Review my site please.
 

Version 4 of 1stwr Porn Search Directory. Let me here from the critics.

http://www.1stwr.com/pmembers-1/

ugly as fuck

So nice :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

truth hurts :winkwink:

Don't quit your day job.

Unfortunately, what he said. And the layout is totally fucked in FireFox. :2 cents:

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.

riveting! off of your seat suspense!

colors dont stand out to much imo. light pink against white... i get lost on the page and dont know wehre to put my focus at

errrr......

The domain is not really good. You can't brand that domain. Decent layout, you need content.

Add a PPV link at the top!

AEBN Baby!

http://www.aebn.net/index.cfm?refid=AEBN005279

The domain is not so good i think.....can't understand it......

I quit my day job more than twenty years ago.

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

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.

http://www.1stwr.com/pmembers-1/freetheaters/index.htm

yeah, that's true... LOL

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.

:upsidedow

well let me show you this:
this is my entire network of sites % over the last 12 months

MSIE Core 87.89%
Mozilla/Gecko Core 10.95%

then you have next to nothing for traffic...:2 cents:

Lawds Mercy you are on fire today :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

someone shit in my cornflakes this morning and pissed in my koolaid :(

What happens when you let Mech spend the night :Oh crap :upsidedow :1orglaugh

It's not not ugly..

He told me to do it :(

That's no excuse to ignore them...specially when that "miniscule" number is increasing by millions each year. :2 cents:

And actually 31% is definitely not a miniscule number.
Stats here.

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. :)

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.

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.

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 like it. Nice layout. what program did you use to create it?

I dont think it's really porn friendly to me... you should add more sex appeal to your site

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.

put the search box on the 1st page!

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.

Thanks for the input.

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.

this month.. :2 cents:

MS Internet Explorer 61 %
Firefox 30.9 %

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.