PING Krusty, Panaro
Flux
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed1.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!rip!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!
sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
>From: John Henry john...@lowgenius.com
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:02:16 -0000
>Organization: The Ellen James Society
>Message-ID: <Xns943A7A6718A17jo...@216.168.3.44>
>User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
>X-No-Archive: yes
>X-Face:
>%dKx~1MMXtu^%2;@-Z"`SL|P?;x"d0]:M=8-6333\E9v3RF-tNX:Gq$f*9\$,.X4DM'q<VQ3-
|*J#1!<7fHztL/o$nH<=fI.*derN*B^OLz@X@Z4(00^X/%y9livoL"6)$
>X-tinc: t
>X-CNSID: 469lgc
>X-Pedophile: Ruchard Bullis, Plover Wisc.
>X-NSA-Line-Eater: IGNORE PER DDI
>X-Carnivore: EXCLUDE 238fe9c4ff
>X-TOS: See terms of use at www.lowgenius.com/util/contact.htm
>X-Is-Tenshul: Does this header really exist if you don't read it?
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
>Lines: 67
>
>
>
>I was looking through my website logs this morning - as I occasionally
>do, in order to gauge what sorts of things are driving traffic to my
>site. I was looking at the referrer logs, and I found this link:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>&frame=right&th=30c59c22e8903210&seekm=9ac30f06.0311171449.49cacf55%
>40posting.google.com
>
><http://tinyurl.com/vzzp>
>
>I found your remarks interesting, and so, in a fit of masochism and
>magnanimity, I've decided to solicit your elaborations.
>
>To be perfectly clear, I had remarked on how completely horrible Marty
>Jannety's site design was. Krusty responded with "lmfao, the irony of
>this is staggering," and Panaro replied with calling lowgenius.com an
>"abortion."
>
>So - as I am nothing if not responsive to criticism - I have elected to
>remove you two from my killfile for a period of 24 hours - Krusty's
>kru...@sc.rr.com address, and Panaro's petep...@aol.comgoaway address -
>to give you the opportunity to substantiate your criticism by telling me
>*precisely* what you think sis wrong with the site design at
>lowgenius.com, and what you would do to change it. Since I'm a nice
>enough guy that I want even people I have little or no regard or respect
>for to have a pleasant viewing experience and return frequently, I
>consider your opinions potentially valuable.
>
>This is your chance to do something besides make tittering schoolgirl ad
>hominems and back your "I Hate John Henry"- inspired nonsense up with
>legitimate critique. I'm open to any and all suggestions, and my
>previous history will clearly show that I'm not averse to incorporating
>those suggestions in site design changes - witness, for instance, the
>change in color scheme after the circus-y red and orange thing was
>roundly panned. I'm even going to be a nice guy and hold back on my own
>opinions of YOUR sites. I'm not interested in a flamewar, and I probably
>won't even respond to what you have to say; I just want a point-by-point
>analysis of what it is about my site you think is poorly designed, and
>what you would do to make it different.
>
>Anyone else other than the usual idiots who can't find anything positive
>to say about anything I do are more than welcome to add their
>suggestions. I don't promise to agree with all - or any - of them, or to
>use any of them, but I'm more than willing to cop to my own fallability
>and allow you this opportunity to have a hand in creating a better
>lowgenius.com, assuming you have anything to say that doesn't boil down
>to the usual "boy, I sure don't like that John Henry, I think I'll say
>mean things about him so the other 8 morons that are just as bitter and
>petty as I am will think I'm kewl."
>
>Frankly, I'm not expecting much - it's no secret that I have zero respect
>for either of you as people - but I would be a hypocrite and a coward if
>I didn't give you the opportunity to offer your criticism to my face
>rather than my killfile. It's up to you to decide whether that criticism
>will be genuine and constructive, or just more of the same old boring
>shit you've been repeating since 1998.
