The colors and font scream "Barney" (like, the old kids TV show). I think they could work if you desaturated one or both of them a bit and went with a font that was a bit less "fun".
We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
51–60 of 138 posts
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#52Escape them inputs, dawg!
www.listnerd.com/lists?letter=alert(document.cookie);
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#53Why the self-deprecating title? You could've said "Show HN: List blogging with Listnerd". This makes me wonder how you spent $200k and why you're so unhappy with the result.
Letting people know that you're absolutely OK with them taking a huge dump on your work is sometimes a good way to invite cogent criticism, when you don't have to defend your credibility for social reasons.
I don't think people on HN feel like they need permission to ask for harsh feedback.
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#54Some things I noticed...
The homepage fails HTML validation. 32 Errors, 7 warnings
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.listnerd....
Homepage isn't being cached (intended?, in fact you have quite a few elements that have no caching set. Run PageSpeed Insights perhaps?
Login Overlay - can't escape to close.
Seems I can create a list without signing up? At least, that's what the button click seems to indicate (I didn't go through the entire process).
None of the "Create a List, Share It, See It" images actually do anything.
Doing a Search on "Select *" resulted in your following page taking 12.06 seconds to process before returning No results found. Searching for "Random" took 10.24 seconds. You have a major bottleneck in your search system.
The blog takes you to a totally different layout. This is jarring.
Homepage returns quickly, but the "Best Tracks in Mario Kart 8" took twice as long to return. If I had to guess, you are fully rebuilding the page each load? If that's true, did you scale that out against the database?
The trending lists block on the bottom of each list page is much larger then the content beside it, consider including fewer items in the list.
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you're committing the greatest CSS Sin: Emulating the DOM structure using nesting. Here is one example: "#site-header.newheader nav>ul>li>a.buttonGreen" ... If you'd like more advice on how to fix this I have written many talks. I didn't know this was an issue until recently and now I'm slowly fixing it on my main project. I'd love your additional advice/pointers!
Of course! The idea behind using preprocessors is helping you write CSS more easily. The goal is not to write obfuscated CSS, but rather to write CSS well! What it really enables (imo) is to think of styling in an Object Oriented way. Whenever you're about to write a block of Sass think "What is this thing?". The answer is almost never a "green button" but rather "getting started button". Or something like that. It a…
Is it advisable to just use plain old CSS these days?
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#56What's the breakdown for $200k on a site like that? Can you tell us what's the tech stack?
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course! The idea behind using preprocessors is helping you write CSS more easily. The goal is not to write obfuscated CSS, but rather to write CSS well! What it really enables (imo) is to think of styling in an Object Oriented way. Whenever you're about to write a block of Sass think "What is this thing?". The answer is almost never a "green button" but rather "getting started button". Or something like that. It a…
Is it advisable to just use plain old CSS these days?
In general, you get more out of using a preprocessor.
In practice however, the generated output isn't always the best, and it's worth a look over to make sure it's not generating slower selectors.
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#58Oh man, not another "11 sexy girls with star wars tattoos"...
Normally I would follow "if you don't have anything nice to say" but since you literally asked for it:
Your site tries to build a better mousetrap in one of the worst corners of the internet (better means 'worse' in this case). "List sharing" is a known cheap trick for internet marketers who are the bottom of the barrel, exploitative of both original content creators and those prone to being sucked in to mindless content (aka internet junk food).
Maddox has a memorable rant that sums it up better than I can: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ranker_sucks
Your site is not unlike the "reply girls" cancer that devalued youtube, or the fake thumbnails showing cleavage on related videos for everything.
Why would you want to "revolutionize the world of lists"? This doesn't even make sense.
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#59$200k for that site is a ridiculous considering you could have learned to implement it your self and hired out the design.
Re: We put $200k into a site that sucks. Please destroy us with your criticism
#60Backstory: We run a media company and we've put more than $200k of our own savings into Listnerd - not counting the thousands of work hours we've also invested. It's a list blogging platform / social network centered around top lists. We're growing extremely slow, so after 1.5 years in the grind, we've come to the conclusion that our site sucks. Please help us out by destroying us with your criticism.
Checked the site and watched the video. First of all - when people visit a new site for the first time and see familiar stuff, instead of new and exciting stuff, they tend to leave before they even dig deeper on the site. The design is fine, the layout is difficult - you should use rectangles of different sizes and backgrounds to make it easier for the visitor to focus on content that are more important, new or viral…
Yes, exactly. My impression of this site is like one of those spam portal link farms. Uber-generic and worthless looking.