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.

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

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by ineedrealanswers, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Prominent Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    990
    Best Answers:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    350
    #21
    LOL. That's the advice you always give, by the way, when it comes to building sites.

    Not so fast Mr. death. I don't know what's better not to have customer support by phone at all, or to have one that is terrible. Hmm... I will go with the former.

    SEMrush
     
    qwikad.com, Feb 17, 2017 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Elator

    Elator Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #22
    Are you for real? If I collect watches and know everything about them, it doesn't mean I need to know exactly how the watch is built and every intricate part that makes the mechanism tick. Without knowing all that, I can tell that this watch is a state-of-the-art and this one is a cheap knock-off. Similarly, I can tell that a posh Mercedes is far more comfortable than a Prius, faster and safer, just by driving it, and I don’t need to know how the engine is made and how many parts it consists of. Much the same, usability experts and designers who actually design sites in Photoshop ARE NOT experts in coding, their job is to draw and design a site and make it appealing to the eye. Once again, to see that a particular website has a crappy design and poor visibility, I don’t have to be an HTML expert, as you claim you are.

    For me personally, http://www.cutcodedown.com/ this is a bad design that doesn’t conform to present-day trends and I don’t have to be a coder to make this judgement.

    And how about respectable forum users take a look at the site that is shown at the bottom of your every post: http://mmerlinn.com/

    I am afraid you may choke up on your vomit by looking at this ‘masterpiece’ for more than 5 seconds. If you are such an ace of base when it comes to usability and design, trends, how can you account for website you're somehow affiliated to?

    Or how about this: http://www.ewiusb.com/ - this is the creation of Deathshadow, who is obviously your friend. Doesn’t it make you sick? That vibrant background makes my eyes bleed. Your opinion about that site?

    And maybe you’ll stop using IE6 (or perhaps you’re an IT guru committed to Lynx) and start using Chrome or any other modern browser, and in this case, you’ll have much better experience browsing websites.

    How can you guys talk about, usability, design, content accessibility guidelines when your own sites have nothing to do with these things. You are like shoemakers who are walking barefoot. Not Credible at all.
     
    Elator, Feb 22, 2017 IP
  3. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    717
    Best Answers:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    420
    #23
    You can talk about how it looks and feels, but you cannot make any informed statement about either watches or cars based on those criteria. A good knock-off would throw you, when it comes to watches, unless you know how to open one, and identify the mechanics within (if you don't understand the metaphor, the mechanics compare to the mechanics of a website, ie the HTML and CSS).
    Conforming to current design-trends have very little to do with usability and accessibility. Granted, I personally find @deathshadow's sites to be bland and boring when it comes to looks, but they ARE working across the known spectrum of browsers and platforms, and they do adhere quite rigorously to WCAG.
    As @mmerlin has stated, repeatedly, that site works, and does the job just fine, so he has seen no reason to update it. Also, if you look at the colors used, you'll see that they all adhere to WCAG as well, since they're mostly complimentary, meaning that they have the greatest contrast possible between background and foreground, hence making it fairly easy for anyone to navigate and read the site.

    Not quite sure where you see a "vibrant background" - I see a busy background, which isn't very nice,I agree, but neither is it very annoying. I don't think that word means what you think it means (vibrant, that is).
    Unfortunately, your statements have yet again shown that you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't like how the sites look - that's fine. But that has nothing to do with either usability, nor accessibility - and THAT's the main problem here, the thing we're talking about.

    Modern design principles does next to nothing to improve usability, especially if they're used by amateurs with no real understanding of the underlying process.

    1. Parallax-scrolling sites? A real pain in the ass to use for users with disabilities or eye-problems.
    2. No understanding of WCAG-requirements? Makes sites almost impossible to use for people with vision impairment.
    3. Use of gigantic images, either as full-screen backgrounds, or just to show of products or similar - makes sites slow, and bandwidth-costs go through the roof, especially on mobile plans
    4. Overuse of javascript to employ simple functionality, without making sure that the site works without js to begin with (this is a major fuck up)
    5. AJAX-based loading and form-submits and and and, without making sure that URLs get updated, making it almost impossible to find the exact content you were looking at via bookmarks or similar
    There are many other things that are "fancy" and "trendy", but that doesn't make it good. It just makes it just that, fancy and/or trendy. Hence why most experienced users here tend to focus on the basics first - get the HTML right, then add a bit of CSS, make sure everything works with both CSS and JS turned off, and THEN you can start adding fancy functionality.

    Granted, I don't always follow my own creed, since I do understand that sometimes deadlines and advanced functionality takes precedence, but then it's usually custom made sites, with logins, that have been ordered with specific functionality in mind, where that is the main concern, and the user-base is fairly homogenous.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Feb 22, 2017 IP
  4. kk5st

    kk5st Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,370
    Likes Received:
    339
    Best Answers:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #24
    I am certainly not an IT guru, but I am committed to Lynx, or at least to plain text browsers. Why? Let's look at my background. I coded my first vanity site for a fellow ham operator in about 1996. From there, I coded html emails for company newsletters. (Please forgive me. For almost three years, I coded those evil spawn of Satan.) In 2000, I wrote my first bespoke web store site for an importer's retail operation.

