|
Post by Monolith on Aug 9, 2005 2:53:51 GMT -5
Will someone ban this dolt?
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Aug 9, 2005 3:49:48 GMT -5
Websites exist for the presentation of information, oppinions, and entertainment to its visitors. If you put something on an open website, you obviously intend for it to be viewed. If you wish for your site to be viewed, it must be in an attractive and accessible format, content be damned, on a website, unless you are facing a dedicated hunter of information, it is the appearance and style that are the predominant factors. An oppinion website like you have is an invitation for people to come and see what you have to say. People are not obligated to come to your website, nor to stay long if they do, the burden lies on your part to get people to come and stay and read. It is quite similar to a storefront, you must first entice people inside if you wish them to buy anything you say. If your store boasts a dimly lit entry-way, and leads into a barren warehouse, where all your goods are stacked in bins, they might not feel the need to stay and read your marvelous treatises on why we should STFU, or why we are all 'vaginas'. Obviously you guys don't realise there's more than design. I'm talking about the actual content, the articles, my writing. But oh, right. Throw that puppies and kittens away. All you care is if there's some cool donkey animation onthe homepage which gives people seizures and takes forever to load. If people graded your website purely based on its layout rather than the content inside, this was mostly out of compassion and kindness. These were friendly reviews of not nearly such a website, with the intent to assist you in improving it. There were no hostile intentions until you yourself broached the issue, and these were dealt with as even-handedly as could be managed. I am intruiged to hear that your website has gained some popularity of its own, and I believe that any further comments on this page should be in reference to the review of the website as originally called for, and as you requested, some commentary on the exquisite literary works contained within. With respects to the issue of banning, I might call such a move hasty and excessive, for can we ever truly measure and weigh what contributions he has made to this community? He has toiled in making a website for our enjoyment and edification, and would be reasonably expected to defend it in a rational and even-handed manner. Lest we delve too deeply into hazy moral grounds, I say we take a minute to deal with him in fairness, let us treat him with the same great respect that he shows us all. Since many of the regretable posts here were in fact made by guests, who very well might not have been who they say they were, we should look into the matter of this unknown slanderer with concern. Far from place a ban on Andrew for these unregistered ignobilities, if any banning is to be done,we should ban the IP of this troublemaker, and clear Andrew of any dishonor. We appreciate you Andrew, and your kind insights.
|
|
|
Post by guesswho on Aug 9, 2005 5:07:27 GMT -5
What the fuck does his design have anything to do with his writing?!?!
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Aug 9, 2005 5:53:16 GMT -5
Nick and david have very good points(even if they contradict) and this is amusing, nothing ever happens on the forum...btw, i didn't enjoy the articles...sorry
|
|
|
Website
Aug 9, 2005 14:04:41 GMT -5
Post by Monolith on Aug 9, 2005 14:04:41 GMT -5
I agree with what you said about layout. If it's identical from 1997, then it's about 8 1/2 years old. It's outdated. We're not asking you to add a ton of bells and whistles, just make links that don't use size 30 font. You have to scroll too much. With respects to the issue of banning, I might call such a move hasty and excessive, for can we ever truly measure and weigh what contributions he has made to this community? He has toiled in making a website for our enjoyment and edification, and would be reasonably expected to defend it in a rational and even-handed manner. Lest we delve too deeply into hazy moral grounds, I say we take a minute to deal with him in fairness, let us treat him with the same great respect that he shows us all. Since many of the regretable posts here were in fact made by guests, who very well might not have been who they say they were, we should look into the matter of this unknown slanderer with concern. Far from place a ban on Andrew for these unregistered ignobilities, if any banning is to be done,we should ban the IP of this troublemaker, and clear Andrew of any dishonor. We appreciate you Andrew, and your kind insights. This I can't agree with. Most of this thread was simply a blatant attempt at trolling. He asks for a critique of his website, then bashes people when they give one. If he hadn't asked, then it would be justified, but he did and so he is at our mercy. As for the IP banning, well of course. He never logs on anyway. If you really want me to critique the content of your website, well, here it is. Most of the stuff up there is just a bunch of whining. You just give the impression that your angry at the world for not agreeing wholeheartedly with everything you say. A lot of it is just a bunch of shallow ranting. Not only that, but you lace everything with swearing, seemingly just to proclaim that you can. Well, congradulations, you're a dowsized, downgraded version of your idol, Madox, who by the way has little or nothing going for him.
|
|
|
Website
Aug 9, 2005 18:55:59 GMT -5
Post by Random on Aug 9, 2005 18:55:59 GMT -5
I encourage critisizement of any sort, on the forums or elsewhere. Any "omg u r a f*g" comments will be replied with a punch in the face and a kick in the testicles/ovaries. 2. there's nothing wrong with the design, it's easy to navigate and it's easy to read. I dont want to spend my time reading tiny little "cool" fonts or using a magnifying glass to find icon links. i'll make my design comfortable. If you can easily see it's a link, good. I dont want to make it brighter. Seperate links for each section makes me click more. I want to just scroll down and see the articles. I dont want to have to find puppies and kittens. So no more bitching about the design. PS: I ment the above post in the most rude way possible, because I can't use profanity . PPS: I'm angry PPPS: No really, I'm angry. As silly as this may seem. once again, f**k what people want. I'll do what I believe what's most comfortable let us treat him with the same great respect that he shows us all. Treat him with the same 'great' respect the he shows us all? From what I've read, that would involve giving him the finger and kneeing him in the groin at this point.
|
|
|
Website
Aug 9, 2005 22:42:08 GMT -5
Post by Arachis on Aug 9, 2005 22:42:08 GMT -5
First of all, Im hiring David as my speech writer if I ever get elected to some political office. Second of all, I admire david's policy. First of all, because of the guest like nature of andrew, it would be unfair to ban the username or the ip of the username from the forum. It could be that its not actually andrew (at least not all of the time). Second of all, hasty deleting of someones account just because they troll a little is not very wise. This forum hasnt been active and arguments like the one that andrew causes are fun reasons to come back to the forum. In my opinion, some of whats going on in this board is more funny than the links posted in the humour board. Also political debates (like what this is turning into) draw people to come back to the forum creating increased activity.
