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.

Is Wordpress best program for making websites these days?

Discussion in 'Content Management' started by Captainkirk91, May 1, 2017.

  1. locals

    locals Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #141
    OOPS just tested my site on the number 1 search engine result for "Page Load Speed"
    SEMrush
    Since google page tests were not good enough for you...

    Out of Dallas Tx... 1.25 seconds to load LOL
    Out of San Jose... 984 MS LOL

    YOU SIR, @deathshadow are a got damn joke... Oh, and faster than 85% of sites tested on their platform too LMMuthafuckinAO

    try again you disgruntled turd

    https://tools.pingdom.com/


    page-speed.jpg
     
    locals, Aug 12, 2017 IP
    SEMrush
  2. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,383
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Best Answers:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #142
    Pingdom's evaluator is often pure comedy, where it will give 100% performance grades to sites that don't even make 50% on the "Faster than" category. They overvalue goofy tricks for making shitty sites ALMOST acceptable, over practical techniques for ACTUALLY being faster.

    See what it does with my cutcodedown website:
    [​IMG]

    That's comedy gold right there. Performance grade of 81, but faster than 99% of websites tested. THAT should be setting off your bullshit alarm right there. But let's look at what it's giving such horrible reviews for:

    1) External JS -- it has TWO.... yours has two being served from the same domain, why aren't you being dinged for that?

    2) Minimize redirects... it uses disqus, which inherently uses redirects to pull the correct protocol (http or https) -- this has ZERO impact on performance in any real-world environment and is a bullshit claim.

    3) Leverage browser caching -- thing is, I am... by using a monolithic stylesheet. The files it is complaining about are either too small to waste time bothering (and would be on the short purge no matter what you set them to) or just flat out not under the control of the devleoper -- for example, well... when it's blaiming "http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com" that should be MORE than enough to set off your bullshit alarm.

    4) Vary-accept-encoding. Something google doesn't bother with, which is why FIVE of the SIX files listed aren't even under the domains control are google Adsense!

    ... and yet, you take a page that gets a 85% or lower rating with the EXACT SAME FILES, these same faults will NOT be listed! That's bullshit where they are actually trying to dupe people with the fastest sites into making them SLOWER!!!

    My little toy personal page:
    [​IMG]

    see, higher the performance grade, lower the faster-than. I've rarely seen the two work lock-in-step like you'd expect. The laugh is that most everything being done that it bitches about on the first site is present on the second! They're damned near the same codebase!!!

    Of course on this one, they latch onto "oh noes, he hazdedsies teh cookies" -- yeah, ONE cookie, the php session ID. so small it doesn't even make the request larger than a modern packet size, meaning there is NO reason to waste time sending the static files from a different domain. What's REALLY interesting about this is that the OTHER sites of mine ALSO set that same cookie and serve off a single domain, so why aren't they bitching about those?

    Pretty much, they're talking out their arse with their statistics; statistics intentionally designed to skew the numbers in favor of the scam artists and hoodoo-voodoo peddlers.

    Of course the numbers for your site are also skewed since they're not reporting images correctly, same problem I have in FF with the web devleoper tools where something in your scripting is trying to game the system by flat out lying about what's being loaded... hence your 3.8 megabyte page in 52 separate files reporting as 1.1mb in 30 files..

    See how every refresh FF's developer tools on your site throws up seemingly random different values:
    [​IMG]

    Being about middle of the road, but 100% BULLSHIT in terms of the images present on your page. That's what FF's built in developer tools says for your domain selling site -- but laughably it stops counting and shows that a good 30 to 40 seconds before THE PAGE ACTUALLY SHOWS!!! Hence my saying it takes a minute or more... probably because it's sitting there waiting for all that bloated mental midgetry scripting, or the browser's parsing engine has gone off to never-never land trying to deal with that 800k+ of markup doing 16k's job!

