It's just a personal thing. I'm all about people who go at it hardcore and I respect the time and energy you put into any sort of fan activity. But if they're just a LIST of people, I don't get it. I like it when there are galleries and fanart and a solid link list...errr... I'm just sorta confused by their purpose...? I don't mean to offend you. *snuggles you*
They're fun. They're a way to show interest in or love for something. I mean, really, what's the point of the LJ interest list or making lists of things you're interested in? Fanlistings are webcliques, which have always been popular. I guess if someone doesn't have a site, then they aren't going to like fanlistings or cliques though. Fanlistings aren't fan sites, and never have been or ever claimed to be.
Frankly, I like adding stuff to fanlistings and making them more than just lists of fans, but I also like making sites just 'cause of the webdesign and the ability to make a pretty layout for something I'm into. Also, if something is obscure. It's basically a tribute or something, and not everything online has to be useful and informative. I also like being able to conveniently list things I'm a fan of on my site, with a link to a site that has other fans listed also.
I don't care that people aren't into fanlistings, but I am offended when people say they're useless, and haha, people who are into them are so lame and dumb and make shitty sites, but whatever.
I don't care that people aren't into fanlistings, but I am offended when people say they're useless, and haha, people who are into them are so lame and dumb and make shitty sites, but whatever.
I'll admit that it went from a "useless site" to "fanlisting sites suck" rant pretty quick, and if you were offended, that's still not the point of the rant, as its more a "take what you have and better it, expand upon it" and such. Foe is just a really outspoken individual, that's all.
I'm hard pressed to defend the useless part though. I see no reason for them honestly. What ARE the uses of them?
I'm not saying they are bad and shouldn't exist, I just don't understand why they do and what purpose they serve, so please if anyone can elaborate (and not a fanlist hater, I'd like to hear this from one who likes them), please do.
as its more a "take what you have and better it, expand upon it" and such But you could easily make the same argument about anything else. Okay, so you do XYZ, which is a little bit. Why not expand on that and flesh it out even more? It's always, "You can make it better or do more."
The point of a fanlisting has always been to be a list of fans. Why? To demonstrate support and enjoyment and interest in a subject, which yes, may make sense more to people with websites. Webcliques existed long before fanlistings came into being, and fanlistings are different only in the fact that they allow people who don't have sites to be listed too. People can see that there are fans of this all over the world; so others can look at the sites of other people, and hey, isn't that neat, I didn't even know people in THIS PLACE had heard of it.
If someone doesn't like fanlistings, they don't have to join them. Having one fanlisting be at the top of a search engine result isn't any worse than having a porn site or a domain sitter there instead. And being "useful" - if it's not of any use to you, okay, but it's clearly useful to other people in some way, whether it's minor or not.
not everything online has to be useful and informative
And this, in one line, neatly sums up Everything That Has Gone Horribly Wrong With the Internet.
"Webcliques" haven't "always been popular". In fact, they are relatively new. Before "cliques" there were webrings, which were actually useful, before improved search engine and neglect made them fall by the wayside.
Which segues neatly into what is annoying about fanlistings. Search engines treat them like they were real sites, with actual information on them. I suppose I can't tell people to stop making them - as much as I'd like to - but, by all that is unholy, WHY can't they easily be identified as such? Maybe a new meta tag, something like "meta-useful-content: DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!"
Now, since you've taken it upon yourself to critique Foe's site, uninvited, you won't mind if I do the same to yours? No? Good. Well, from a design standpoint, I have seen worse. However...
"Suggesting" a resolution and browser (even if it is and admirable and superior browser choice) is amateurish, user-unfriendly, and arrogant. It's not your place to tell your viewers how to configure their monitors, nor what software to use. A good designer is able and willing to make their layout work with any browser, at any resolution. If you used more relative positioning, you wouldn't have to worry about that, and viewers using higher resolutions wouldn't see all that dead space to the right of your layout.
Two words. JPEG compression. Two more words. Alt tags. That title image is pretty freakin' huge, especially at your suggested resolution of 800 x 600. It's like having a splash page, only it takes longer to load. With the blurring and erdoing effects you used on the image, you could compress it massively, with minimal loss of eye appeal. Ideally, you should use title tags on your images too, but without alt tags, it's not valid HTML. And, what's up with that image map, without any links? That's the only place you did use alt tags, which baffles me, especially since they won't give the effect I *think* you're going for, with your suggested browser.