    In the early days, css and javascript were not dependably available or compatible cross-browser. If you wanted success, you made sure the site was completely functional without either. Finally, with IE10, MSFT finally joined the 21st century and (nearly) everything just worked. Troubles lie with mobiles, javascript sucks batteries dry and images kill your bandwidth. Some of your visitors will have one or both disabled. So, we're back to testing functionality on a bare bones UA., Lynx, links or W3M. If you're working in Emacs, you could activate the built in text browser module to check the page visually and trigger the EmacSpeak screen reader for aural rendering.

    gary
     
    kk5st, Feb 22, 2017 IP
  5. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #25
    Right up until as the seller of watches the FBI is knocking on your door for fakes because you DON'T actually know enough to recognize a branded knockoff. That's why they're called branded knockoffs.

    In that way, inaccessible sites can result -- depending on the type and audience of a site and who/where it's supposed to serve people -- in lawsuits and fines. If the site is a government agency, public aid (like medical), utility, or financial institution, failing to meet ANY of the "technical" things I'm outlining can result in fines in the UK and lawsuits. An audience in the UK I spent a good deal of time helping fix their sites to avoid continuing to be fined or sued over!. BS 8878 ring any bells? UK Equality Act of 2010? DDA '95?

    Let me put it this way, as a perfectly "abled" person, how much attention do you pay to a wheelchair ramp? The norms for hallway widths and corners at hospitals to allow gurneys through? The braille on the door opening button or the keys of an ATM? Much less the width, girth, and tensile strength of the beams holding the building up? It might LOOK safe, right up until it crashes down on your head.

    In that same way how often do you set up your computer to use a non-standard default font-size for the UI and/or the browser so you don't have to keep dicking with the zoom just to use the bloody page because some asshat thought 12px was an acceptable font-size? How often are you forced from bandwidth or battery concerns to disable JavaScript, images, or even at times styles? You ever had to use user.css like stylish to fix the colour contrasts on a website because the "designer" didn't know enough about accessibility to be designing anything? These are ALL design concerns that a REAL designer would be taking into consideration! aka stuff your typical Photoshop jockey doesn't know the first damned thing about!

    The reason Chip Foose can sit there and draw a gorgeous car and then actually turn it into something road-worthy is he understands how frames, body panels, suspension clearances, and so forth work. He doesn't just sit there with his pad of paper and alcohol markers to spank out any-old picture. He knows there are certain minimums he has to meet for the result to be track-worthy, much less road-worthy! He's an artist WITH the engineering knowledge... that's what makes him an actual DESIGNER.

    .. and that's the risk of not following accessibility guidelines, the rules of HTML, and being generally ignorant of all the things I'm talking about when it comes to DESIGNING a website. ACTUAL design has to take all those factors into consideration. That's why it's design, not art. Art is a small part of design, NOT the be-all end-all as when you make it the be-all end-all what you end up with are engineering disasters. Dicking around drawing pretty pictures and loading up on "gee ain't it neat" flashy crap is how you end up with death-ray architecture like the Walkie Talkie or Vdara hotel. It's how you end up with artsy cutesy bullshit that falls apart the moment more than three people stand on it, or panes of glass falling hundreds of feet to the pavement below off your skyscraper just because the wind decided to blow like the plywood palace.

    ... and failing to follow the things I'm talking about in "designing" a website results in the same type of failures, flipping the bird at large swaths of users and in the process screwing over the poor sod dumb enough to have let that artists under the DELUSION that they are a designer put the saddle on them and yell "giddy-up"! Doesn't matter how ****ing pretty it is!

    It's like hiring Van Gough to design a passenger jet.

    DESIGN is engineering. We have specifications and guidelines that yes, limit what you can do; but those limits prevent you from screwing yourself, your client, and visitors to your sites! You ignore those specs, guides, and limits and you can very easily land yourself in court over it.

    Then they are neither designers nor usability experts, as they lack the engineering knowledge to do EITHER. They're ARTISTS, nothing more, nothing less, making them UTTERLY unqualified to DESIGN a blasted thing. Drawing a goofy picture is not web design if you lack the understanding of semantics, accessibility, or usability... so that whole "usability" expert thing means not a damned thing if they don't know about semantic markup and graceful degradation, as those ARE CORE COMPONENTS OF USABILITY!!! The same way accessible colour contrasts -- something those goofy pictures slopped together in Photoshop SHOULD have -- have math and specifications to guide you that the majority of these scam artists slopping out PSD's and calling it "design" know not the first damned thing about.

    Which if they don't know emissive colourspace, accessibility norms like those outlined in the WCAG, logical document structure or how it relates to semantic markup, WHAT THE *** MAKES THEM A "DESIGNER"?!?

    Sorry, but herpafreakingderp pal.

    First off, hot and trendy changes so often with the art faygelahs, forget about it; though it's pure comedy you say that since it's basically a mix of Materials Design and flat 2.0... MODERN design concepts. Also relying on logical document structure, progressive enhancement, and graceful degradation.