    Pingdom is probably throwing equal hissy-fits trying to make sense of the convoluted mess of code that makes up your site. My sites because I'm not playing goofy games with headers or scripting, well take cutcodedown:

    [​IMG]

    Spot on consistent EVERY page-load... and that's WITH the "massive fat bloated wrecks" that are disqus and adsense sitting atop it. (since there's only 19k in two files of JS being hosted on-site -- everything else is additions like ads and disqus)

    Though pingdom's tool on that same page is likely registering load time incorrectly, since tools like that completely screw up lazy-loading/post-loading in terms of performance. About two thirds of what it's counting overall isn't loaded until after the page and the actual important part -- THE CONTENT -- is loaded.

    ... and that sad part is, right now pingdom's tools are some of the more honest ones. Don't get me started about the sleazy dirtbag "bait and switch' Google pulled with pagespeed -- where it went from the useful tool of helpful data it was at launch, to an outright scam designed to dupe people into shelling out for a CDN or for their goofy "pagespeed service" that makes crappy pages mediocre, and actually makes well written sites behave like crap! They keep dumbing down further and further the information and card stacking it not in favor of faster sites or building faster sites, but in terms of what they can sucker someone into forking over money for.
     
    deathshadow, Aug 12, 2017 IP
  3. MrKing01

    MrKing01 Member

    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    34
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    35
    #143
    In the case that a disable person uses a mobile to browse the internet.

    Could a non-responsive website (not mobile friendly) be interpreted as going against disabled people?
     
    MrKing01, Aug 13, 2017 IP
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,383
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Best Answers:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #144
    Absolutely. Responsive layout is just the latest in a LONG line of stepping stones to accessible design. There's a reason many search engines penalize pages for that now, and I've had a few clients the past two to three years who were dragged into court over that. Most noteworthy being a multinational banking group (aka they own a bunch of banks) I'm doing work for RIGHT NOW!

    There's a bunch of stuff we've been told to do since 1998:

    Semantic markup -- so non-visual users have access. Search engines can be treated as non-visual users

    Separation of presentation from content -- so you're not wasting time sending visual layout to users who don't use it, so you can target different devices by media type, so you can easily provide different skins to different users with different needs. It also aids in graceful degradation should any of that fancy style not work, be blocked, or be unwanted by the user.

    Elastic layout -- using EM's for font-size, widths, paddings, so the layout adjusts to the user preferences not the designers whims

    Semi-fluid layout -- max width to prevent long lines from being unwieldy, min-width to prevent breakage on older browsers, but fluid between those two extremes adjusting to the available space.

    Those are the basics, we've been told for twenty damned years to do that; but artists, lazy ignorant fools, and just plain scammers make up lame excuses not to do it. The Laugh being that if you have all the above, making it responsive is a no-brainer. Not even 2k of extra CSS in an existing stylesheet.

    Responsive layout to be mobile friendly (or large screen for that matter, don't forget 4k is a thing now) is just the latest addition to this, adding to the power of media targets that separation of presentation from content provides, and enhancing what happens with semi-fluid layout when going smaller than the min-widths we used to be restricted to. It's also why making my existing sites responsive when media queries dropped wasn't even 20 minutes coding, whilst the rest of the world ran around like chickens with their heads cut off "wah wah, how do we do this?!?"

    Given that more than HALF of all web traffic is now mobile, it's no longer just about the disabled, it's about users in general.

    BUT, disabled are users too... as much as some people try to dehumanize them by discounting their value, worth, or importance. See @locals dirtbag responses on the subject -- surprised he has time to post here given all that marching he must have been doing in Virginia... given I suspect he's one of these twaddles that if he saw Stephen Hawkings on the street, he'd say "out of the way retard"

    That or I'm overly sensitive on the subject as I'm fighting a losing battle against Parkinsons, shouldn't be working, but still am because the support mechanism in place for the disabled is a joke... made all the worse by jackasses like him!

    HTML is about providing content to as many users as possible. Any normal website that fails to leverage this is --- AGAIN -- ineptly and incompetently developed.