Using that little 1 x 1 pixel GIF for your lines is a cheap and nasty hack, especially when you could get the same effect, and with far more elegance, using your stylesheet. Avoid all unecessary HTTP requests like that, it's good for everyone's bandwidth.
Your main page is pretty long. That is also amateurish, and always reminds me of those wacky conspiracy theory sites where they put EVERYTHING on the same page, regardless of relevance or coherance. Consider making an "updates" page, or perhaps aging some of those old posts into your archives faster? There's all manner of nifty blog scripts out there that will even automate this for you.
And this, in one line, neatly sums up Everything That Has Gone Horribly Wrong With the Internet. I'm sorry everything has to be useful. How nice it must be knowing that everything you say and do has some use to someone else.
Ironically, you later say: "Suggesting" a resolution and browser (even if it is and admirable and superior browser choice) is amateurish, user-unfriendly, and arrogant. Funny how what you said above- your own opinion of the downfall of the Internet- is extremely unfriendly and arrogant.
"Webcliques" haven't "always been popular". In fact, they are relatively new. Before "cliques" there were webrings, which were actually useful, before improved search engine and neglect made them fall by the wayside. Uh, no, they've been around for ages. Since at least 1998, which is fairly long. Yes, webrings were around earlier, but what's your point? That webrings are useful, and fanlistings aren't?
I can't tell people to stop making them - as much as I'd like to *laughing* Wow. Just... wow.
WHY can't they easily be identified as such? Some are. Some aren't. You don't know what you get for any site until you click the link, even with meta tags and sections parsed out for you.
Search engines treat them like they were real sites, with actual information on them. Search engines treat porn sites like they're real sites, too. They treat message forums like they're "real" sites. Go to dmoz.org if you want sites that have been looked over and checked for content.
Now, since you've taken it upon yourself to critique Foe's site, uninvited, you won't mind if I do the same to yours? No? Good. Well, from a design standpoint, I have seen worse. However... Having seen your own site and your own coding? Sure, go ahead. And by the way, Foe did the same exact thing to other sites. But I guess because he and you and everyone else are right, it's somehow legitimized. But yeah, I know, if only we could make sites all exactly like your own. What a perfect world this would be. And if everything were useful to YOU, god, we'd all be in paradise.
Your oh-so-helpful suggestions about resolution and browser choice. Thanks, but my site actually does work in all resolutions and all browsers. Oh, and the point of the site is to BE on the left, not centered. But whatever. Telling me how to make my site isn't arrogant in the slightest, right?
Your oh-so-helpful suggestions on the images. Yes, jpeg compression is something I need to work on, but if it loads under 100kb, I'm fine. As for everything else, I have Lord. It's like two different worlds. The people who think they know everything about design and how everyone should do what they say, and the people who think that maybe, aesthetics and creativity kind of *do* matter. But right- not information, so not useful. I keep forgetting that.
Using that little 1 x 1 pixel GIF for your lines is a cheap and nasty hack, especially when you could get the same effect, and with far more elegance, using your stylesheet. Avoid all unecessary HTTP requests like that, it's good for everyone's bandwidth. *laughs* "Elegance" using a stylesheet. Right.
I just find this whole thing really really funny. Sorry.
"Funny how what you said above- your own opinion of the downfall of the Internet- is extremely unfriendly and arrogant."
I never claimed to be friendly, nor humble. :-)
"Since at least 1998"
And we all know "teh internets" were invented around 1998...
"Search engines treat porn sites like they're real sites, too. They treat message forums like they're "real" sites."
The difference being, porn sites do contain some content, such as it is. And both porn sites and message boards are easily identifiable by the description text that follows the link, if not by the URL itself.
"Having seen your own site and your own coding? Sure, go ahead."
My site is not perfect. It contains deprecated tags, and needs a facelift. I do that every couple of years. But hey, if you want to critique it, knock yourself out. But don't expect me to take one line snarks seriously. Show a little effort.
""Elegance" using a stylesheet. Right."
You do not understand CSS at all, if you can say that.
"But yeah, I know, if only we could make sites all exactly like your own. What a perfect world this would be. And if everything were useful to YOU, god, we'd all be in paradise."