    Which is why it has logical document structure and leverages semantics to be properly keyboard navigable and gracefully degrade to screen readers (software that reads the page aloud to users) and braille readers. It's why the site is usable at most any size and resolution (well, other than the latest changes crApple made that means I have a choice: support Android HDX or support crApple retina laptops... I'm telling the new mac pro users to suck it until I find a way to target them without screwing Kindle fire owners. NOT an easy decision.)

    Ugly as sin, also meets usability and visual accessibility minimums. Code needs help... but I've seen worse.

    It also has ACCESSIBLE colour contrasts, matches the products branding (which was done by a REAL designer for their print literature and packaging), and for a seven year old design and one of the FIRST sites in the Internet to leverage responsive layout before we even called it that (prior to CSS3 it used mcSwitchy, which is why converting to media queries took about ten minutes).

    Which is why non visual users and people with CSS blocked get this:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbComNoCSS.jpg

    BTW, that's also what search engines basically have to work with...

    It's designed elastic, which is why 8514/125%/120dpi/legacy windows large/moder windows medium/pickADamnedNameAlready users like myself get this WITHOUT diving for the zoom:

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbComNormal120.jpg

    Whilst normal users like yourself get this:

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbComNormal96.jpg

    Notice it's not zoom, the images didn't change size, but the text and layout adjusted to be more usable without my having to dick with it as a user.

    ... it's why the layout goes from this:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbCom800Wide.jpg

    to this:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbCom640wide.jpg

    to this:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbTinyMobile.jpg

    ... as the window gets smaller. It's why people blocking images get this:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/ewiUSB/ewiUsbCom800WideNoImages.jpg

    Which is an increasing concern as ISP's go full retard trying to introduce bandwidth caps, overage charges and so forth. Just ask our friends in Canada and Austrailia about that, much less what the dipshits in the US Congress want to do to web neutrality right now... which basically amounts to nothing more than "let's force everyone back to 3mbps or less and double the cost by forcing out competitition".

    Even alternative navigation works since the heading orders make sense, something your typical PSD jockey doesn't even huffing know which is why again, they're NOT designers. At BEST they are graphic artists, which is why at MOST they should be brought in to do a paint-over AFTER the semantics, layout, and content are up and running.

    Do you really think Google, Facebook, E-Bay, and Craigslist have some artist sitting there spanking it on a graphics tablet in the back room to create their layouts? BULLSHIT.

    I actually use Vivaldi, which is for all intents and purposes Chromium with an actually USEFUL user interface since it lets me put tabs on the side... but I also use it and test it with screen readers (software that reads the page aloud), braille readers, accesisbi

    Since by your own admission you don't know anything about usability, design, or content accessibility guidelines, WHAT IN BLAZES makes YOU qualified to flap your gums with that claim? You clearly don't understand HTML, CSS, UX, or accessibility guidelines -- making yourt opinion of if those sites meet any of those qualifications or not utterly meaningless.

    Since lacking that knowledge, you clearly have ZERO clue what "design" is! But again to be frank, neither do most of the ignorant mouth-breathers calling themselves "web designers" right now as they piss out their latest recolouration of Every ***ing bootcrap site ever!, piss on UX and UI design from orbit with scripttard bullshit like parallax design, and cannot even manage a legible colour contrast between background and text in more than a third of their work!

    Which say what you want about the style of the sites you just ragged on, at least they have legibile accessible fonts in legible accessible colour contrasts. At least they try to gracefully degrade and meet the needs of visitors to the sites instead of dumping a can of shellac on a pile like most of the artists do. Hell you can see it above where I was talking about how one goofy choice of webfont by an "artist" pissed on the accessibility -- if the artist under the delusion they know what design is actually knew the first damned thing about accessibility norms, that wouldn't have happened! JUST like the dangers of excessively flat design, the trap of false simplicity, and so forth. The poor sod coding it shouldn't be having to go back to the artist and say "Oh hell no" every five damned minutes -- and usually if you have some jacktard artist crapping all over the damned place you get the suit who knows nothing backing them right up until the they're served; or wondering why they have low traffic levels thanks to their slow loading inaccessible train wreck of artsy fartsy bullshit!

    Faygelahs? No, just merry...

    Just look at 99%+ of the ignorant halfwit dumbass scam artist BULLSHIT you'll find at the various template whorehouses like ThemeForest or TemplateMonster. Yes, many of them are very pretty, flashy... attractive even; but every last one of them is an epic failure in terms of usability, accessibility, graceful degradation, sustainability, hosting costs, and every other engineering concern that MUST be an integral part of ACTUAL design!

    The same way making a convex mirrored glass building might look cool (actually they usually look pretty ugly, but "artists" masquerading as architects seem to get wood over the concept), but pisses off the poor sods trying to walk to work on the streets below or lounging by the pool by roasting them like ants under a magnifying glass.