    Though it's still one hell of a learning curve, which is why so many dive for things like Bootcrap even if it does fall apart on anything less than bleeding edge overpriced hardware. (see how not one bootcrap built website works right on my Icoo or Cubot). There are SO many targets with SO many capabilities, you simply have to design as fluid as possible adjusting to the needs of the content, instead of targeting specific devices.

    Which is where SO many people trying to go mobile friendly screw up. They'll go "Oh the galaxy S7 is this resolution, the iPhone 6 is this resolution" and try to customize to each and every single one, instead of just building for legacy desktop (what we can't target with queries), and then narrowing the browser window until it breaks, and adjusting the layout accordingly -- lather, rinse, repeat.

    All that said, you also have to know where to draw the line. At the real extremes the page should be usable, but you shouldn't bend over backwards to make it perfect. I'll often say "If IE8/earlier doesn't get rounded corners or drop shadows, OH WELL!" -- in that same way, if a device that's 256 or even 192 pixels wide has difficulty navigating the page, OH WELL. IS it USABLE? Yes or no? Whilst well written code should support the extremes, anyone in those extremes should be used to the common issues. (of hey, you're on a 2" wide screen what do you expect?)

    That's the particularly infuriating part of non-semantic markup, it crosses that line for a LOT of users from "not great, but usable" into "Ok, screw this I'll go somewhere else". The objective of building any site template or layout should be to minimize the former group as much as possible, and eliminate the latter entirely.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
    deathshadow, Aug 13, 2017 IP
  5. MrKing01

    MrKing01 Member

    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    34
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    35
    #145
    I like your inclusive attitude. It's good that at least somebody takes disabled users into account when creating websites. It's really tiresome to hear some people who ignore disabled users, as if disabled people had no value. I'm interested in creating professional websites that cater disabled users, so I wonder if you know any websites or tutorials that can guide one in this regard.
     
    MrKing01, Aug 13, 2017 IP
  6. badger_

    badger_ Greenhorn

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    10
    #146
    @MrKing01 this is a great starting point: http://www.cutcodedown.com/article/progressive_enhancement

    Check also the links in his website and https://www.nngroup.com/articles/
     
    badger_, Aug 13, 2017 IP
  7. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,383
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Best Answers:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #147
    @badger_ -- love how someone else answers by linking to my site.

    Other HIGHLY relevant articles by yours truly:

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/article/whats_wrong_with_YOUR_website_index
    ... and you can bet your sweet bippy 99%+ of off the shelf templates for systems like Wordpress have the majority of those failures due to the UTTER AND COMPLETE INCOMPETENCE of the people making templates for it, AND the fundamental flaws in how WP itself works internally!

    These jokers can't even use h1...h6 properly, but because its' "ooh shiny" people who don't know any better fall for the outright SCAMS like the whole thing were run by the same type of clowns who peddle snake oil like Amway or Mary Kay... or Jade Eggs, or the whole "Organic" foods movement... or the REAL mouth-breathers like flat-earthers.

    Though to be fair, around half the off the shelf templates have good concepts -- it's the execution of that concept that puts the herp into that there derp. Tens if not hundreds of K of HTML, tens if not hundreds of K of CSS, MEGABYTES of JavaScript, all doing the job of three to five dozen K of code COMBINED. Nothing resembling semantic markup, graceful degradation, or any of the other things HTML, CSS, and JavaScript [b\were all created to DO!!![/b] For people who know nothing about building websites BY people who know nothing about building websites is not a recipe for success, and I've seen it burn so many companies the past twenty years I wonder how in the hell these SCAMS continue to operate or that sleazebag after sleazebag actively defends it.

    But then this is 2017 and "Faith" is still a thing instead of in a museum where it belongs, so all bets are off.

    Though @locals is right on one thing, I do:
    [​IMG]

    On this subject a lot, that's because I see the same mistakes repeated over and over again, the same lame excuses used over and over to "apologize" for it, and endless media darling bullshit heaped on broken systems out of ignorance, nube predation, and echo-chamber. AGAIN, you'd almost think we were dealing with politics or religion the way the noodle doodle "I know how I feel I don't care about facts" IDIOCY gets parroted time and time again.

