This New Board Sucks !!!
05-21-2013, 11:18 PM
#43
Registered
Platinum Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care for the new board either. It is sad to see some people leaving the site because of the changes. I would think a site with paying members would have asked for a little input prior to making the change. The thread may be 11 years old, but it fits the current situation.
05-22-2013, 07:33 PM
#44
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico - Tucson, AZ
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
2 Posts
Take a look at the source code, right click, "view page source", or run any SEO plugin in your browser. You will find that who ever is setting up this board, does not have a clue about SEO, as they have not done "meta tags" within the defined specifications by google or any other search engine. Considering google drives approx. 80% of all search engine traffic, one would think they would not want to get penalized by google or at least would want to ensure that board content is properly displayed by all search engines.
They are not using any html 5 at all, but are using obsolete html 4.
A quick look at the source code, shows that whoever is handling things has no clue. With such blatant infractions that any 101 html coder would be aware of, it is doubtful that things will get much better, as it will take in some areas a re-write to get things proper. Really baffling that obsolete html 4 is being used, while everyone else is taking advantage of html 5, perhaps they are not even aware of w3c standards
Performance is really bad, use a browser plugin or if you use Chrome, right click "inspect element", and do your own tests and see were some of the more blatant errors are. It appears that some kiddie who thinks more is good, pushed things out before doing any kind of basic quality control.
Using those browser tools is kinda like opening up the hatches on a boat and taking a look at the inside glass work, if OSO was an offshore boat, I doubt it would make it out of the harbor without loss of life. Don't think I will be renewing my subscription, why pay for crappy work, they will keep up the crappy work if people keep paying for it.
They are not using any html 5 at all, but are using obsolete html 4.
A quick look at the source code, shows that whoever is handling things has no clue. With such blatant infractions that any 101 html coder would be aware of, it is doubtful that things will get much better, as it will take in some areas a re-write to get things proper. Really baffling that obsolete html 4 is being used, while everyone else is taking advantage of html 5, perhaps they are not even aware of w3c standards
Performance is really bad, use a browser plugin or if you use Chrome, right click "inspect element", and do your own tests and see were some of the more blatant errors are. It appears that some kiddie who thinks more is good, pushed things out before doing any kind of basic quality control.
Using those browser tools is kinda like opening up the hatches on a boat and taking a look at the inside glass work, if OSO was an offshore boat, I doubt it would make it out of the harbor without loss of life. Don't think I will be renewing my subscription, why pay for crappy work, they will keep up the crappy work if people keep paying for it.
Last edited by SinOjos; 05-22-2013 at 07:48 PM.
05-22-2013, 07:46 PM
#47
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lake Travis
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