>
>You have 24 hours to make your case before you're returned to the
>bitbucket. Use it wisely.
>
>--
>John Henry
>-Now playing: Winamp stopped
>http://www.lowgenius.com - if it's not one thing
>http://www.rspw.net - it's the other.
>I don't remember half the time if I'm hiding or I'm lost, but
>I'm on my way -- Soundgarden
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, wants to look at your site, no matter how you try
to beg for them to.
Krusty
> I found your remarks interesting, and so, in a fit of masochism and
> magnanimity, I've decided to solicit your elaborations.
I got no problem with this. I work in an ad agency. I'm routinely told that
things I do aren't right, suck, need to be done different, have to be
modified, etc by clients all the time. This is no business for the thin
skinned. So I'm used to it.
> To be perfectly clear, I had remarked on how completely horrible Marty
> Jannety's site design was. Krusty responded with "lmfao, the irony of
> this is staggering," and Panaro replied with calling lowgenius.com an
> "abortion."
Heh. Yeah, that was funny.
> So - as I am nothing if not responsive to criticism - I have elected to
> remove you two from my killfile for a period of 24 hours - Krusty's
> kru...@sc.rr.com address, and Panaro's petep...@aol.comgoaway address -
> to give you the opportunity to substantiate your criticism by telling me
> *precisely* what you think sis wrong with the site design at
> lowgenius.com, and what you would do to change it. Since I'm a nice
> enough guy that I want even people I have little or no regard or respect
> for to have a pleasant viewing experience and return frequently, I
> consider your opinions potentially valuable.
Just go look up how to use color. The color is almost blinding. You have, at
my count, four different text colors on the same home page. This is not
good. The best designs, especially for online content, are simple. Simple
designs with a focus on *consistency*. Your colors and choices of text
colors scream "inconsistent". It's hard to read, your eye moves all over the
place trying to find something to latch onto. It simply overwhelms the eyes.
Pick a very small, simple, complimentary color set and stick to it.
Also, you don't have to put borders around EVERYTHING. Your design should
delineate itself. There's no need to have borders around every single thing
on the site. We know where things are. We can see them.
Try to pay attention more to details. I'll give you an example. On your home
page, your blog listing looks like it was spit right out of a table with no
thought to formatting it into anything resembling natural readability.
Instead of "23 October 2003 04:53:56" (note the lack of commas, or
formatting) try "October 23, 2003 - 4:53 A.M.". It's instantly readable.
Does anybody *really* need to know what exact second it was posted?
Also, put some thought into navigation. I realize you're trying to put a lot
in there, but try to logically group things and make your navigation
simpler. For instance, if I'm on the home page, do I really need a link to
the home page? Aren't I already there? (I know, I know, this seems more like
a "attention to details" thing, but it's just good navigation practice.
The "Lowbrary" is cute. Keep that. It's bordering on clever. But note that
it's along the top. Then there are links to the left. Are they related? Why
is "gaming" on the top? Why not on the side? Couldn't "Credits" and
"Privacy" and "Feedback" and "Have you been spammed by LowGenius" all go
under "About"? Think of how simple the left navigation would be.
Also. I think you've missed a huge joke that's gone completely over your
head for the better part of 5 years. I'll try to put it as simply as I can.
Dude, lose all the ridiculous copyright stuff. Honestly. Copyright is a
given, but you go into overdrive and just come off as sounding ridicuous.
Both you and Chad seem to have this attachment to putting some sort of
"copyright" on everything you do. The only reason we (Draz, me, etc) built
that Krustyland site in the first place was to poke fun at your tendancy to
slap "copyright" and "digital watermark" and "trademarks" all over
everything you did. The height of which was when Chad sent you my picture,
and you created the famous Krusty Rant page complete with my webcam picture
on there that you had "modified" and slapped a "Copyright John Henry" on. It
was just absolutely silly, and was basically the impetus to create
Krustyland which was originally just supposed to be a parody of your site.
