OT: Why Web Pages Get Sh*tty to Read

Once you get past the totally unnecessary _u_ in
http://www.colourlovers.com/ it's actually a pretty cool site
for
ideas.
Damn brits!

D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be_at_seen.com
wibbled on Monday 08 March 2010 20:55

Another thing I hate is the opening page with a "Click here to enter
site" button.
Yeah, what gives with that? I always assumed there was a "catch"
(else why something as silly as this). E.g., like the bogus
"You are thet 1,000,000th visitor" -type things (i.e. *needing*
you to actively click on something -- presumably because the
HTML/Java couldn't "do it" without your consent?)

[sorry, I don't build web sites so am clueless as to the "why"]

No, it's because web deigning attracts rather more dickheads than any other
computer related craft for some reason...

mpm wrote:

Once you get past the totally unnecessary _u_ in
http://www.colourlovers.com/ it's actually a pretty cool site for
ideas.
Damn brits! :)

Come on. If you want to go into the peculiarities of English spelling, why
use a c when you have a k for colour/color and com?

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:19:42 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress_at_comic.com
wrote:

In article <hn13h9$irf$1_at_speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be_at_seen.com
says...

D from BC wrote:
Ever wonder why some web pages are written on the quirky side, seem
superficial or raise the question 'I'm reading but not getting anything
from this sh*t.'

[snip]

Web pages are getting like this...
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah...USEFUL CONTENT..blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah

And this is *news*?? :

It might be to some.


I think you have to lump web sites into two loose categories:
commercial and non-commercial. The latter can be subdivided into
"fluff" (e.g., "How I spent my summer vacation") and informative.

The latter *tend* to be the ones I look for. The commercial
sites are easy for me to spot -- lots of graphic content -- and
largely ineffective for me (I browse with pictures, flash, etc.
disabled). Too bad search engines don't *really* act in the
user's best interest and *score* the site! (commercial, etc.)

I like to navigate commercial web sites by looking at graphics because
the English is too watered down by SEO. iows... I try not to read. The
reading value is made deficient by redundancy and tautology used to
increase ranking. Pictures become more effective to me when the English
is made less effective by SEO.
'A picture is worth a thousand words.'
My spin on that is..
'A picture is worth a million words when SEO is applied.'

Check out www.rasushi.com

Anyone that puts red text on black should be pick-em-up-hauled

...Jim Thompson

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:34:57 +0530, pimpom wrote:
mpm wrote:

Once you get past the totally unnecessary _u_ in
http://www.colourlovers.com/it's actually a pretty cool site for
ideas.
Damn brits!  :)

Come on. If you want to go into the peculiarities of English spelling, why
use a c when you have a k for colour/color and com?
:-)

Why not?

C, Q, and X are really redundant letters.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
                                             (Stephen Leacock)

Ever wonder why some web pages are written on the quirky side, seem
superficial or raise the question 'I'm reading but not getting anything
from this sh*t.'
It's not due to a crappy writer making the website. It's someone writing
with use of SEO (search engine optimization) to make the website rank
high.

The writing on the web site is bloated with keywords, word stemming
(potting, pots, potter,pottery,potted), ridiculous use of synonyms,
tautology is used(method to bloat with keywords), deliberate wordiness
(method to bloat with keywords) and use of alternate sentence structure
(ex. Pottery in Amazon is amazing. Amazon's pottery is amazing. The 1st
one can rank better.)

And that's why most web pages are shitty to read.
Web pages are designed to be ranked, not to be read.
Google's ranker(Not AI yet.) is now responsible for causing a decline in
the efficient readiblity on web pages.

Web pages are getting like this...
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah...USEFUL CONTENT..blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:19:42 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress_at_comic.com
wrote:

In article <hn13h9$irf$1_at_speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be_at_seen.com
says...

D from BC wrote:
Ever wonder why some web pages are written on the quirky side, seem
superficial or raise the question 'I'm reading but not getting anything
from this sh*t.'

[snip]

Web pages are getting like this...
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah...USEFUL CONTENT..blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah

And this is *news*?? :

It might be to some.