    If I can get pretty WITH accessible and useful, I'm all for it -- but if you don't have the latter two the first one means but two things; and Jack left town. I'd rather have an ugly site that's actually useful to as many people as possible, than a pretty site that's useless to me as a user. That's why I'll take youtube over dailymotion or vimeo -- or Craigslist over useless cookie cutter train wrecks slopped together with off the shelf scripts. That's how "Ask Jeeves" put themselves in the ground without Google even having to TRY. These sites don't understand why they are perpetually an "also ran", when it's RIGHT THERE if you know what to look for!
     
    deathshadow, Feb 22, 2017 IP
  6. badger_

    badger_ Greenhorn

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    20
    #26
    I use OpenBSD as my daily operating system and Firefox is very slow when I load sites that abuse javascript, so I disable it. I really appreciate fast and accesible sites likes the ones you mentioned - cutcodedown.com, ewiusb.com and mmerlinn.com - since they offer me what I look for pretty effectively. That sites don't make me work to get the content, and they don't hang my browser.

    I use the web because I look for content, not fancy looking graphics and impressive effects. If I want that I load some demoscene productions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
    badger_, Feb 22, 2017 IP
    mmerlinn likes this.
  7. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Prominent Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    990
    Best Answers:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    350
    #27
    Yeah, I hate it when a site hangs my browser. Seems like every news site today does that. I don't even know why some of them are still around. Their bounce rate has to be ~80%.
     
    qwikad.com, Feb 22, 2017 IP
  8. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #28
    These two replies

    Are just the tip of the iceberg of why a LOT of users tell JavaScript to sod off, using plugins like noscript and ghostery to selectively block on sites that won't block on their own.

    The reasons for scripting being slow though often isn't ENTIRELY the fault of the scripting per-se... but the methdology a lot of scripts and frameworks banging heads with that bloated markup I'm always talking about. You take jQuery -- my traditional whipping-boy when it comes to how NOT to build a website. It relies almost entirely on using selector constructs... its internal equivalent of the native Element.querySelector and Element.querySelectorAll.. that's why it's CALLED jQuery.

    But to run those operations EVERY time you want to manipulate something or a group of somethings means the ENTIRE DOM has to be parsed to create that new nodeList result, or jQ's equivalent to a node list. You do this once on a well written page (CtCR of 2:1 or so for the markup), it's no big deal... you do it every time there's a user interaction or event on a massively bloated page with hundreds of DIV for nothing and classes for nothing, with code to content ratios pushing 20:1 or moer, and what should be a simple operation starts chewing on memory, chewing on CPU, and by extension chewing on battery if you're not plugged in. That's why the fat bloated idiotic development practice known as OOCSS like that on which bootcrap is based can drag system performance into the 9th ring of hell.

    More so when you consider the constant memory allocation and de-allocation that done properly (hello eval) can be used to inject and run arbitrary code... something I've been wondering if it was possible to do with JS for some time only to find out, hey look:

    https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...t-attack-breaks-aslr-on-22-cpu-architectures/

    Because JS is an interpreted language that shouldn't even be possible, but in the rush to make crappy scripting run faster, changes were made that opened the door to this. Hey look, ANOTHER reason to block untrusted scripts. Bet you're gonna see a LOT of sites moving towards finally implementing the CSP.

    Which is why, even as I relaunch my own JavaScript library over on the good practices page I start out big and bold with the "unwritten rule of JavaScript":

    "If you can't make a functional page without JavaScript first, you likely have no business adding scripting to it!"

    Because let's face it, if sometihing like that ASLR attack takes off forcing people to disable scripting the way users started killing off activeX back in '03, sites like Facebook and G+ risk being run out of business without a total overhaul. As it is a LOT of people with accessibility needs, facing bandwidth restrictions, and so forth flat out will not or cannot use Facebook at all.

    Which is why I say Google missed the boat with "plus" by not doing it better, they dind't even TRY to do better.

    Which is the message I'm always trying to hammer home; CONTENT! Content of value marked up semantically and progressively enhanced so as to be accessible to as many people as possible without anything that bars users from doing what they came to a site to do.

    ... and if that means no goofy annoying parallax scrolling bullshit, no massive amounts of whitespace, no endless pointless "JS for nothing" -- so be it.

    Yeah, I discovered in releasing a beta version of my Pac man ripoff for the C64, that demosceners and I get along like sodium and water. Their attitude actually killed any interest I had in supporting that platform. I've never seen a group so interested in sucking the fun out of what's SUPPOSED to be hobby projects for fun.

    Over 98% in the case of many major newspapers who still cannot figure out the difference between print and web. Their own failures at it also only increases the view of the web as a novelty by the graybeards at the top, even as their print revenues plummet out of existence. They want to see serif print because that's what a paper does -- a screen isn't paper. They want 10 ads slopped into every page because advertisements don't take longer to load as print, ignoring that long load times and browser hangups cause people to go get their news somewhere else -- or go through the 'effort' of installing an adblock... and then in the cases of places like Forbes, Washington Post, or the New York Times installing a anti-anti-adblock user.js in greasemonkey or tampermonkey to block their anti-adblock. Talk about whack-a-mole.

    The "echo chamber" effect these companies sites create can be outright ridiculous as their web presence goes from one circle-jerking session to another where more often than not "ooh shiny" ends up the only aspect "The suits" understand, failing to realize that all they are doing with the extra art, fancy animations, and so forth is polishing a turd... and in doing so driving users AWAY instead of drawing them in.

