It'd be much better if you avoided absolute positioning and let things go with the flow, as it were.
Of course, it's all affiliate programs and hosted applications that are not particularly well integrated into the main site... Why did you choose this type of site? For your first site? There's no content of your own.
This reminds me of the thankfully-short-lived-shopping-mall-site that sprung up out of greed a few years ago.
Tell me I'm wrong and that you have a burning desire to connect people!
Looks pretty bad, "This reminds me of the thankfully-short-lived-shopping-mall-site that sprung up out of greed a few years ago." it is true. I thought you might need a second opinion on that.
Sorry, but I wasn't impressed with the layout, I found the links at the bottom hard to read even with my glasses on. I think you should move your buttons above your banner ads. I didn't go any further than the 2nd page.
kbsnowball posted this at 16:51 — 28th April 2004.
I had a hard time focussing on the home page with all the ads going off. On the second page I noticed how hard it is to read the purple links on the pink background and again with the ever blinking ads. You also have some broken links on your contact page.
I'm kind of cofused here. It doesn't seem like I'm looking at the same thing the others have commented on. I don't see anything like Suzanne's screenshot, for example.
I am seeing a lot of pink and a big horizontall scrollbar, even though I'm using a fairly high screen resolution. That's an important problem to fix. I also see a page title on my browser tab that says "home"! Definitely add more detail there - it's important for search engines as well as users. The overall layout isn't bad. It happens to match my browser tint
The top header graphic looks okay but could use some work. The circle thing behind the text looks like the AT&T logo, and the photos to the right are too small. The text for the logo itself is extremely boring and totally forgettable. I do really like the "love at first type" tagline
Your graphic headlines are not looking very good. It looks like the graphic has been resized using HTML or something. Forget using graphics for text - just use text! It looks a lot better and is much easier to update.
Am I missing something or is there no real actual content here? I can't find anything about how to sign-up or how much it costs or anything like that. I guess you just haven't finished that part yet???
P.S. There are a lot of dating sites out there. It might be a good idea to narrow your focus to a specific geographic area or demographic. That might help you to be more successful in such a competitive market.
Not a big fan of animated gif's myself. If you must use one, thats fine; but not the three I see. With all three flashing at once, it almost sends me into shock for cerebral over stimulation =). There are some issues that have already been discussed, so I wont go back into them...but I think its a good start.
1.) Nice flashy objects tend to cause epileptic seizures. Those flashing gifs need to be changed. Either stop them from flashing or set the rate much lower (2-5 seconds per image).
2.) Don't use the scrolling marquis. It's tacky (IMHO) and a waste of good real estate.
3.) You are using at least three different font faces. Using only one font face will help with the continuity of the site. Different fonts may be used in special occasions.
4.) Like others have said, text should be text, not images. That center image is a whopping 58Kb. And, the entire page is around 130Kb. Poor dial-up users will have to wait as long as 30 seconds to view that page. I usually bail after 10 seconds unless it's really worth my time. (56k modem will download at about 5Kb/second.)
5.) Limit the width to no more than 750 pixels. 1004 seems a little large, especially for low-resolution users. About 50% of your visitors will be using a resolution of 800 x 600 or smaller. (Google search for monitor stats)
What a great looking site...very easy on the eyes. If I were looking I'd most certainly bookmark this site Tickertape banners are mildly irritating to me but thats just my opinion. I like the colors and the images, content is interesting and inviting...looks great.
You can stop reviewing this site -- she hasn't been back since she posted.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
Suzanne posted this at 22:11 — 27th April 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Hi, Ashley, thanks very much for offering your opinion on some other sites here, it's much appreciated.
Now the bad news
http://www.zerocattle.com/examples/images/thesinglesconnection.jpg plus a scroll that would require my resolution to be 3000+ to view the whole page width for just one lone image... http://www.zerocattle.com/examples/images/thesinglesconnection_diamond.jpg
It'd be much better if you avoided absolute positioning and let things go with the flow, as it were.
Of course, it's all affiliate programs and hosted applications that are not particularly well integrated into the main site... Why did you choose this type of site? For your first site? There's no content of your own.
This reminds me of the thankfully-short-lived-shopping-mall-site that sprung up out of greed a few years ago.
Tell me I'm wrong and that you have a burning desire to connect people!
teammatt3 posted this at 01:45 — 28th April 2004.
