Have You Ever...? liked a website that....

[FirefoxRocks 0]

I'm posing this question to find out if you have actually ever liked a website that was really crappy. By crappy I mean:The design is broken/incomplete, it may be hard to read.The navigation is difficult, it is badly organized, it may take you 20-50 clicks to find one specific page.At least half the pages say "Under construction". The website is really complete, visitors may be redirected from one page to another using <meta/>The HTML/XHTML code that is used is invalid. Maybe parsing even 3000 errors, but it is still renderable by the tag soup parser.Pages load slowly, the JavaScript bogs everything down, Java applets scattered here and there take 10 minutes to initiate, that 4000 lines of CSS code at the top just almost stops the enter page.Links lead to server 404 error pages, that half-cooked XHTML that the MSHTML engine generates bloat up the page.But you liked the site anyways.I'm wondering this because I like a site that is like that, but not exagerrated to that extent. :DHave you ever liked a site like that? Explain why.And no, you cannot give the reason that it is your own site,

[sparkx 0]

I cant recall an exact URL but I have been to sites with some crazy CSS but the content was soo good I bookmarked it anyway. I have seen sites with yellow text and a black background (one of the worst two colors to mix in my opinion). However for most people I think the look of a site is just as inportant (if not more) then the actual content. Think about it, if Yahoo or Google had a bad theme would people still use it? Probably not because even if it is un-intintional we tend to judge a site right a way on it's background and text. For me websites with black backgrounds and a dark text (dark green/yellow ect. /White text is OK) makes me feel alone or in a dark scarry place while the reality is that I could be on a very active site/forum that people use all the time. This also happens when a webpage takes long to load or is 404. So I guess in the end the question you ask is very hard to agree with. Why really would people like a site that was "broken" even if it had very good content.My Opinion,Sparkx

[trinifawk 0]

I don't know if this qualifies as a 'website' or not, but some people's AOL and Myspace pages are just crazy with all sorts of weirdo fonts and links and confusion going on. Especially with the AOL homeplace or whatever you call it, you see alot of that happening. I like it because it would be a friend's attempt at trying to make a website or web page for the first time, and I usually just go to see how it looks or to read whatever is on there out of curiousity to learn more about the friend. I prefer sites with good navigation though, and no pop-ups or tons of advertisements on them. This keeps me from banging my head on my desk in frustrtaion at viewing a website.

[skedad 0]

I think it would depend on the site I am looking at. I have seen some pretty bad layouts, but yet there was important information, or something that was to be downloaded. I have some friends that are starting out on web designing, and it's a little hard to follow a lot of the layout, because color schemes were like red, pink, burgundy... or else with the blues, the greens, or so on.I think when I first started out... I thought anything but solid would just rock! I had to have like animated bullets... and the guestbook had to be animated... I think some people just want their pages to be sooo cool that it is overdone. I would want to check out updates on a specific game, and I went to a game site (which is done now, I think...) and they did like stretched pixel pics behind the name and info... nice idea... horribly done!Right now, I would like to make mine without so much noise, but I am trying to balance out how it is presented. So I was a bit general in this post, but yes... there are a lot of good ideas out there, it's just that there need to be a lot of makeovers at the same time!- bob AKA skedad -

[Sten 0]

i think once i had an obsession with a really poorly designed site. i cant remember wot it was called or the address though. that was years agolately, no, i hate poorly designed sites, sites with horrible designs are... horrible. and i also hate sites that are hard on the eyes.

[ruled_paper 0]

I would definitely like a site like that for its content. If a site had horrible navigation and design, it would have to make up in content.

[wutske 0]

Maybe, if the content on the website is realy worth it, then I might like a site even if the lay-out, design and functionality sucks. But so far, I haven't found a site that was a) that bad and had content that prevented me from bothering too much about a). I did hower found a site that matches requirement a). It's the website from my previous school ... structure = 0 , logic = 0 annoy-ability = 10. It's made in Frontpage, incompatible with everything except IE and after 10 minutes of browsing you have about 20 browser pages open.@FFRocks: could you share the link to that website you like ?