Another Long and Boring Essay by Yours Truly[/size] As far as andrews actual site layout and content go, I would have to agree with most of the other members here in most cases. The content itself is hardly witty or entertaining, and the fact that it has attracted attention is mostly probably because it is so ridiculous. Because so many comparisons have been made to Maddox's website I will explain the success in his site and the lack of success in Andrews.
Profanity The excessive use of profanity is not necessary and doesnt really make any point either. The level at which it is taken is simply childish and immature. Maddox also overuses profanity but does so when it makes sense and in proper grammatical context. This prevents it from seeming like an immature attempt to make up for a lack of knowledge on structuring and using the english language but instead only make his rhetoric more obviously sarcastic and outrageous.
Content The actual content of Andrews site seems to also reflect an attempt at imitating maddox, but again is not up to par. However, this is natural considering that maddox has had years to work on his website and content, and to hone his opinions while andrew is only just beginning. Yet, while maddox is successful, mostly because he is able to formulate his opinions and successfully appeal to a mainstream audience fazed by popular culture, Andrew is unable to very well explain his own thoughts, and express his opinions in a sensible logical fashion. While the passionate outburst with which the post was written might be real, it still needs revision and logic before it can really be considered finished and worth posting.
Design The Design of Andrews site is by far the best thing andrew has going for him. While in a lot of ways it imitates maddox, there is not much wrong with maddox's site either. Although it is layed out to force a lot of scrolling, if such is the effect he wants to achieve so be it. The large font makes for easier reading, which prevents (to some degree) active viewers from needing glasses On some level I actually prefer that layout to some other "more effective" websites. Even the contents layout itself is actually quite well thought through, and some is done creatively and originally. Overall the design is the only successful part of the website (though even this could use some small tweaks).
Overall, Andrews success is mostly in the design department (which is further evidenced by his previous layout which in my opinion was quite good). The content is interesting but definately could use improvement. However, the imitation of maddox, while a good starting block, will ultimately end up becoming stale. I would advise that you find your own style, and synchronizing both your content and layout together. imitation will never match up to the original, and you will only be called a fraud for doing so.
|
|
|
Website
Aug 9, 2005 22:55:42 GMT -5
Post by Monolith on Aug 9, 2005 22:55:42 GMT -5
About the IP banning, the IP is displayed/recorded each time you post, so banning the IP of the person who posted would eliminate the guest user and, in the extremely miniscule chance that it isn't actually Andrew, would not harm him. It certainly can't hurt.
As for the layout, it isn't just the excessively large text, the necessary scrolling, or the generally boring colors that really ruin it, it's the inconsistency of the whole thing. The text size often changes from page to page, the background sometimes switches to white, and nothing stays in the same place. Not only that, but the pictures are terrible and of an inconsistent style. Stick figures can only hurt a site. Sure I can navigate and read it, but it isn't an enjoyable process.
|
|
|
Website
Aug 10, 2005 4:32:27 GMT -5
Post by Hans Lemurson on Aug 10, 2005 4:32:27 GMT -5
First of all, Im hiring David as my speech writer if I ever get elected to some political office. Yes, somebody recognized that I wrote that all in double-speak... It was not meant to be taken literally. No policies I declared did I truly mean to be executed, the art lies in what happens justafter you have read the words you disagree with. I do not support banning of Andrew of any kind, and I do know that he was the guest poster. Any objection on his part to the IP banning of the "guest" would entail a full admission of responsibility for those posts and what they contained, and force him one step farther into the moral nether-realms without doing any harm. It was also a not-so-subtle suggestion that he actually bother to log in. If you ever read anything of mine where the ideas go askew and the language turns "diplomatic", think twice about what I really mean.
|
|
|
Website
Aug 10, 2005 12:15:58 GMT -5
Post by Arachis on Aug 10, 2005 12:15:58 GMT -5
only thats spoiled now.
|
|
|
Website
Oct 7, 2005 10:20:51 GMT -5
Post by meow on Oct 7, 2005 10:20:51 GMT -5
Maddox maddox maddox. He and I just both like basic easy to use designs.
"Ripping off maddox"
Yeah well, Iraq is ripping us off, with like, governmental documents 'n' stuff. And we're ripping off England, with thier documents.
How can you "rip off" something so general? He wasn't the FIRST person to do it mind you. If I knew how to make web pages in 1997 I'd of done the same. Just no excuses.
|
|
|
Website
Oct 7, 2005 17:17:28 GMT -5
Post by dietspam16 on Oct 7, 2005 17:17:28 GMT -5
didn't we already decide it was unpleasent to use, not easy?
|
|
Max
Member
Eat rocket, dirty pic stealer
Posts: 177
|
Post by Max on Oct 8, 2005 2:28:59 GMT -5
no, on design, im with andrew, simple website = short load times
and guys, give him a break, why did you all jump at his throat it seems like
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Oct 8, 2005 2:41:42 GMT -5
War time!
|
|
|
Website
Oct 8, 2005 10:35:50 GMT -5
Post by Arachis on Oct 8, 2005 10:35:50 GMT -5
actually some people jumped at his throat. David and I presented both cons and pros to his website and constuctively criticized it. Yet Andrew still took offence at our diplomatically written reviews.
|
|