I think you have to lump web sites into two loose categories:
commercial and non-commercial. The latter can be subdivided into
"fluff" (e.g., "How I spent my summer vacation") and informative.

The latter *tend* to be the ones I look for. The commercial
sites are easy for me to spot -- lots of graphic content -- and
largely ineffective for me (I browse with pictures, flash, etc.
disabled). Too bad search engines don't *really* act in the
user's best interest and *score* the site! (commercial, etc.)

I like to navigate commercial web sites by looking at graphics because
the English is too watered down by SEO. iows... I try not to read. The
reading value is made deficient by redundancy and tautology used to
increase ranking. Pictures become more effective to me when the English
is made less effective by SEO.
'A picture is worth a thousand words.'
My spin on that is..
'A picture is worth a million words when SEO is applied.'

Check out www.rasushi.com

Anyone that puts red text on black should be pick-em-up-hauled

...Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:19:42 -0800, D from BC <myrealaddress_at_comic.com
wrote:

In article <hn13h9$irf$1_at_speranza.aioe.org>, not.going.to.be_at_seen.com
says...
D from BC wrote:
Ever wonder why some web pages are written on the quirky side, seem
superficial or raise the question 'I'm reading but not getting anything
from this sh*t.'
[snip]

Web pages are getting like this...
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah...USEFUL CONTENT..blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
And this is *news*?? :
It might be to some.

I think you have to lump web sites into two loose categories:
commercial and non-commercial. The latter can be subdivided into
"fluff" (e.g., "How I spent my summer vacation") and informative.

The latter *tend* to be the ones I look for. The commercial
sites are easy for me to spot -- lots of graphic content -- and
largely ineffective for me (I browse with pictures, flash, etc.
disabled). Too bad search engines don't *really* act in the
user's best interest and *score* the site! (commercial, etc.)
I like to navigate commercial web sites by looking at graphics because
the English is too watered down by SEO. iows... I try not to read. The
reading value is made deficient by redundancy and tautology used to
increase ranking. Pictures become more effective to me when the English
is made less effective by SEO.
'A picture is worth a thousand words.'
My spin on that is..
'A picture is worth a million words when SEO is applied.'

Check out www.rasushi.com

Anyone that puts red text on black should be pick-em-up-hauled ;-)

I think blue on orange is the deal breaker (if I have
remembered that correctly). Your eyes focus on the
two colors at different depths so the image "vibrates".

Fred Abse <excretatauris_at_invalid.invalid
wibbled on Monday 08 March 2010 09:44

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:08:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Check out www.rasushi.com

All I get is "Click here to download plugin"

Goddamn Flash.

I hope the food is better than the website :-)


Anyone who does a whole "website" in flash is missing the point and should
be hung, drawn and quartered by Tim Berners-Lee and the parts displayed as a
warning to others.

In article <eYaln.1990$UU2.155102_at_news.siol.net>, DontNeedSpam_at_test.com
says...

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:b89ap51ii5086srnhea9vtq6vvviumhkst_at_4ax.com...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:44:33 -0800, Fred Abse
excretatauris_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:08:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Check out www.rasushi.com

All I get is "Click here to download plugin"

Goddamn Flash.

I hope the food is better than the website :-)

Fabulous.

I was looking at the website for the first time, because I wanted
take-out... the wife is immobile at the moment due to her nasty fall
:-(

There's no way to order take-out on the page :-(

So I went in, ordered take-out, and gave 'em hell for no such
provision on the website AND the red-on-black text :-)

...Jim Thompson

Website music, a BIG nono.

M

My favorite music got messed up by the website music.
Website music is rude.
Perhaps call it 'audio rape'.

Hi Richard,

Richard Henry wrote:
Another thing I hate is the opening page with a "Click here to enter
site" button.

Yeah, what gives with that? I always assumed there was a "catch"
(else why something as silly as this). E.g., like the bogus
"You are thet 1,000,000th visitor" -type things (i.e. *needing*
you to actively click on something -- presumably because the
HTML/Java couldn't "do it" without your consent?)

[sorry, I don't build web sites so am clueless as to the "why"]

Money talks.