Edited October 14, 2007 by wutske (see edit history)

[A W K1405241550 0]

When I was younger I liked one like that. It had 90 million pop ups when you visited it, and the ads would spam you all over the page. The links were animated with flash and when you wanted to go to a different page, the links would lag you. But, then again, I just liked going there for the new updates and stuff.

[FirefoxRocks 0]

Well the site that I like isn't as bad as the situation described in my post, but here are a few that I like:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://dhseagles.kpdsb.on.ca/ (note: look at the sub-sites. Especially ones under Extra Curricular Activities)

Any Facebook profile page with millions of applications

Of course I can find some more, like friends' Piczo sites and so on, but these ones are the most common ones that I visit.

[Network1405241550 0]

my old host's site was rather crappy, getting 404's all the time, loads of adverts, bad CSS and i can go on.The reason i liked it was because of the hosting and the hosting package, this was on a differant server and the Control Panel represented something like Cpanel X (it was something else, he probably made it) -The hosting server never went down-I had 1GB of space-I had Unlimited Bandwidth -I had unlimited SQL DBs-It had the basic server-side scripting languages (PHP, ASP ect) i reckon most of the efforts were put into the actual service rather than the website itself

[patronus4000 0]

Um, to put it in one word, no. Unless the content was really, really, really, REALLY good, I'd never like a site like that. If it was really that bad, I'd probably attempt to locate an email address on the first page (I'd probably not surf anywhere beyond the first page on that site) and send them an email on how to fix everything, to the extent of my knowledge. I hate to see sites like that, especially if they have good content, because the quality of the content is wasted on such a horrific page.Serena

[FirefoxRocks 0]

Um, to put it in one word, no. Unless the content was really, really, really, REALLY good, I'd never like a site like that. If it was really that bad, I'd probably attempt to locate an email address on the first page (I'd probably not surf anywhere beyond the first page on that site) and send them an email on how to fix everything, to the extent of my knowledge. I hate to see sites like that, especially if they have good content, because the quality of the content is wasted on such a horrific page.
Serena

Ah, if only everyone would adhere to W3C standards (even transitional) and follow basic web accessibility guidelines.

[skedad 0]

Well I see there are a few school related sites that were mentioned. I was going to post the link to my daughter's elementary school page... I am not trying to bash it, but it is pretty cramped and crowded. It started out fun and on the left side had large button images and the mascot at the top... It was fun for the elementary school style... Now I think the webmaster made it too professional for its' own good... But now, it is a broken link... Maybe he/she is thinking of redoing it again...I have noticed that spamming sites that I have gone to seem to over image their sites that if you had dialup it would totally take all day to load... I think it is bad enough having spamming messages everywhere... but I was bored and followed one for vitamins, and goodness their site was rainbow text from blue to yellow to green and red... and HUGE images of happy smileys! Yikes!Ok, so if my daughter's school site comes back up, I will try to link it.... if I remember!I guess when it comes to bad sites, I guess nobody is perfect! haha

[darasen 0]

Dilbert.com is complete crap since the site was re-done recently. But, I still go there tp read the comic. Someone had stated that yelow on black is a terrible color combination. I agree on screen though in print it is one the most effective color schemes.

[sparkx 0]

Dilbert.com isn't so bad but definitely acceptable for a large site like that.

In my opinion Hotmail is one of the worst sites compared to how popular it is. I don't get it how they can force effects on you or make it so when you log in you get 404 half the time and the other half the time the cookies don't store correctly forcing you to login twice. Maybe I am the only one experiencing these problems but I get the errors on multiple computers on all web browsers. I also prefer non-flash websites and sites that don't use too much java script. Yahoo’s new mail is like this and runs real slow on my computer. Is it just me or even computers a few years old getting outdated for even the basic internet?

Ah, if only everyone would adhere to W3C standards (even transitional) and follow basic web accessibility guidelines.

I agree, how hard is it to make a site that works? There are lots of sites out there that teach how to make your site look professional. People think just because they know how to program that they can make their site however they want and people will like it. Some day people will find out that a basic site that works is better then one filled with effects and glitches.
Thanks,
Sparkx