    In many ways it's the same trap as trusting your own traffic stats for browser usage, ok, sure, you get little to no traffic from anything older than IE11... that doesn't mean people aren't trying. Oh look, 99% of your traffic from IE8 is bounce -- gee, maybe the reason you don't have any traffic from the ~50 million or so North Americans who still haven't moved past Windows XP isn't because they aren't visiting, but because your site runs like shit for them? No, that's just crazy talk.

    Hence what I call "percenters" in development; instead of workin for inclusion they card-stack statistics to try and write off as acceptable collateral damage the results of their own ignorance and ineptitude. Oh classic Opera users is below half a percent, XP users is below 10%, Linux users stuck with the crappy freetype rendering is below 2%, users running non-standard default sizes is less than 5%... until they've nicked-and-dimed every blasted potential user they could have out of existence.

    We saw that for ages with the LIE about there being less IE users. Time and time again -- and this was REALLY popular with Floss fanboys when FF was cutting into IE's market share, <em>and less popular when Chrome did it to FF</em> -- you'd hear there were less IE users because IE was losing share. A claim that held water like a steel sieve (I hear that's the best kind... of sieve) when you considered the pool size change. Over the time period IE "lost share" Internet usage grew exponentially... FF and Chrome caught on amongst enthusiasts and in the developing world expanding into new markets, while the majority of Joe Sixpack and Susie Sunshine continued to know nothing more than "I click the big blue E".

    Something else the math easily debunks. When IE had it's whopping 95% market share back in early '04 there were around 720 million Internet users. Today IE and Edge combined hold around 25% of users on desktop. Best guesstimates say there's up past 3.5 billion Internet users. I'm no mathemagician, but I'm pretty sure that 684 million (720 * 0.95) is less than 875 million (3500 * 0.25). They haven't lost a damned thing, it's just there are more people using other stuff now!

    It's entirely possible to gain users whilst losing share... that's the lie of share, and just one of the many bits of card stacking bullshit marketing dirtbags will often use to bold faced lie to your face! A LOT of developers know this lie inside and out, and use it to saddle up potential clients for the greatest screw-jobs this side of Montreal.

    Again, see most of the "artists" claiming to be "designers" who talk a good game and make some really pretty art, but actually know shit about shit and are utterly unqualified to design a blasted thing. Then they and the coders who support them load up on glittering generalities, card stacking, transfer and a host of other propaganda techniques to slap the rose coloured glasses on the unsuspecting nubes head to lead them down the garden path to failure.

    This here's a story 'bout Billy Joe and Bobby Sue...
     
    deathshadow, Feb 22, 2017 IP
  9. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    163
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #29
    Trends are nothing but FADS by another name. What is trendy today is a disaster tomorrow. Anyone that follows a fad will be shortly DISAPPOINTED as the fad FADES away. When you judge a book by its cover you are USUALLY disappointed when you open it up. Trendy sites almost ALWAYS have SHITTY code and SELDOM work correctly in ANY browser except the one that the so-called 'designer' used.

    That 'masterpiece' has been paying my bills for over DECADE. How is YOUR masterpiece doing?

    Apparently you are quick to form an opinion WITHOUT FIRST GETTING ALL OF THE FACTS. Here are some facts for you to digest >>> https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/how-can-these-sites-be-improved.2780162/#post-19335572

    Further if you turn JS and CSS off, the site is STILL USABLE, just REALLY REALLY UGLY. And if you are color-blind, the site is STILL USABLE. Can you say that about YOUR website?

    Basically I don't give a flying rat's ass about HOW any site looks. I ONLY care about whether it delivers the CONTENT that I want at a price that I can afford. There are way too many sites out there that deliver NOTHING even if I wait FOREVER all because those sites FAIL to meet usability guidelines that have been known for CENTURIES.

    My opinion? IT WORKS. IT IS USABLE. IT IS READABLE. Who in hell cares what it looks like?

    I DETEST Micro$hit IE in ALL of its flavors, so NEVER use it unless I am FORCED to use it. I am too dumb to use Lynx or any other *nix, so don't use them. Chrome is a Google bastard that I refuse to use. I would use IE first. My browser of choice is FireFox even though in many ways I do not like it. I just wish FF had a way where I could selectively STOP certain domains from loading shit on my computer. I get tired of waiting for useless Google Garbage to load, Facebook Feces to load, Twitter Trash to load, and so on.

    Since you are admittedly IGNORANT about such standards you do not have ANY QUALIFICATIONS to judge websites using those standards. So, either LEARN so you can make QUALIFIED judgements or bug off.

    Amen. FADS have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. The USER experience is the ONLY thing that counts. Turn the user off, and the site will ALWAYS fail.

    Both of these sites do the job the creators of the sites intended for them to do, and, at least in my case, have FED ME FOR YEARS. As far as I am concerned, that is the ONLY thing that counts.

    As has been repeatedly stated, sites like Craigslist, Google, and others are neither fancy nor trendy, but often in fact downright UGLY. Yet they make MILLIONS for the owners of those sites. Does anyone REALLY think that they should FIX that which is NOT broken? No one (except maybe the artsy-fartsy types (thanks @deathshadow)) cares WHAT they LOOK like as long as they do the job the USERS expect them to do.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2017
    mmerlinn, Feb 24, 2017 IP
  10. john.peter

    john.peter Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #30
    Useful informations. Thanks.
     
    john.peter, May 13, 2017 IP
  11. gldigital

    gldigital Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    #31
    You've forgotten Esvon Classified script, often suggested as a high end solution: esvon.com .

