Most Disorganized Website

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-03-03 12:39am

I really enjoy Jackie Martling's humor, but holy fuck, is this the worst fucking trainwreck of a website you've ever seen? :

http://www.jokeland.com/

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-03-03 12:41am

Yeech! That is horrid.
But I stumbled across a fundie site even worse (I think I posted it here a while back...)
So much damn clutter, and half the links didn't work.
Plus, so much fundie-ism...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-03 12:45am

The sites live up to its name by being a joke.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-03-03 12:45am

Glaaaahhh..... can't see through the mist....

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2003-03-03 12:47am

Not really. I had chance to help someone out with a website once, and his first try was something that was a little worse than this website. He was quite proud of himself for using so many colors, so many special fonts and a lot of flashy graphics. Luckily, after me and a few of my friends pointed out that the website was more of an eyesore than anything else, he decided to go for a simpler and less eye straining design.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-03 01:02am

That's a pretty lousy site layout, but I've seen worse. Frankly, if it's well organized but the background is so loud that you can't read the text, that's just as bad, and I see a whole lot more of that than I do shit layout.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2003-03-03 01:03am

Ick...

A phrase ALL webdesigners (and anyone fucking around with HTML and a website) should keep in mind for the main page: "Keep It Simple Stupid!"

That is awful.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-03-03 01:07am

My earliest website experiments were a joke. Ugly background, Javascript toys...oy.

Still not as bad as my cousin's site.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-03-03 01:24am

Dalton wrote:My earliest website experiments were a joke. Ugly background, Javascript toys...oy.

Still not as bad as my cousin's site.

Can you give us a link so that we may all point and laugh?

[nelson] HA HA![/nelson]

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-03 01:35am

Dalton wrote:My earliest website experiments were a joke. Ugly background, Javascript toys...oy.

Still not as bad as my cousin's site.

You forgot to tell the charset:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.daltonator.net

After you fix that, it should complain about missing doctype, so put that in too.

Boy I love nitpicking.

Also you don't need // in front of --> in the style information, that's only for scripts. In any case, if in the future you want to convert to XHTML, use external or inline style (is this still allowed?) sheets, since  style comments are illegal and <![CDATA[ insert stuff here ]]> is not backwards compatible. Also, you need to change the > in the img and br tags to />.

Otherwise it's ok. When IE supports :hover over arbitrary elements, you can also ditch the javascript making the triangles glow (I don't know JS, learning though). Mozilla supports that though, but most people don't use it.

Keep in mind that this is only the front page. I haven't bothered looking at the code and validating the others.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-03 01:37am

That site is pretty bad.

This sight is almost as bad. Check out the pictures of the tug boat hitting the bridge.

http://www.cargolaw.com/2002nightmare_towboat.html

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-03-03 01:40am

Double post!
*poke!*

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2003-03-03 01:43am

check this site out
http://www.dieoff.org/

its bad

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-03-03 01:45am

Well, Pu, see, I don't really care. It would take forever to make my pages "proper," which would probably just become obsolete once newer standards come out, so I don't see the point in wasting my time at the moment...also, I think XHTML is fucking pointless, so I generally don't bother with that either.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-03 02:00am

Mr. B wrote:check this site out
http://www.dieoff.org/

its bad

Shit, thats pretty bad too. That site gets a "F".

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-03 02:33am

Dalton wrote:Well, Pu, see, I don't really care. It would take forever to make my pages "proper," which would probably just become obsolete once newer standards come out, so I don't see the point in wasting my time at the moment...also, I think XHTML is fucking pointless, so I generally don't bother with that either.

Not really, since your site is pretty much compliant with HTML 4.01 Transitional. Just add this to the very top:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

and this inside your <head></head>:

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

The problem is that may be some errors I overlooked, and Mozilla and other browsers are more strict if you put the doctype in. Insert it anyways and validate it. Or I'll do it for you sometime, since I practice with HTML and I don't have anything interesting to put on a page. Not this week since I have a project due.

And yes, XHTML is really useless for most purposes. I'm just a little too excited after reading the technical recommendations, and obsessed with 100% standards compliance.

HTML 4.01 is the last version of regular HTML though, so keep that in mind if they start adding more functionality to XHTML, and have to rewrite your pages... then again that would be pretty sad if your page stayed the same 5 years from now, so the point is moot. Besides most people probably won't need that "extra functionality."

You see, I'm a person with useless ideas with too much time to waste. Need to focus more on schoolwork.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-03 02:43am

Internet Exploder has shit support for XHTML though, so converting right now is not a good idea, though making the pages ready to change would be nice. Again, I'll do it sometime next week.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-03-03 02:44am

I hear ya Pu. I'll try your suggestions on my front page for now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-03 03:00am

Lord Poe wrote:I really enjoy Jackie Martling's humor, but holy fuck, is this the worst fucking trainwreck of a website you've ever seen? :

http://www.jokeland.com/

It has the same kind of garish layout you tend to find in porn sites. Perhaps that's where he got his site design ideas.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-03 03:13am

Not too bad except for:

Use of deprecated features like valign, non-use of stylesheets, using tables for alignment (use stylesheets), forgeting the things I suggested to Dalton (doctype, meta, poor contrast, use of frames (frames are nearly always bad- I hate them), awful color scheme, overuse of animated GIFs, no alt text, no title attribute for images, inconsistant capitalization for attributes and tags (still ok, but in XHTML, it all has to be lowercase, though in this case doesn't matter), and probably more.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-03 03:15am

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:I really enjoy Jackie Martling's humor, but holy fuck, is this the worst fucking trainwreck of a website you've ever seen? :

http://www.jokeland.com/
It has the same kind of garish layout you tend to find in porn sites. Perhaps that's where he got his site design ideas.

Even porn sites have better layout.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-03-03 03:20am

Pu-239 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:I really enjoy Jackie Martling's humor, but holy fuck, is this the worst fucking trainwreck of a website you've ever seen? :

http://www.jokeland.com/
It has the same kind of garish layout you tend to find in porn sites. Perhaps that's where he got his site design ideas.
Even porn sites have better layout.

Most porn sites I've seen are actually well organized.

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2003-03-03 03:47am

Well, this one http://www.cargolaw.com/2002nightmare_towboat.html can't be too bad as I've spent the last 90 minutes rummaging thru the disaster records, some of those are pretty interesting.

The Great Unbearded One · Post by **The Great Unbearded One** » 2003-03-03 08:31am

That is rather bad...

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-03 05:21pm

That's almost as bad as that "word of god" site posted on the SLAM forums twice. Both of them use at least 20 different colors, have almost all the content on one page, without using anything like a table of contents, use several different font sizes, have a background that doesn't match the text, and has random links and articles crammed everywhere.

I'd say the word of god site was worse because it also had dozens of random pictures, and a MIDI playing.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Most Disorganized Website

Most Disorganized Website

Re: Most Disorganized Website

Re: Most Disorganized Website

Re: Most Disorganized Website