Just lose it all. It comes across as completely self absorbed nonsense.
Anyone that wants can right click whatever they want, and let's be honest,
you're not going to do jack shit about it. What, you're gonna go hire a
lawyer to get back the damages from someone stealing a picture of a stopsign
in the rain near your house? Come on...
The only reason people even *do* that shit is because you stand there with a
lightning rod in your hand.
Also...your "banner" across the top screams 1998. Come on. Use some
imagination coupled with a little design sense. The "I use photoshop, can't
you tell by looking at it" look was out about five years ago. Again, try
something simple. You might be amazed at the result.
> This is your chance to do something besides make tittering schoolgirl ad
> hominems and back your "I Hate John Henry"- inspired nonsense up with
> legitimate critique. I'm open to any and all suggestions, and my
> previous history will clearly show that I'm not averse to incorporating
> those suggestions in site design changes - witness, for instance, the
> change in color scheme after the circus-y red and orange thing was
> roundly panned. I'm even going to be a nice guy and hold back on my own
> opinions of YOUR sites. I'm not interested in a flamewar, and I probably
> won't even respond to what you have to say; I just want a point-by-point
> analysis of what it is about my site you think is poorly designed, and
> what you would do to make it different.
Meh, my site is the same site it's been for about 5 years. I do this for a
living. I spend 8-10 hours a day doing nothing but creating websites,
databases, java apps, and the like, for paying clients. The last fucking
thing I wanna do when I get home is do *more* webwork.
But, since you asked, you can check out any of my work, plus a portoflio of
a lot of my work by simply going to the lhwh website. The website, and prett
y much all interactive content on there was done by me. Most of it has won
awards, from regional addy awards, to national awards, so I'm not too
worried about any criticism you or anyone else could make. The awards
vindicate that.
> Frankly, I'm not expecting much
Well, sorry to disappoint and actually take you up on your offer.
> - it's no secret that I have zero respect
> for either of you as people - but I would be a hypocrite and a coward if
> I didn't give you the opportunity to offer your criticism to my face
> rather than my killfile. It's up to you to decide whether that criticism
> will be genuine and constructive, or just more of the same old boring
> shit you've been repeating since 1998.
>
> You have 24 hours to make your case before you're returned to the
> bitbucket. Use it wisely.
Meh. You're kinda passe anyway. You rarely contribute anything of value
beyond your traditional crossposting of kook shit, and have become more of
an afterthought, bordering on running gag. It's fun to occasionally take pot
shots at you, because let's be honest, 9 times out of 10, when you open your
mouth, hilarity ensues. But more often than not, it's merely shooting trolls
in a barrel.
So do what you want, listen or not, it really doesn't make much difference
to me, you're mostly irrelevant anyway.
Rockboy
> So - as I am nothing if not responsive to criticism - I have elected to
> remove you two from my killfile for a period of 24 hours - Krusty's
> kru...@sc.rr.com address, and Panaro's petep...@aol.comgoaway address -
I find it humourous that you killfile those who speak the truth about you.
--
Rockboy
I think my life is passing me by
Also Stoneco864
Krusty
> I bet this will end in a 3-way.
Haven't we discussed the gay issue enough?
Scott
Scott
Pete Panaro
>From: John Henry john...@lowgenius.com
>Date: 11/21/2003 12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns943A7A6718A17jo...@216.168.3.44>
>
>I was looking through my website logs this morning - as I occasionally
>do, in order to gauge what sorts of things are driving traffic to my
>site. I was looking at the referrer logs, and I found this link:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>&frame=right&th=30c59c22e8903210&seekm=9ac30f06.0311171449.49cacf55%
>40posting.google.com
>
><http://tinyurl.com/vzzp>
>
>magnanimity, I've decided to solicit your elaborations.
>
>Jannety's site design was. Krusty responded with "lmfao, the irony of
>this is staggering," and Panaro replied with calling lowgenius.com an
>"abortion."
