Discussion in 'Internet Industry Events' started by grandad, Nov 3, 2006.
Only the main page - subpages throw errrors
Only barely. They have mixed up their HTML and CSS and are defining image sizes with 'px'
And Grandad has a comment on the value of the website too
Richardo - how are you validating the site? - just read posts about validation last year and was curious about the validation of the site this year - thats why i tried it in Firefox 2 and it came up 'validated' ?
Is anyone entering under Category 13. Best Blogging Patform?
What is a patform?
I use the HTML Validator plugin in Firefox. It shows '0 errors/30 warnings'
In breaking news - Golden Spiders, the template
Did I Say That » Golden Spiders the template
I don't get it? The video on the homepage doesn't seem to be working, is that it?
Heh ok I was being cryptic and silly (being back in work does that to a man)
Video has been completely removed - so instead of an annoying video that autoplays each time, we get a large chunk of black
Plus the title of their home page is a definite over-sight
Ah right. Didn't spot the document title. Hehe.
In fairness, this is one of the better sites that Ican have churned out. What really f**king bugs me though is that they won agency of the year in 2004, the 'grand prix' in 2005 and now in 2007 they are commissioned to design the Spiders site. I can smell nepotism like a fart in a car!
I wouldn't mind if Ican were producing top notch work but they're not... sorry to say it. And all the adulation can only damage the reputation of the industry. We need Poke London/Fantasy Interactive/Happy Cog-type quality to be appraised in Ireland so that it pushes the industry forwards and awards creative, talented people. Not business associates and golf buddies.
Golden Spiders... - boards.ie - anyone want to touch this one? hehehe
nominations close friday.....
Golden Spider time of year again lads - why don't you have a stab at guessing this year's winners.
For the craic, place your nomination and see if the usual suspects are in the mix again....
Wow they have actually exposed what criteria will be used! Kind of shocked about this one
Of course one answer begets another question:
So how exactly did they do it last year? Pull straws?
There is a God:
I was going to leave this well alone, but that one is just screaming out to be de-constructed as soon as they have a shortlist.
Some of the criteria are seriously thick though - how quick images load? I mean how can you ask a question like that without some context? What are you accessing the site with - your mobile phone on GPRS or your corporate fat pipe?
Actually now that I've read it I think they would have been better off leaving the ambiguity - very poor IMO.
But one upside - it gives the rest of us the exact criteria they are supposed to use to run our own little review panel... or maybe not so little...
Eh? Why is it important to state that your site complies with standards? Surely compliance is enough without having to put silly buttons on your site. I get a distinct whiff of amateur here.
How fast are they on dial-up, that's the question. Considering broadband rollout in this country and its imminent stifling by eircom themselves, surely it would be more pertinent to test sites on a slower connection?
God, I won't ask whether they consider this a good thing or a bad thing.
Well, at least they're making some kind of effort at transparency. I wonder will they make their scorings available this year or, like last year, will they flat-out refuse to accept any kind of accountability (even to paid entrants)
It'll be interesting to see.
The first shocking omission is that the content is not mentioned at all. The most important question is – what does this new web site do? Who can use it? Who does use it? How well is it accepted by the users (in percentage of the target market perhaps)? Does the user rate grow, and if so at what rate?
They just did not get to the real reasons a web site is worth (an award). All their points are based on the looks. That reflects the lack of understanding that web is not the static HTML, were sites looked good (or bad). The interactivity of the Web 2.0, and of web is missing there at all. Try to score Google Earth by those scores, and see the result. Or Digg? Or Ico? Or LinkedIn? Kind of does not work, does it? Now try Ryanair’s web site, and this is where the show really begins!
Golden Globe is almost like ‘made’ for an Advertising or Media Agency web site. A brochure. NOTHING ELSE!?
I can see a lot of people having fun with that list:
Q5. Good one to ask, but I can't see how it would be applicable to a personal site ie. blog (though they refer to blogging platform, so I've no idea what they're actually talking about)
Q12. Odd wording.
Q19. Oh come on! that's nuts. We don't all use Eircom !
Q28. Are they looking for animation or avoiding it? It's not at all clear.
Just looking at these questions is enough to make one wonder about the state of mind of the person(s) who drafted them. They look like some primary school teacher's idea of the web and the web business. How would these "judges" even know what the primary search terms for a web site are? It is quite clear that the Golden Spiders is just a money making scheme for its operators. It does not represent the highest quality of web design and web business. The judges are just shills with the sole function of distracting people from the sheer money grubbing nature of the Golden Spiders.
The site owners often have issues with this, so how a 3rd party would know is beyond me!
Separate names with a comma.