Thanks for your input but be advised there are many succesful sites on the net that meet this criteria. Apparently sufers are more interesed in navigation and content than they are appearce. In addition, eye of the beholder.
Thanks for your input. Fortunately only a miniscule number of people use FireFox.
I found a site that says there is 945 million people online worldwide. Well, Firefox has 10-15% of that 945million.... if you call 94.5 MILLION surfers minuscule you're a total dumbass
Thanks for your input. Fortunately only a miniscule number of people use FireFox.
Did you get those stats from 2001?
Honestly the site is not very good. You mentionned crappy sites often make money. Well the crappy sites are just that, crappy. Seems like your site is trying to not be crappy, but without the experience of a good designer.\
That's all, I mean what is my opinion worth, I'm only a designer.
The domain name is short for 1st Webmaster Resources. I am currently working on the Webmaster Resources. I made the surfer portion first and it is still a work in progress. I have a PPV link that will use a plugin eventually. The Daily Theaters link uses AEBN.
I found a site that says there is 945 million people online worldwide. Well, Firefox has 10-15% of that 945million.... if you call 94.5 MILLION surfers minuscule you're a total dumbass
I use AWStats for my sites and I cannot recall ever seeing FireFox, that is why I said the number of people using FireFox is miniscule. When enough surfers show up that are using FireFox I may make adjustments. My stats show that Exporer is the #1 browser with Netscape being #2. Thanks for the information anyhow.
I found a site that says there is 945 million people online worldwide. Well, Firefox has 10-15% of that 945million.... if you call 94.5 MILLION surfers minuscule you're a total dumbass
I use AWStats for my sites and I cannot recall ever seeing FireFox, that is why I said the number of people using FireFox is miniscule. When enough surfers show up that are using FireFox I may make adjustments. My stats show that Exporer is the #1 browser with Netscape being #2. Thanks for the information anyhow.
It seems you're taking our criticism the wrong way. You should respect it rather than be offended. Why would you even ask us to review your site if you're just gonna get offended at what we say? You know the crowd here, and you asked anyways. You should have been ready for it.
That's no excuse to ignore them...specially when that "miniscule" number is increasing by millions each year.
As I stated previously stated if FireFox begins to show on my stats in any significant numbers it will not be ignored by me, but at this point it has not.
It seems you're taking our criticism the wrong way. You should respect it rather than be offended. Why would you even ask us to review your site if you're just gonna get offended at what we say? You know the crowd here, and you asked anyways. You should have been ready for it.
There has only been two points of criticism offered thus far. The site is ugly and it does not display well in FireFox. I do not take offense to either point. I don't agree with the first point as ugly is only in the eye of the beholder and since I do not have FireFox installed I can only accept the other at face value.
If these two points of criticism is all that is offered that would indicate to me that the site is good to go.
As I stated previously stated if FireFox begins to show on my stats in any significant numbers it will not be ignored by me, but at this point it has not.
Either you don't know how to read your stats, or your only visitor is yourself, using IE. On my most recent site launched only a month ago, 21.28% of my visitors are using Firefox. Two older sites show respectively 26% and 35% for all of 2006.
Regardless, your site looks awful in either browser. The overlapping shadows look horrible. The bevels and gradients are equally horrible. Move on to version 5.
There has only been two points of criticism offered thus far. The site is ugly and it does not display well in FireFox. I do not take offense to either point. I don't agree with the first point as ugly is only in the eye of the beholder and since I do not have FireFox installed I can only accept the other at face value.
If these two points of criticism is all that is offered that would indicate to me that the site is good to go.
If the majority here think your site is ugly, that doesn't tell you something?
Further criticism... the site is too cluttered and not very functional. I have to click at least one link and then type a term before I get some semblance of content. The multiple indexes also decreases functionality. Searches are slow to return results. And many searches return irrelevant and otherwise useless results.
A basic search for "big tits" in images took me over a minute before I found something remotely enticing. The first two results were the same and led to a 404 page (in fact, it actually linked to the site's 404 page). If I was a surfer, I would of lost my interest a lot early and checked out a TGP instead.
Either you don't know how to read your stats, or your only visitor is yourself, using IE. On my most recent site launched only a month ago, 21.28% of my visitors are using Firefox. Two older sites show respectively 26% and 35% for all of 2006.
Regardless, your site looks awful in either browser. The overlapping shadows look horrible. The bevels and gradients are equally horrible. Move on to version 5.
I usually do not pay that much attention to the Browsers being used when I check my stats, and I do not recall even seeing FireFox, but because checking the Browsers being used has not been high on my list of priorities it just may not have registered. From this point on I will keep a closer watch on the Browsers being used.
As for the appearance of the site, I have decided to keep it as is until and unless I decide that it is a liability. I have consider making it a grahics free site to save on bandwidth usage, so if I make a change in the appearance it will be to remove grpahics.
If the majority here think your site is ugly, that doesn't tell you something?
Further criticism... the site is too cluttered and not very functional. I have to click at least one link and then type a term before I get some semblance of content. The multiple indexes also decreases functionality. Searches are slow to return results. And many searches return irrelevant and otherwise useless results.
A basic search for "big tits" in images took me over a minute before I found something remotely enticing. The first two results were the same and led to a 404 page (in fact, it actually linked to the site's 404 page). If I was a surfer, I would of lost my interest a lot early and checked out a TGP instead.
Search times for me are normally a few seconds, maximum being about ten seconds. Because there are more than 800,000 galleries there will always be some that go 404, that is why I have a feature to report problem links, and in addition I rebuild the data bases once per month to help keep 404's down.
If I get very many complaints about search speed I will reduce the size of the data bases which will increase the speed of the searches.
Search times for me are normally a few seconds, maximum being about ten seconds. Because there are more than 800,000 galleries there will always be some that go 404, that is why I have a feature to report problem links, and in addition I rebuild the data bases once per month to help keep 404's down.
If I get very many complaints about search speed I will reduce the size of the data bases which will increase the speed of the searches.
Thanks for the critique.
The results in question link directly to the site's 404 page. In other words, they don't link to a page that can't be found.
Anyways, your site sucks donkey balls. Good luck with it.
And in the future, don't ask for criticisms if you won't pay them any heed.
The results in question link directly to the site's 404 page. In other words, they don't link to a page that can't be found.
Anyways, your site sucks donkey balls. Good luck with it.
And in the future, don't ask for criticisms if you won't pay them any heed.
There are a couple of posts in this thread that liked the site. I have received a few e-mails from surfers that stated they liked the site. Remember, the eye of the beholder.
Working with more than 800,000 links there are bound to be some that are fucked up. That is why I have the report a problem link feature. BTW I guess you didn't go to the trouble to make a report as I have not received an email about a problem link today.
I appreciate your and others crticisms and it is food for thought, but I am the "decider" on what changes I will "heed".
BTW, I just checked my stats and the stats have an unknown Browser feature that registers a percentage so maybe my stats do not recognize FireFox which would explain why I have never noticed it before.
Last edited by Sexxxy Sites; 02-02-2007, 06:54 PM.
Comment