    It would be interesting to hear other opinions.
     
    gldigital, Jun 2, 2017 IP
  12. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #32
    Alright, let's see what type of train wreck of asshattery this one is.

    The site for the product itself hits all the classic "I cans haz intarnets" development hallmarks -- absurdly undersized fixed metric fonts (it's bad enough telling users with accessibility needs to go **** themselves by declaring font-size in px, without sending even more people diving for the zoom with the useless idiotic halfwit 12px size), illegible colour contrasts such as text over inconsistently aligned images or red+white, floated images running up to word boundaries further compromising legibility, broken attempt at being responsive that... whiff.... whiff.... you smell something.

    Popping the bonnet. Oh yeah, there it is, bootcrap. So DIV doing NAV's job (not that there's a legitimate reason to ever use NAV) endless pointless idiotic halfwit presentational classes, gibberish use of numbered headings, B+EM doing numbered heading's job, lack of paragraphs around obvious paragraphs, pre HTML 3.2 markup methodologies mixed into a 5 document, meta no legitimate UA gives a flying **** about, overstuffed keywords, gibberish robots (THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FOLLOW OR INDEX!), IE CC's around style to cover up for developer ineptitude, no media targets on the stylesheet LINK, that stupid malfing bloated span+span+span to make the hamburger because the dev's blindly copied from other dev's too stupid to breath through their noses, missing quotes around attribute values (again, more PRE HTML 3.2 style coding -- pull yer head out of 1995's arse!), attributes like TARGET that have no business on any website written after 1997 (or even then for that matter)...

    Yet we're supposed to trust that these asshats are qualified to make a classified script worth money and that other people should use?

    But, let's take a look at a sample sites for the ... wow look at that, ENTIRELY different layout on the subpages resulting in inconsistent navigation. Just had to have that art ****ot piss all over the home page with that stupid banner script pushing everything useful to subpages, didn't they...

    ... and.... oh, wow; you want the demo, sign up for spam. Way to make 100% sure the product looks legitimate. When the demo is behind a spam signup, I tend to automatically think "Sleazeball dirtbag scam artists" -- YMMV... Well, they have a "featured clients" section. Let's see those...

    ... and look, the thumbnails just link to larger thumbnails that tell you dick all about the clients instead of actually going to real websites or even linking to real sites. Yup, that seems REALLY legit.

    So... well a bit of google-fu let's see if we can pull up one of these 'clients'; the "lakehouse" one should be easy enough and... huh. Yeah, that's the same site but haven't I seen this EXACT same idocy under another name? Gah, what was that steaming pile of ineptitude called? CRE-Loaded I think it was?!? This looks a LOT like that. No, that's not a compliment. Hell, did they change their name or something? Is this a fork?

    But again, undersized fixed metric fonts, gibberish non-mouse/touch keyboard navigation meaning broken heading orders, fixed width layout that doesn't even TRY to be accessible or responsive.... and that's before we pop the bonnet where it's even worse; tables for layout, endless pointless nested tables for nothing, made up meta that are just blind copypasta of the agonizingly overstuffed keywords almost by design created to get the site slapped down for abuse by search, static style in the markup, tags attributes (font, align, target, center, border) that have no business in any page written over the past two decades, numbered heading tags wrapping non-heading elements, bold tags doing numbered headings job, manual breaks in paragraphs instead of letting word-wrap do it's job (sure sign of fixed width development ignorant BS), double-breaks doing paragraphs job, transparent gif spacers...

    I mean seriously, if you don't know what's wrong with code like this:

    
        <body class="lakehouse">
    
            <div id="wrapper_top"></div>
            <div id="wrapper">
                <table class="outer-container" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
                    <tr>
                        <td>
                            <!-- HEADER -->
                            <!-- HEADER -->
    
    
    <table width="100%" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
        <tr>
            <td width="40%"  rowspan="3">
            <div align="left"><img src="logos/lakehouse280.jpg" alt="Lakehouse.com" width="280" height="84" hspace="15" align="left"></div>
            </td>
            <td width="60%" height="21" align="right" valign="top">
                <div style="margin-right:15px; margin-bottom:15px;" align="right" class="welcome-menu">
    
    Code (markup):
    Do the world a favor, back the **** away from the keyboard, and take up something a bit less detail oriented like macrame. Anyone who would create HTML like that has ZERO business building websites for ANYONE at any time over the past fifteen to twenty YEARS!

    For those of you who know jack **** about HTML, there's no real excuse for the above to vary much from:
    
    <body>
    
    <div id="top">
    
    	<h1>
    		Lakehouse.com<br>
    		<small>Buy it! Sell It! Rent It!</small>
    	</h1>
    	
    	<div id="userBar">
    Code (markup):
    Apart from that I'd probably make the logo/primary header also be an anchor, but the above would be 1:1 how I'd implement the same thing.