    The earth is not flat, all of creation wasn't made in six days, tumeric doesn't cure cancer, steaming your clam doesn't help "detox" you, cleansing detox's across the board are pseudo-science quackery, "organic" food is marketing scam bullshit, GMO's are no more dangerous than non-GMO, vaccines do prevent diseases and do not cause autism, chemtrails are not real, climate change is real, the alt-right is racist no matter how much they claim they are not, the moon landings were not faked since when they hired Kubrick to do it he insisted they film on location...

    ... and choosing an off the shelf template for ANY CMS for your BUSINESSS is at best the equivalent of thinking that late night "make money fast in real-estate" infomercials are legitimate... and the people constantly singing it's praises are web developments equivalent to David "Avacado" Wolfe or Vani "Food Babe" Hani... The mouth-breathers yumming up the bullshit they peddle like it was coming out of a soft-serve ice-cream machine, they just sell the waffle cones.

    If you believe a word they say, you either have an extreme case of gullibility mixed with ignorance, or just plain brain damage.

    Inclusive is a very good word for it, but it depends on WHO you want to include... the entire public that might want to use your site, access your content, and buy your products -- or people who shouldn't be running websites in the first place as they are unwilling to put in the WORK, or too stupid to learn how badly they're screwing themselves AND their clients.

    After all, it's called work, not happy happy fun time. If as a web developer, web designer, or site owner you aren't trying to include as many people in your "audience" as you can, YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR DAMNED JOB AND DESERVE TO FAIL!

    ... and you'll see it time and time again; what I like to call "percenters" -- we've dealt with this card stacking glittering generality lame excuse IDIOCY for decades. Oh Opera is only 3% who cares about them, Oh visually impaired is only 3% of the population who cares about them. People using anything less than the latest iPhone or Android are only 20% who cares about them. Legacy IE share is dropping below 10% who cares about them. There aren't that many people on slow connections, under bandwidth caps, or facing high latency -- it's only around 50% of all internet users worldwide -- who cares about them.

    Until in their endless stream of mind-numbingly dumbass excuses, THEY'VE EXCLUDED EVERYBODY except their magical perfect world of perfect people on perfect connections buying into their perfect manure they've dumped a can of shellac on and buffed to a high quality shine.

    THEN they have the giant set of donkey brass to call people like myself fighting for web standard and accessibility "Elitist". RIGHT.

    Pot? This is Kettle. Kettle? Pot. Here's a nice spot in the corner I'm sure you'll get along famously.

    See this rather insightful article from a few years back....
    http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200704/lame_excuses_for_not_being_a_web_professional/

    Oh, and you want a REALLY good source that will change your way of looking at things?
    http://www.harpercollins.ca/9780062358363/the-end-of-average

    This excerpt will give you an idea of what to expect from it:
    https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...ir-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html

    ... and that too is the problem with off the shelf answers like turdpress and the stock templates, stock plugins/mods/extensions and so forth. The ACTUAL truth of one size fits all is that it fits nobody.
     
    deathshadow, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:33 AM IP
  8. MbearseDev

    MbearseDev Greenhorn

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    #148
    [​IMG]

    but yes... WP if you know what you're doing is still the best but than again it depends on content too. And Ping does stink
     
    MbearseDev, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:57 PM IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,383
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Best Answers:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #149
    Anyone who knows what they are doing wouldn't use it. WP is the middle of the road solution for people who don't know what they are doing and don't care about their site. If it's best at anything, it's DUPING people who shouldn't even have a website into thinking they can slop one out easily.
     
    deathshadow, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:48 AM IP
  10. Patricia Ann Lee

    Patricia Ann Lee Active Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    95
    #150
    Indeed, wordpress is user friendly. Aside from that customization isn't that hard especially for beginners. That's why I think most of the people on the internet is considering wordpress.
     
    Patricia Ann Lee, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:19 AM IP