>
>remove you two from my killfile for a period of 24 hours - Krusty's
>kru...@sc.rr.com address, and Panaro's petep...@aol.comgoaway address -
>*precisely* what you think sis wrong with the site design at
>lowgenius.com, and what you would do to change it. Since I'm a nice
>enough guy that I want even people I have little or no regard or respect
>for to have a pleasant viewing experience and return frequently, I
>consider your opinions potentially valuable.
>
>hominems and back your "I Hate John Henry"- inspired nonsense up with
>legitimate critique. I'm open to any and all suggestions, and my
>previous history will clearly show that I'm not averse to incorporating
>those suggestions in site design changes - witness, for instance, the
>change in color scheme after the circus-y red and orange thing was
>roundly panned. I'm even going to be a nice guy and hold back on my own
>opinions of YOUR sites. I'm not interested in a flamewar, and I probably
>won't even respond to what you have to say; I just want a point-by-point
>analysis of what it is about my site you think is poorly designed, and
>what you would do to make it different.
>
>to say about anything I do are more than welcome to add their
>suggestions. I don't promise to agree with all - or any - of them, or to
>use any of them, but I'm more than willing to cop to my own fallability
>and allow you this opportunity to have a hand in creating a better
>lowgenius.com, assuming you have anything to say that doesn't boil down
>to the usual "boy, I sure don't like that John Henry, I think I'll say
>mean things about him so the other 8 morons that are just as bitter and
>petty as I am will think I'm kewl."
>
>I didn't give you the opportunity to offer your criticism to my face
>rather than my killfile. It's up to you to decide whether that criticism
>will be genuine and constructive, or just more of the same old boring
>shit you've been repeating since 1998.
>
>You have 24 hours to make your case before you're returned to the
>bitbucket. Use it wisely.
First, you need to stop letting yourself get your chain yanked by Krusty and
me.
Second, I can tell you this, also as someone with a marketing background who
has worked on interactive campaigns, that you need to Keep It Simple Stupid.
The background on your site is way too busy. You have four different shades
of red on your front page, not counting the gradient ones in the box in the
middle of the page.
Keep it either one or two colors, with the colors actually having a functional
purpose. My suggestion is either a sidebar where you can put a static menu, or
put it along the top. Make the sidebar a color of your choice, preferably
one that white or black text shows up on, and then just make the other part of
the site white.
Your menus are also confusing. You have two menus worth of pages, one across
the top, one down the side. Again, Keep It Simple Stupid. Consolidate
them into one menu.
Also, the sidebar menu is a little too specific. Out of the 13 pages on that
menu, how many actually have real content? You could probably stand to
consolidate some of those pages or actually remove them.
Also, and this is not so much the case with this version of your website, you
don't have to do things just to show that you can do them. I'm talking about
the technology, the graphics, the photoshop effects, etc. Even though you
might be proud of what you learned and want to show it off, there are a million
HTML programmers out there who can and are doing it better. This isn't a
knock on you, but just that in comparison, it makes your site come off even
more as some amateur guy trying to show that he knows how to make a site.
That's just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.
![IAMCALZONExx [UA]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXF15xl0_rthTAakXz0xHdU4_dsHzSnL4M25o2v3kprYmT4=s40-c)
IAMCALZONExx [UA]
allready 21 Nov 2003, and I have an important engagement in
rec.sport.pro-wrestling:
> You! Yes, YOU, Rockboy (roc...@rockboy.net)! Behind the
> rec.sport.pro-wrestling sheds! Stand still, laddie!
>
>> John Henry wrote:
>>
>>> So - as I am nothing if not responsive to criticism - I have elected
>>> to remove you two from my killfile for a period of 24 hours -
>>> Krusty's kru...@sc.rr.com address, and Panaro's
>>> petep...@aol.comgoaway address -
>>
>> I find it humourous that you killfile those who speak the truth about
>> you.
