Fast Ferry Rochester Toronto BBS & Chat

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 03:10:20 GMT, (RocPic.Com)
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:54:28 GMT, "Andy Bryce"
wrote:


"Dave Hitt" wrote in message
...
I disagree. Yes, people will put up with a lot of ugly if the content
is amazingly good, but that is the exception to the rule. And there's
*no* excuse for having a site as ugly as *that* one.

Of course there is. Maybe he's too busy putting together content that people
want to see and doesn't have the time to spend beautifying it.

Not from what I saw. The content isn't anything special.

The content may not be special to you, but then what interest do you have
in web cams? For those interested in Rochester web cams, or for that matter
weather web cams, I doubt you can point me to many places that offer better,
and if they do I either am or will be on that same list.

I didn't say it was a *bad* site, just that it's butt ugly.

Looks matter, baby, on line and everywhere. If a site is ugly and
sloppy and amateurish, 99% of the time the content is crap too,

The site was designed without design in mind...

Obviously



While it has been said in this thread that baby Jesus would cry from viewing my
site... well thats some bodies opinion.

That is the opinion of *one of your visitors.* Respect it. Learn
from it.

A review of my guest book will show
more than a couple of entries of people moved to tears from the memories my
photos bring to them. That's a FACT that you can't change.

and
knowing that, people just ignore it and move on to the next thing.
Them's the facts, jack. You can argue about it all you want, but it
won't change the facts.


I see the last time you updated your site was August 1st of 2003. If I took
40 or 50 days to work on the design of my site I might have a nicer look.
Instead, I started with 1 web cam in 1999 and the goal of getting it online,
and it just keeps snowballing to the three web cams I have now, plus a 14 month
old photo blog, plus photo coverage of 3 years of Rochester events, I recently
added a video download page... who else offers this much content?

My site is one of my toys, and I'll be back to playing with it soon.
Say what you will, but it ain't ugly. It's not cutting edge design,
either, but I get e-mail about something on it nearly every day.
People write to me about the content - they love it or hate it - but
no one has ever said the site was ugly.

My earlier attempts weren't all that pretty either. If you look at
some of the earlier articles, you'll see that I used a background that
was a little distracting (but not as trite and ugly as yours) and my
graphics skills were pretty mediocre. The difference between you and
me is that I learned over time, and applied what I learned to make the
site look better.

As far as content is concerned, I've got plenty of that too. Go to
Google and type in "second hand smoke." You'll see my site in the
number TWO position on the first page - above the EPA, the CDC, The
Lung Association, the Heart Association and all but one anit-smoker
site. You can't buy rankings there - they come from other people
linking to you because you have valuable content. And The Facts,
which is a sub site on my web server, isn't going to win any design
awards - the design is simple and straight forward for a reason.

But it's not ugly!


I will not deny that the look and layout of my site needs work... but the
stats from my site, the entries in my guest book, the e-mails I get, assure me
that I am on the right path as I am not blinded by the blinkers others wear

Fine. I'm done with you. You're just one more horribly butt ugly site
on the net. If you ever take the advice that's been offered to you
here, and learn something, you'll find your hit counters and guest
book will improve dramatically. But fine, just keep it ugly, and keep
fooling yourself into thinking that it doesn't make any difference.



---
Don't settle for watching Improv on TV. See it live, and join in the fun!
http://www.insertsomethingfunny.com/index.php