    Whilst it would be interesting to see their baseline template, I'm not giving them an e-mail address to see it and other 'featured sites' I googled did NOT paint any rosier a picture. "For people who know nothing about websites, BY people who know nothing about websites" is NOT a recipe for success people!

    The ONLY reason these piles of garbage continue to exist is the ignorance, apathy, and wishful thinking of nubes and rubes who really need to learn more about websites before they start blindly plunking down money on having one... since to be frank falling for these SCAMS takes about the same level of smarts as buying swampland in Florida, believing some random stranger can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, or voting for a petulant man-child orange cheeto-fingered half-tweet.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    deathshadow, Jun 4, 2017 IP
    PoPSiCLe likes this.
  13. gldigital

    gldigital Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    #33
    Hi and thank you for your opinion.

    There's no need to give you email address: on the demo page, just below the "Online Demo" button, you can see "Front-end and Admin area online demo here" links to access the respective areas.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
    gldigital, Jun 5, 2017 IP
  14. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #34
    I don't see that at all... nowhere to be found unless you mean some OTHER page than the "online demos" one.

    http://www.esvon.com/pg/products/demos/

    Where every single try it now / demo link across the entire site links to. There is NO "front end area and admin area" link on that page. You enter your name, e-mail, and at least one radio button, or it bombs out asking for all three... so I really have no clue what you're talking about; see:

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/nadaZipZilchNein.jpg

    Though with the uselessly annoying undersized fixed metric fonts, illegible colour contrasts, and forcing me to zoom in 150% on a layout that breaks when zoomed, it's a miracle I got that far into that MESS of developer ineptitude!

    As I said, even the website for the product is the pinnacle of developer ignorance, ineptitude, and incompetence -- only further enhancing the feel of "the monster that came from 1997" and "wow, what a scam"

    As evidenced by even that form and the mental midgetry of how it is coded.

    
    <form method=post role="form">
    
    <font color=red><b></b></font>
    
    <table border=0>
    <tr><td>
    <b>Your Name&nbsp;
    </td><td>
    <input type=text value="" name=fn required class="form-control">
    </td></tr>
    <tr><td>
    <b>E-mail
    </td><td>
    <input type=text value="" name=email required class="form-control">
    </td></tr>
    
    </table>
    </div>
    <br>
    <div align=center>
    <table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
    <tr><td align=center class="title">Please check on products below you are interested in</td></tr>
    
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="e_cl" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>Esvon Classifieds</b></td></tr>
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="e_cl_realty" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>Realty Listings Manager</b></td></tr>
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="e_cl_auto" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>Auto Listings Manager</b></td></tr>
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="e_cl_job" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>Job Site Manager</b></td></tr>
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="e_cl_personals" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>Personals Manager</b></td></tr>
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="pc_b" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>PC Builder</b></td></tr>
      	
    <tr><td align=left valign=middle><input type=checkbox name=chk[] value="h_c" class=chk>&nbsp;<b>Hosting Configurator</b></td></tr>
    
    </table>
    
    <div style="margin-top:10px">
    <input type=submit value="Submit" class="btn btn-primary">
    </div>
    
    </form>
    
    Code (markup):
    Putting as much herp into that derp as possible. What makes that tabular data? What makes those bold and not LABEL tags, where are the fieldsets and labels? This is 2017 what's with the <font> tag, valign and align attributes?!? this isn't 1997! Whoever made that form does not know enough HTML to be building WEBSITES!!!

    Particularly since it seems to have been written as scripttard BS with zero graceful degradation, hence the lack of an ACTION attribute... which is why 'out of the box' in my daily driver browser, thanks to my running ghostery it doesn't do a damned thing even if I enter proper values! Made even MORE pathetically inept by the inclusion of HTML 5 aria roles when it's HTML 3.2 idiocy.

    ... and again, we're supposed to trust that the mouth-breathing halfwit dipshit morons who vomited up this mess can make a classifieds script? BULLSHIT! AT BEST they are ingorant fools talking out their arse, at WORST they're sleazy scam artists preying on the ignorance of others.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
    deathshadow, Jun 6, 2017 IP
    malky66 likes this.
  15. malky66

    malky66 Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,179
    Likes Received:
    1,952
    Best Answers:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    390
    #35
    Here you go DS, this will send your BS meter into overdrive: http://www.esvon.com/products/cl/

    <table width="100%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0 align=center>
    <tr>
    <td>
    
    <a href="index.php">Homepage</a> (3,638)
    
    <br />
    
    
    <br />
    
    </td>
    </tr>
    </table>
    
    Code (markup):
    and there's more:

    <TABLE width="100%" border=0 style="margin-bottom:5px">
    <TR>
    <TD vAlign=top width="7%" height=24>
    
    
    <a href="auctions-b463_0.html"><img src="img/spacer.gif" align=right border=0 alt=""></a><br />
    
    
    
    </TD>
    <TD width="93%" height=24>
    <big><B><A href="auctions-b463_0.html">Auctions</A></B>
    
    (1)
    
    <br /><span class=txt8>[w Auctions module]</span>
    </TD></TR></TABLE>
    
    Code (markup):
    and this:

    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">1.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="dod-f900lhd-full-hd-car-dvr-camera-o10079.html">DOD F900LHD Full HD Car DVR Camera</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">2.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="wanaksink-lake-lakefront-log-home-o246.html">Wanaksink Lake Lakefront Log Home</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">3.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="sony-xperia-o10078.html">Sony Xperia</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">4.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="samsung-duos-o10077.html">Samsung Duos</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">5.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="sony-ericssin-o10075.html">Sony Ericssin</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">6.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="htc-one-x-o10074.html">HTC One X</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">7.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="apple-iphone-5g-o10073.html">Apple iPhone 5G</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">8.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="1994-infiniti-g20-rhode-island-o9597.html">1994 Infiniti G20 - Rhode Island</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">9.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="1992-scion-xd-prince-edward-island-o9965.html">1992 Scion xD - Prince Edward Island</a><br />
    <b style="color:#8f1e1e">10.</b>&nbsp;
    <a href="2000-hyundai-sonata-north-dakota-o9589.html">2000 Hyundai Sonata - North Dakota</a><br />
    
    Code (markup):
    It's a quality product for sure..:)
     
    malky66, Jun 6, 2017 IP
  16. gldigital

    gldigital Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    #36
    Sorry, my fault: I was speaking of their "flagship product" called Esvon Classified.

    This is the page where you can access both demo sections:

    http://www.esvon.com/pg/products/p_classifieds/demo/
     
    gldigital, Jun 6, 2017 IP
  17. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #37
    That's putting it mildly -- laugh is it uses the mind-numbingly dumbass ignorant halfwit BS that is bootcrap and jQueery -- but it STILL ends up pissing itself with HTML 3.2, tables for nothing, tables for layout, and a general incompetence rarely matched outside of political circles. That it has a HTML 5 doctype is more of a cruel joke than a point of fact.

    see how given that HTML 5 validation is so ridiculously permissive as to make validation of structure near meaningless compared to 4 Strict, this:

    https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http://www.esvon.com/products/cl/

    Shows just how feeble minded the mental midgets who made this crap really are... as does every snippet you showed which, well... would be precisely the type of herpafreakingderp "I cans haz intarnets" asshattery I would have posted up as an example myself.

    ... and that's before we talk the design failings of failing to meet even the simplest of WCAG minimums like legible colour contrasts ('cause sky blue on white and white on sky blue ain't it), accessible font sizes, or even a working responsive layout and/or one that doesn't break when zoomed. (which **** knows any large font/120dpi/8514/pick a name already users is DIVING for the zoom assuming they don't just say **** it and go somewhere else!)

    Again to be frank, if a casual visual inspection ALONE doesn't set off your BS alarm on that one, you probably shouldn't be trying to start a website much less choosing what software to run on it.
     
    deathshadow, Jun 6, 2017 IP
  18. mindthepap

    mindthepap Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    #38
    Some of the guys here have some serious knowledge on code analysis etc. (!)
    But we really got off topic on all posts. I am guessing that the reason this thread was made was for comparison between geocore and flynax.
    So...if somebody tells you, you don't have the ability to go custom code...and you have to choose between those two, which one would you choose and why?
    Witch one has better code and the bases to build a great site?
    I heard that olx.com was build on geocore and it still runs some of it's code (!)
     
    mindthepap, Jul 7, 2017 IP
  19. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #39
    The shotgun blast to the head is probably the best choice in that case; as otherwise all you're doing is setting yourself up for a money pit that will never be anything more than a "also ran". BOTH are scam artist bullshit and to be frank, if you can't man-up with enough front money to do the job properly, you really shouldn't even be trying in the first place. If it was as easy as taking some sleazy off the shelf solution slopped together by people unqualified to even be building websites, we'd all be billionaires by now.

    Again that's like asking which is better, a turd sandwich or a giant douche. Neither is even close to capable of building "a great site" and the mere NOTION that such off the shelf answers are even CAPABLE of it is outright ignorant halfwit scam artist delusional BULLSHIT!!!

    Never heard of it... pulls up site... cursory inspection I'd be an instant bounce from lack of anything on the country selection page to tell me what I'm selecting, ghostery throwing a rikki fit, and MULTIPLE requests for tracking info -- and that's BEFORE we talk the pixel metric fonts, dubious colour contrasts, and agonizingly slow page-load...

    You'd almost think it was shit together by they types of mouth-breathers who think that bootcrap can actually be used to build a useful website.

    Of course that clicking on US goes to the "also ran, will never see real success compared to craigslist" that is "letgo", is hardly a shock. I've heard of Letgo, they're useless inaccessible broken slow crap flooded with endless complaints... hence why they don't even list when something was listed, to cover up for the fact that most of their listings are of things long since sold through other sources... like Craigslist.

    Sleazy scam artist dirtbags are sleazy scam artist dirtbags, and we need to stop giving them and their hoodoo-voodoo snake oil peddling hucksterism a free ride on the backs of nubes and rubes who don't know any better!
     
    deathshadow, Jul 8, 2017 IP
  20. mindthepap

    mindthepap Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    #40
    First of all...wow!
    Secondly...shotgun at your head! CHOOSE ONE OF THOSE TWO!
     
    mindthepap, Jul 8, 2017 IP