>
> Really? Which "truth" is that? Please do elaborate.
>
We both have "truthes" are my the same as yours?
GC
CRUXIFY HIM CRUXIFY HIM!
--
***********
GENERAL CALZONE of the UA
The One and Only
THANK HOGAN!!
***********
UA 4-LYFE
http://home.maine.rr.com/cgm
RSPWECW Heavyweight Champion of the World
2003 RSPW Funniest Poster of the Year
Assassin
<Cap...@maine.rr.com> with the help of a thousand monkeys banging on
keyboards, was finally able to type out the following:
>Excuse me, John Henry, would you please repair my hamster? It's
>allready 21 Nov 2003, and I have an important engagement in
>rec.sport.pro-wrestling:
>
>> You! Yes, YOU, Rockboy (roc...@rockboy.net)! Behind the
>> rec.sport.pro-wrestling sheds! Stand still, laddie!
>>
>>> John Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>> So - as I am nothing if not responsive to criticism - I have elected
>>>> to remove you two from my killfile for a period of 24 hours -
>>>> Krusty's kru...@sc.rr.com address, and Panaro's
>>>> petep...@aol.comgoaway address -
>>>
>>> I find it humourous that you killfile those who speak the truth about
>>> you.
>>
>> Really? Which "truth" is that? Please do elaborate.
>>
>
>We both have "truthes" are my the same as yours?
>
>GC
>CRUXIFY HIM CRUXIFY HIM!
I fry my truthes.
--
Tehawk ©2003
The Cerebral Assassin
ICQ #4610826
http://www.tehawk.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~tehawk
The Inverse Law of FlameWars
The More A Person Brags About How Good They Are At Flaming (or Trolling too), The More They Suck At It.
Vote For The Dumbest Person On Usenet:
http://www.bestandworst.com/pages/vote/vote-4846.html
Vote For The Worst Troll On Usenet:
http://www.bestandworst.com/pages/vote/vote-4810.html
curious (WITH TAYLOR)
> Anyone that wants can right click whatever they want, and let's be honest,
> you're not going to do jack shit about it.
Well, I've actually been to websites where if you try to right click on it (to
open a link in a new window, for example, so you can keep the main page up), you
get a pop-up type deal saying "NUH UH, GIRLFRIEND!!!"
I always find that annoying, since sometimes I want to open multiple links at
once.
-curious
Multi-tasks
Krusty
It's just a javascript. There are a hundred ways past it.
Krusty
to reply to my reply...etc etc...
"John Henry" <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote
> This is an interesting point. I'll experiment a bit with some things and
> see how it goes. I like the "warmness" of the brown hues; I had
considered
> that the yellow and blue were complimentary (which they are). However, it
> doesn't necessarily follow that they look good together in this context.
> You'll notice that I got rid of that horric purple background in the page
> headers; that was actually a relic from a rejected design that I just
never
> got off my ass and corrected, but I fixed it several days ago to blend
more
> readily with the overall brownish tone of the site.
Warmth can be acheived in various ways. Consult a good design book dealing
with Colors. Try "Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green". It's a decent book and
speaks volumes about "complimentary colors". You need to remember that
you're designing for an online audience. Not yourself. Also, try Chromoweb,
it's a fun little site that's nice to play around with, when you're seeking
out good color combinations. Remember, try to keep them web safe, and easy
to view.
http://www.smartpixel.net/chromoweb/uks/indexgb.html
> Where I get hung up mostly on this is the hyperlink colors. I want the
> hyperlinks to STAND OUT so that people know they're hyperlinks, but at the
> same time I loathe - for no good reason, just personal taste - underlined
> hyperlinks. Unfortunately, it's tough to stay within the range of "brown"
> and still have text that is both readable and NOT obnoxious (like bright
> yellow, bright red, or orange). I'll fiddle with my CSS a bit today and
> see what I can come up with. Much as I hate the idea, I may have to go
> back to a blue or white-based color scheme. Brown is fairly tough to
> coordinate in this context.
