server logs exist for a reason, use them. If you're dicking around with GA you're wasting time that could be better spent doing something important like building content.

    Scripttard tracking is NOT a feature.

    There's so much outright GARBAGE right now that's hot and trendy, being promoted as good practice, and even worming it's way into the spec in a manner that reminds me of the train wreck that was HTML 3.2, 4 tranny, and the worst of the late 1990's style code bloat... Aria roles, schema BS, HTML 5's new redundancies, HTML 5's bringing back old redundancies... It makes me question the intelligence of the people embracing this bloated broken pointless nonsense, and only further increases my disgust with the industry as a whole.

    Sooner or later you have to let the content and the semantic markup do their damned job.
     
    deathshadow, May 25, 2016 IP
    sundaybrew likes this.
  8. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #28
    Oh, is there some sort of strange scripttard BS dicking with the font sizes? For some reason FF is behaving like it's zoomed in 25% more, despite it being set to the same default zoom and font sizes as Vivaldi and Chrome.

    VERY unusual behavior...
     
    deathshadow, May 25, 2016 IP
    sundaybrew likes this.
  9. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #29
    OH - AND IT FAILS AMP PAGES top top it off ........is that part of Genesis failing? Or WP?
     
    sundaybrew, May 25, 2016 IP
  10. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #30
    "AMP" is only a year old, even most Android devices still can't show it (sad when it's a google tech) -- and in both concept and execution I consider it a technological dead end and again, as I often say, COMPLETELY misses the POINT of HTML. I many ways it reminds me of WML/WAP ... or Aria roles/schema. Pointless extra code bloat that provides NOTHING of actual value to end users that we can't already do with what already exists!

    See, HTML is about delivering content in a device neutral manner, and CSS is about customizing how that content is delivered for specific devices, so what the hell do we need some all-new specification of extra attributes pissing all over the markup needed for?

    So of course NO real websites support AMP yet. It's too new and much like schema's it's more code... and more code does NOT make a site mobile friendly much less "accelerate" it, no matter what Google claims! They chose a really good name for a really STUPID concept.

    Wait, he's not ACTUALLY calling Google full of shit, is he?!? Yes, YES I am.
     
    deathshadow, May 26, 2016 IP
  11. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #31
    bro - you ready ? call me

    @DarkShadow

    What about this code?

    How do you rate this from 1 to 10?


    <!doctype html>
    <html class="/css/front.min.css" />
    <!--[if lt IE 9]>
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/front_ie8.min.css"/>
    <![endif]-->
    <link rel="/bower_components/raty/lib/jquery.raty.min.css" />
    <script src="/bower_components/modernizr/modernizr.min.js"></script>
    <!--[if lt IE 9]>
    <script src="/bower_components/jquery-legacy/dist/jquery.min.js"></script>
    <script src="/bower_components/html5shiv/dist/html5shiv.min.js"></script>
    <script src="/bower_components/nwmatcher/src/nwmatcher.js"></script>
    <script src="/bower_components/selectivizr/selectivizr.js"></script>
    <script src="/bower_components/respond/respond.min.js"></script>
    <![endif]-->
    </head>
    <body>
    <header class="/">Web Hosting Best 10</a></div>
    </div>
    <div class="/">Home</a></li>
    <li class="/web-hosting-comparison">Comparison</a></li>
    <li class="/find-my-web-hosting">Selector</a></li>
    <li class="/articles">Articles</a></li>
    <li class="/privacy">Privacy</a></li>
    <li class="/contact">Contact</a></li>
    <li class="/disclaimer">Advertising Disclosure</a></li>
    </ul>
    </nav>
    </div>
    </div>
    </header>
    <div class="/">Home</a></li>
    <li><a href="/web-hosting-comparison">Compare web hosting</a>
    </li>
    <li><a href="/find-my-web-hosting">List of hosting solutions</a>
    </li>
    <li><a href="/find-my-web-hosting">Provider to suit you</a>
    </li>
    <li><a href="/disclaimer">Affiliate Disclosure</a>
    </li>
    </ul>
    </div>
    </div>
    <div class="/web-hosting-comparison">Read More</a></p>
    </div>
    </div>
    <div class="/find-my-web-hosting">Read More</a>
    </p>
    </div>
    </div>
    <div class="/hosting-reviews/ehost">eHost</a></li>
    <li><a href="/hosting-reviews/hostclear">Host Clear</a></li>
    <li><a href="/hosting-reviews/ipage">iPage</a></li>
    <li><a href="/hosting-reviews/idea-host">Idea Host</a></li>
    <li><a href="/hosting-reviews/site-builder">SiteBuilder</a></li>
    </ul>
    </div>
    </div>
    </aside>
    </div>
    </div>
    </div>
    <footer class="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Webhostingbest10/1605041733104574 " target="/img/facebook.png" alt="https://twitter.com/webhostbest10" target="/img/twitter.png" alt="/">Home</a></li>
    <li><a href="/sitemap.xml">Sitemap</a></li>
    </ul>
    </nav>
    </div>
    </div>
    </div>
    <div class="/bower_components/jquery/dist/jquery.min.js"></script>
    <!--<![endif]-->
    <!--[if lt IE 9]>
    <script src="/bower_components/REM-unit-polyfill/js/rem.min.js"></script>
    <![endif]-->
    <script src="/bower_components/foundation/js/foundation.min.js"></script>
    <script src="/bower_components/raty/lib/jquery.raty.min.js"></script>
    <script src="/js/app.min.js"></script>
    <script src="/js/front.min.js"></script>
    </body>
    </html>
    Code (markup):
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2016
    sundaybrew, May 26, 2016 IP
  12. karjen

    karjen Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #32
    If it looks stupid but it works it ain't stupid.. :) Peace!
     
    karjen, May 27, 2016 IP
  13. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #33
    0... why zero? It's invalid and it would be insulting to give it a negative score. You have a href on a DIV, fail to open a UL that your LI need to be children of, the class attribute on HTML is gibberish and seems to be trying to load the CSS file (which is NOT a valid class!), because it relies on the POINTLESS HTML5-tard BS tags it's got the equally pointless HTML 5 shim BS that I'd NEVER waste bandwidth on, it's chock full of scripttardery that it probably doesn't need, it's wasting conditional comment asshattery on legacy IE (if you care about legacy IE, don't do things it can't handle! Throwing JS at it is NOT the answer!)...

    I mean really?
    
    <header class="/">Web Hosting Best 10</a></div>
    </div>
    <div class="/">Home</a></li>
    <li class="/web-hosting-comparison">Comparison</a></li>
    
    Code (markup):
    UTTER AND COMPLETE GIBBERISH!!! classes can't have slashes in them, though it looks like you're trying to use what should be an anchors href as a class, meaning the writer of said code doesn't know enough HTML to be building a page. It's closing an LI that's clearly never been opened, and opening a LI with no UL for it to be a parent of! It's invalid, broken, and shouldn't work in a single browser in existence.

    That code puts the herp in derp, in a "time to durr my hurr" sort of way.
    [​IMG]
     
    deathshadow, May 27, 2016 IP
    sundaybrew and malky66 like this.
  14. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    370
    Best Answers:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #34
    Even though I am a novice compared to DeathShadow, I have to agree that 0 is the best that can be given. The thing that fried my brain first is all of the useless repetitive script files chomping on bandwidth. I ran out of fingers counting all of the script files. I see NO VALID reason to have more than ONE css file nor more than ONE JS file.
     
    mmerlinn, May 28, 2016 IP
    sundaybrew likes this.
  15. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #35

    thanks and THAT IS NOT MY WEBSITE :)
     
    sundaybrew, May 28, 2016 IP