Web Pages That Suck - learn good web design by looking at bad web design

Submitter’s comments: It’s got everything: marquee-like tags, embedded media, crammed in info, etc.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: One thing it doesn’t have is a TITLE tag that’s correctly spelled:

RUDGWICK STEAM & COUNRTY SHOW

The home page is quite long (see screen capture) and very “colorful.”

This gem is Flash-based so I figured there’s no mobile version. I was surprised to find that there is actually a mobile version of the website. Actually, I’d rather use the mobile rather than the web version because there’s less of everything and you can actually read the navigation. On the web version you have black text on a dark blue background.

This is obviously another Over-the-top Website.

Rudgwick Steam & Country Show

Submitter’s comments: Pretty bad.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: Saying this website is pretty bad is like saying Penelope Cruz is a pretty woman. Neither comment does the subject justice.

You can’t tell by the screenshot, but the home page gets worse. Much worse. My first reaction was to call this just another Over-The-Top Website, but the site isn’t for a fringe organization, political party, conspiracy spouter, or espouses cultish spiritual / religious beliefs. At least I didn’t get that impression when Google translated the page.

Ironically, this wasn’t the page that was suggested. It was the Journalistic Awards page. If you look closely, this is where the original Internet graphics went to retire. Just seeing them brought back wonderful memories of 1995-96—the 2400 baud modems, Internet-in-a-Box software and pages taking minutes to load. Ah, the golden days before the Internet became obsessed with accumulating gold.

Oh, yeah. Parts of the page may be mildly NSFW, depending on the weirdness of your company.

Agencia de Noticias Uruguaya Parts of the page may be mildly NSFW.

Submitter’s comments: It’s almost impossible to read anything on this site, due to the huge amount of grammatical (just try counting them and tell me you don’t lose track) and spelling mistakes (how many times can you misspell “people”). And really, a huge picture for the background?

Vincent Flanders’ comments: What scares me most about this website is the copyright notice:

If this website is really from the future, I’m scared sh*tless.

On the other hand, if this is just another of the ungodly number of typos and grammatical mistakes on the page, there’s hope for the Internet.

This website shows us the importance of having an editor. I’ve been very, very lucky in my writing career to have three really great editors — David Morgan Jones, Lee Ann Pickrell and Willem Knibbe. Unfortunately, I don’t have anyone editing my material now . English is my first language and I suspect that isn’t the case for whoever wrote the text for this site. If they speak English, then they don’t speak typing.

On the home page we have such amazing typos as:

soloution (2x)- peaple (2x) – withought – comparrison – transparrent – variarty – Sheme – efficant – uneeded – absoloute – may buissness – priciples (they also spelled it correctly) – Companys – emplees – sub contracters – dont

You’re welcome for the free proofreading. I’m not providing grammar checking because I’m not getting paid (and you can’t pay me because that’s a conflict of interest). I have a question. Did all the spelling checkers in all the million computer programs out there just die? Why didn’t anybody run this site through one of them?

There are at least 18 typos on the home page and God knows how many grammatical mistakes. Why would anyone do business with a company whose website is a joke? The only people who will be impressed by the home page are illiterate and that’s only because they can’t read.

Visit the site quickly. I’m sure it will be fixed. Of course, I have photos .

UPDATE: It was fixed over the weekend.

Screenshot of original home page
Screenshot of original “Services” page
Screenshot of original “About” page

Abseiling Services (The site is currently “fixed.”)

Submitter’s comments: This site sucks. The graphics are not optimized, they have enormous drop down menus, and their flashy slider graphic bogs my entire system down.

On top of that, it is ugly and looks poorly put together.

Vincent Flanders’ comments: It could have been a nice looking and functional website. It’s still nice looking, but the flaws ruin the experience.

We have contrast severe contrast issues—the dark text is difficult to read over the black/blackish background. Eduworks needs to get rid of their graphics carousel (slider). Everybody needs to get rid of their carousels. Why? Because carousels are bad for Search Engine Optimization and for usability. I’m not just blowing smoke out of my rear end (although I do have that ability). The highly regarded Search Engine Land wrote up some research that said carousels suck—or words to that effect. Oh, they’re not alone. Google has about a million articles on the topic.

Allegedly the site is constructed so it works on mobile devices. I base this conclusion on the following source code:

 Mobile Specific Metas
meta name=”viewport” content=”width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1″

Did anybody use an iPhone and look at the Eduworks website? NFW (No Way). FAIL.

There are some serious problems that aren’t obvious. No, the lack of contrast on the drop-down menus is obvious. PageSpeed are tools by Google to “Analyze and optimize your website…to implement the web performance best practices.” In the beginning, PageSpeed gave out fairly low scores, but people made a ruckus and it now appears to me that PageSpeed’s scores are like American college report cards where grades are inflated. Well, not Eduworks’ PageSpeed score. It’s an unbelievable 28 out of 100. I haven’t seen that low of a score in…well…a very, very long time. I know Google doesn’t want us to use PageSpeed scores as a rating mechanism, but a 28?

Eduworks-UK Ltd.

These sites run the gamut from just a few tragic mistakes to the worst kind of Over-The-Top websites you see featured here in The Daily Sucker.

My personal favorites are the WTF?—What The Heck?—sites that make you shake your head and ask the question, “Did anybody look at this site before it went live?” The answer to that question is usually, “Doesn’t look like it.”

You need to go through the whole list because today’s rankings aren’t permanent. For example, I’m very fond of #17—Jes MaHarry—and I’m sure it will rank higher when the final list comes out later this year.

Worst Websites of 2013: The Contenders from January through June