Dude, just use visual cues for links. A good one is, using CSS, simply
boldface a link when the mouse hovers over it. Or how about changing the hue
a little with a CSS hover? Anyway, explore CSS solutions for visual cues
indicating a "change" in property status. Say...making it italic when you
roll over it? Anyway, use your imagination, there are tons of ways to cue
people besides the old, traditional, underlined hyperlink.
A caveat. Jakob Nielson, who's probably the most educated usability guru on
the fucking planet, recommends keeping underlined links. His site,
http://www.useit.com/ should be the top bookmark on anyone's list who's even
*thinking* about trying to design a website. His email newsletter is
required reading in my department, and everyone who joins my interactive
group is given his blue and green "Designing Web Usability" book their first
day.
> Interesting point. I had originally gone with this sort of layout in
> response to some suggestions from Fro regarding the RSPW.Net site - which,
> I suspect, turned out much "better" than LowGenius.Com, in spite of them
> basically being the exact same layout. The "bordering" is basically a
riff
> on the "tabbing" navigation system that - for instance - all of the
Capitol
> Communications television stations use (see www.wral.com for an example).
> Still, the bright yellow double-bar is probably a little too...intrusive,
> or obvious, and I could quite likely accomplish the same thing by
> constructing more simple breaks, like the tab separators on RSPW.Net.
If you're going to "riff" on a look, then just do it. If you want tabbed
layouts, then just do tabbed layouts. Never underestimate the power of
usability.
> Probably not - that's the default time display style in DW.
>
> *does a little clicking*
Don't stick with what Dreamweaver "recommends" for you. There are more
formatting options than whatever Dreamweaver gives you. I know for
ColdFusion output, for instance, it's basically unlimited in how you can
format output. Dig a little.
> Regardless, I see your point - it's cluttery and I'm trying to keep too
> much shit "always available" that doesn't really need to be. I mean,
> really, how many people care THAT much about Digimarc? I'll fiddle around
> with it a bit and see what I can come up with. It's just a matter of
> whittling down what I think people really NEED to have available to them
> throughout the site, and what they can just look for if they want to.
Just group shit logically. That's all. The rest will fall into place.
> Finally, the rest of the copyright notice - "All other graphics and
> trademarks are copyright their respective owners" - covers my ass a little
> bit in case, for instance, the WWE wants to give me shit about my screen
> caps. They could probably still force me to remove them if they wanted
to,
> but they couldn't sue me for misappropriating their copyright (i.e.
> claiming that the material in question was actually mine). Still, I could
> probably lose the "Unauthorized reproduction" lines and simplify the rest.
Dude, trust me, and everyone else. WWE isn't worried about your screen
captures. There are 4 billion websites related to WWE content that are MUCH
higher on the radar than yours is. Just put them there and forget about it.
Seriously. You're not making any money, you're not selling them...it
seriously doesn't matter. Nobody cares.
> Nah. Like I said, the Digimarc thing was in response to someone selling
my
> photos on their website.
Come on...be serious. *this* is why so many people give you shit. Do you
honestly think people are going to make a living selling pictures from a web
site that you can't even get donations for? I mean...honestly...just take a
step back and listen to yourself sometime.
Pete Panaro
>rr.com address. Never let it be said that John Henry can't admit when he's
>wrong.
But you don't do it nearly enough.
Poot Rootbeer
>> Well, I've actually been to websites where if you try to right
>> click on it (to open a link in a new window, for example, so you
>> can keep the main page up), you get a pop-up type deal saying
>> "NUH UH, GIRLFRIEND!!!"
>
One of them (if you're using IE) is to keep the right button held
down and click 'OK' with the left button, then when the alert box
goes away, release the right button and your menu will appear.
IE context menus are triggered by the end of a click event, not the
beginning.
-Poot
a nerd