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.

Please review my website – neoserver.site

Discussion in 'Websites' started by AlexE87, Jul 18, 2018.

  1. #1
    Can you share your feedback about my site? Please, help make it better. To make it better?
    AlexE87, Jul 18, 2018 IP
  2. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Illustrious Member Affiliate Manager

    Likes Received:
    Best Answers:
    Trophy Points:
    Very cool. I like the slider. Helps to quickly choose the right package. However I don't like when the pricing looks like this: $41.5, $47.2, $83.6 etc. Looks European. Should it be more like: $41.75 or $41.99 or 46.95 or 47.00 or 83.75 or 84.00 etc.?

    While viewing it vertically on my cell phone I noticed that the two boxes under Server Location do not fill the space like the boxes above them. Something makes them shrink into small squares. Also, while viewing it vertically on my ipad mini the site stretched beyond the screen size. You can probably fix that with @media queries.

    I think the main issue is your site is not fluid. You need to make sure it shows well on all devices (in both vertical and horizontal positions).
    qwikad.com, Jul 18, 2018 IP
  3. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Likes Received:
    Best Answers:
    Trophy Points:
    Overall the layout is clean and only ticks off a handful of accessibility failings I typically check for -- the use of px metric fonts and pixel based layout concepts flips the bird at users using non-standard metrics, unable to zoom on mobile, and the design is not properly responsive.

    It did seem to take longer to load than such a simple layout should. ... and I mean simple in a good way!. The 230k of CSS spanning 13 files on a site that likely has zero legitimate reason to have more than 48k of CSS in one file alongside the 560k of JavasCript spanning 12 files a likely contributor to that. The total image count is a bit of a wonk too since there's 45 separate images in use when the page itself seems to only have a half dozen images I'd even be treating as content.

    Eliminating inefficient CSS coding, JavaScript that adds nothing to the user experience, JavaScript that's doing HTML and CSS' job, and image recombination techniques like the so-called "sliding doors" or "fonts as images" would/should go a long ways towards fixing many of the site's apparent load time issues.

    Since a home page with 2.23k of plaintext and mostly presentational non-content images (aka almost none of your images even belong in IMG tags) REALLY shouldn't be chewing up almost a megabyte spanning 19 files in code!

    Hence that bloated nonsensical 132k of HTML doing what should probably be around 8 to 12k of markup's job!

    Popping the bonnet to look at said markup, it's the typical train wreck I've come to expect from people who use bootcrap... lands sake you've got almost 50k of HTML before the bloody <body> tag is even opened?!? Ouch. Static scripting in the markup, static style in the markup, dynamic loading of style instead of letting HTML/CSS do their job, endless pointless DIV for nothing, endless pointless classes for nothing, gibberish to nonexistent semantics, JavaScript doing CSS' job, <style> tag inside <body> where it is completely invalid, incomplete/broken forms, "for" attributes pointing at ID's that don't even exist, tables for layout, oddball span groupings doing table's job, broken heading orders resulting in gibberish document structure (hence the broken keyboard/alternative navigation), X-UA nonsense, garbage viewport meta breaking mobile zoom for many android users (a bootcrap hallmark), overstuffed keywords meta, multiple pointless meta, no media targets or media="all" (same thing really), broken favicon include... laundry list of how NOT to build a website from a coding perspective.

    The code has SERIOUS problems, with over 90%+ of it belonging in the trash. To be frank, you've been suckered by the SCAM that is bootcrap and the outmoded HTML 3.2 style methodologies it and the mouth-breathers singing its praises promote.

    Shame because your overall site and layout concept is sound. It's the implementation that's a problem. You'd almost think it had Drupal under the hood...

    deathshadow, Jul 21, 2018 IP
  4. scurvy

    scurvy Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Best Answers:
    Trophy Points:
    Needs a better logo.
    scurvy, Jul 24, 2018 IP