STLADS.COM
John M. Sippel
STLADS.COM - http://stlads.com
Tell us what you think about the site.
Thanks
Scott Taylor
John M. Sippel
instruct some sort of motivational seminar on the side.
Jim Everman
>
> Thanks Scott for the thought provoking feed back. I guess you must
> instruct some sort of motivational seminar on the side.
As near as I can tell, Scott doesn't do much of anything - it's
easier to critisize others that way I guess.
About the site; I don't like frames, but would likely deal with them
on your (Henry D. Melamed's?) site since it seems to offer something
useful. I'll admit, I went there twice - the first time I backed out
as soon as I saw the reference to frames. The second time was after
Scott's extremely witty (or is that "twit-ty) comment.
I do appreciate that the background music comes up de-selected, as
I frequently have a CD of music of my choosing playing as I sit here.
I didn't really spend the time to check the content out that well,
but I'll be getting back to it. Overall, it looks good to me....
--
Jim Everman mailto:eve...@Anet-STL.com
http://www.Anet-STL.com/~everman/
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
Scott Taylor
best to keep liables to yourself.
I merely gave my opinon of the website. It, in my opinion looks
unprofessional, and could be compared to a childs' first website. I'm
sure there are a few of us out there that our first website looked
horrible, however, we were proud of it, however scrapped it, and the site
was redesigned several times, showing added quality with each revision.
A smart business person would accept all input (good and bad) especially
reguarding ones' commercial presence.
A wise man once told me, that "...you could be selling porn out of a
single-wide trailer, however, if you had the proper web presence, you
could look like a multi-million dollar comapany..."
Your web presence could make the difference between closing the sale and
losing a customer in fear that the merchandise may arrive via 'Beaufords'
Tote-Package and Plumbing Supply"
My $.02
Jim Everman
>
> I don't think you know me, or anything about me, maybe it would be
> best to keep liables to yourself.
Well, yes that is true. We don't know anything about you. You seem
to have no web-presence. That's zero. As in none, zip, nada. You seem
to have made exactly two posts to usenet - anywhere, anytime. Both
stating that someone's website looks like "it was designed by a two
year old". Which is patently a rather trite comment, and given without
any justification.
Just why do you think a nobody like you deserves to be considered
seriously? Can you show us *anything* that you have done that even
works? I'm sorry, but I have no reason to believe you are anything
other than a frustrated 14 year old. Show us your web site. Show us
something that looks professional. Point out where STLADS could be
improved.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Benson Schliesser
> In other words, put up or shut up.
One doesn't have to be an artist to appreciate good art. Likewise, just
about anybody can differentiate between a professional looking web site
and, as it has been put, a site that looked like it was designed by a 2
year old. The site in question is not a professional looking site. I'm not
a designer by any stretch--my own site is nothing to marvel at--but I can
see that this is a poorly designed web site. So, while I would tend to
agree that the author of the "2 year old" comment is not positively
contributing anything, I personally don't think that you are justified in
saying that he has to have some authority (through a past usenet posts, a
site of his own, etc.) to respond to a request for comments, particularly
from an unsolicited advertisement for a web site.
Just my thoughts.
---
Benson Schliesser
http://www.inlink.com/~benson/
Jim Everman
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Jim Everman wrote:
>
> > In other words, put up or shut up.
>
> One doesn't have to be an artist to appreciate good art.
I can appreciate that, however this whole thing started with someone
asking that we critiqe his site. I saw that as a lame, "Hey, come look
at my site" plea and moved on.
Then Scott came back with, "It looks like the work of a 2yr old".
No other explanation. (I can retrieve the complete post if you want.)
The site owner (I guess) came back with something that basicly
translated to "Gee, Thanks for the moral boost."
At that point I decided I *needed* to see what sort of site a 2yr old
might put together. I lay no claims to being a site developer - I have
a web page, but I'm not trying to sell anything or impress anyone.
Other than using frames, which I personaly dislike, it looked about like
any other of the 100's of sites I've looked at. Not super snazzy, but
servicable. [I may have to go back and be more critical, I only looked
twice and the first time I backed out immediately due to the frames.]
The point I wanted to make here is, if Scott thinks it's so bad, how
about an example of something good? Or at least acceptable?
> contributing anything, I personally don't think that you are justified in
> saying that he has to have some authority (through a past usenet posts, a
> site of his own, etc.) to respond to a request for comments, particularly
> from an unsolicited advertisement for a web site.
OK, maybe I was a little snarky (but so was he - snivel, snivel). My
intended point was that maybe he is a newcomer to the net, and not
really familiar with what 90% of the web sites look like. Obviously
he *could* be a graphic arts genius and never post anything to the
net. Again - I don't know that. I did make an effort to find out who
he is - he's not listed on his ISPs list of users even.
> Just my thoughts.
It's cool - thanks. We all need a reality check from time to time.
Scott Taylor
A couple of small projects include:
http://www.schrader-inc.com
http://www.commercialplating.com
http://www.fbcellisville.org (this site was created by me, and is currently
being administrated by a third party).
These are just a few.
Scott
P.S. I've been using Adobe Photoshop since version 1.0 was released in the late
80's, and I've been tinkering with HTML since the fall of 93'.
Grubville Guy
I'm no expert (but I play one on TV)
But those sites look pretty darned good to me. I wasn't going to jump into
this whole STLADS discussion, but I would have to agree that the design
could be a lot better.
Not that any of my sites are perfect, mind you.... just think it could be
better.
Grubville Guy
Scott Taylor <tra...@insystech.com> wrote in message
news:36A3C204...@insystech.com...
Jim Everman
>
> I used to work for POSTnet, and I helped create: http://folio.stlnet.com
>
> A couple of small projects include:
>
> http://www.schrader-inc.com
> http://www.commercialplating.com
> http://www.fbcellisville.org (this site was created by me, and is currently
> being administrated by a third party).
Thanks for the examples Scott - this gives your original comment
a little more credibility.