He has: 2,102 posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Looks pretty bad, "This reminds me of the thankfully-short-lived-shopping-mall-site that sprung up out of greed a few years ago." it is true. I thought you might need a second opinion on that.
shyy posted this at 16:27 — 28th April 2004.
They have: 4 posts
Joined: Apr 2004
Sorry, but I wasn't impressed with the layout, I found the links at the bottom hard to read even with my glasses on. I think you should move your buttons above your banner ads. I didn't go any further than the 2nd page.
kbsnowball posted this at 16:51 — 28th April 2004.
She has: 29 posts
Joined: Apr 2004
Hi,
I had a hard time focussing on the home page with all the ads going off. On the second page I noticed how hard it is to read the purple links on the pink background and again with the ever blinking ads. You also have some broken links on your contact page.
Best wishes
Kathy
Megan posted this at 13:56 — 29th April 2004.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I'm kind of cofused here. It doesn't seem like I'm looking at the same thing the others have commented on. I don't see anything like Suzanne's screenshot, for example.
I am seeing a lot of pink and a big horizontall scrollbar, even though I'm using a fairly high screen resolution. That's an important problem to fix. I also see a page title on my browser tab that says "home"! Definitely add more detail there - it's important for search engines as well as users. The overall layout isn't bad. It happens to match my browser tint
The top header graphic looks okay but could use some work. The circle thing behind the text looks like the AT&T logo, and the photos to the right are too small. The text for the logo itself is extremely boring and totally forgettable. I do really like the "love at first type" tagline
Your graphic headlines are not looking very good. It looks like the graphic has been resized using HTML or something. Forget using graphics for text - just use text! It looks a lot better and is much easier to update.
Am I missing something or is there no real actual content here? I can't find anything about how to sign-up or how much it costs or anything like that. I guess you just haven't finished that part yet???
P.S. There are a lot of dating sites out there. It might be a good idea to narrow your focus to a specific geographic area or demographic. That might help you to be more successful in such a competitive market.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
mjs416 posted this at 14:25 — 29th April 2004.
They have: 127 posts
Joined: Dec 2003
Not a big fan of animated gif's myself. If you must use one, thats fine; but not the three I see. With all three flashing at once, it almost sends me into shock for cerebral over stimulation =). There are some issues that have already been discussed, so I wont go back into them...but I think its a good start.
Suzanne posted this at 15:44 — 29th April 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
You're not crazy, Megan, it's changed massively since I first looked at it.
treydogghour posted this at 16:11 — 29th April 2004.
They have: 8 posts
Joined: Apr 2004
yeah, maybe it's just the resolution I'm at, but it's pretty hard to read..
joe200 posted this at 19:00 — 18th May 2004.
They have: 4 posts
Joined: May 2004
I suggest to make the web page width be around 720 pix or less. It will fit in most of browsers.
joseph posted this at 22:44 — 20th May 2004.
He has: 4 posts
Joined: May 2004
1.) Nice flashy objects tend to cause epileptic seizures. Those flashing gifs need to be changed. Either stop them from flashing or set the rate much lower (2-5 seconds per image).
2.) Don't use the scrolling marquis. It's tacky (IMHO) and a waste of good real estate.
3.) You are using at least three different font faces. Using only one font face will help with the continuity of the site. Different fonts may be used in special occasions.
4.) Like others have said, text should be text, not images. That center image is a whopping 58Kb. And, the entire page is around 130Kb. Poor dial-up users will have to wait as long as 30 seconds to view that page. I usually bail after 10 seconds unless it's really worth my time. (56k modem will download at about 5Kb/second.)
5.) Limit the width to no more than 750 pixels. 1004 seems a little large, especially for low-resolution users. About 50% of your visitors will be using a resolution of 800 x 600 or smaller. (Google search for monitor stats)
Good luck with your site.
Joe.
kenzee posted this at 22:06 — 21st May 2004.
She has: 6 posts
Joined: May 2004
What a great looking site...very easy on the eyes. If I were looking I'd most certainly bookmark this site
Tickertape banners are mildly irritating to me but thats just my opinion. I like the colors and the images, content is interesting and inviting...looks great.
gsmith posted this at 23:08 — 21st May 2004.
They have: 24 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
It doesn't fit to 1024x768, and use tables for design, now images overlap text. Images are good.
Suzanne posted this at 00:57 — 22nd May 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
You can stop reviewing this site -- she hasn't been back since she posted.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.