NOW you're getting the point. And please, capitalize My name...
Ok, seriously. It looks to me like your site was designed to fill the enitre browser window at 800 x 600, but if inches of blank space to the right was what you were going for, then you've succeeded. And 100k is about twice as much as you should have for the enitre image size on a page. Granted, you can't always do that. I have some very large images in my gallery section. But it's really not a good idea to have huge images on the first page of your site, as it will tend to discourage dialup users. Unless the enitre point of your site is just to be exclusive to you and your little clique, and if that is your intent, then why not just password protect the entire thing?
Creativity matters. But a webpage is not fine art, it's more like commerical art. You have to balance the aesthetics with the usability of the page, all the while acting within the constraints of technology. A good designer has to be willing to accept compromises to make their design work.
I never claimed to be friendly, nor humble. :-) Then don't lecture people on friendliness and arrogance? I dunno, just a thought.
And we all know "teh internets" were invented around 1998... Exactly. Just like the world was created when you were born, and all that jazz. Or wait. Maybe the interwebs wuz created when webringz wuz born omfg! The birth of Usefulness!
The difference being, porn sites do contain some content, such as it is. ... Oh, I get it now. We're generalizing. Cool. I should have realized that from the beginning. So, say, because some porn sites have "content," we'll say all of them do, and even though some fanlistings have "content" in what is apparently your definition of the word, a lot don't, so we'll just say all of them are evil. Works for me.
And both porn sites and message boards are easily identifiable by the description text that follows the link, if not by the URL itself. And hey, if the site actually says in the title tags "fanlisting" or in the meta tags "fanlisting" or in the opening tag "fanlisting," that often shows up. Weird!
My site is not perfect. It contains deprecated tags, and needs a facelift. I do that every couple of years. Nice excuse.
But don't expect me to take one line snarks seriously. Show a little effort. It took you effort to be that snarky? Really?
You do not understand CSS at all, if you can say that. Actually, I was referring to the lack of elegance in your own stylesheet... or lack thereof.
NOW you're getting the point. And please, capitalize My name... OMG, whee! Cookie for Me!
Ok, seriously. It looks to me like your site was designed to fill the enitre browser window at 800 x 600, but if inches of blank space to the right was what you were going for, then you've succeeded. Yes, it was. Because 800x600 is the minimal browser resolution most people should have nowadays. And the blank space was for all other resolutions... hence the whole border thing? But yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was a rule that all site layouts had to be centered.
But it's really not a good idea to have huge images on the first page of your site, as it will tend to discourage dialup users. No, dial-up users can load the page relatively quickly, but thanks for giving them a thought!
Unless the enitre point of your site is just to be exclusive to you and your little clique, and if that is your intent, then why not just password protect the entire thing? Uh... okay. I guess... same to you? You have a personal page which, as far as I can tell, is of little to no use to anyone who doesn't know you. Hence, only for your clique. So... password protect the whole thing, sistah! Preach on!
Creativity matters. But a webpage is not fine art, it's more like commerical art. You have to balance the aesthetics with the usability of the page, Let's see. It works in all browsers... all resolutions... doesn't take ages to load... and I like it... hm. Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem here.
all the while acting within the constraints of technology. *blinks* You're only constrained by what you're unable to do. And if you can do it, clearly it's not a constraint.
So many more snarky one-liners I could say... but I can't put in the effort. So, don't take this seriously, not that you would anyway, seeing how you're right, naturally.
My site has content, for anyone who chooses to visit it. It's not restricted to just a "clique", which I do not have, nor would I want one.
"Actually, I was referring to the lack of elegance in your own stylesheet... or lack thereof."
Snark about my stylesheet all you want, but please, make an attempt at coherence? Are you trying to say I don't use stylesheets? I certainly do. Are you trying to imply it's not well done? You're entitled to your opinion. I consider the source. :-)
My site has content, for anyone who chooses to visit it. In your opinion.
It's not restricted to just a "clique", which I do not have, nor would I want one. *shrugs* You're the one who brought up the whole "your clique" thing to begin with, and I never said my site was for a particular "clique."
Snark about my stylesheet all you want, but please, make an attempt at coherence? Are you trying to say I don't use stylesheets? I certainly do. Are you trying to imply it's not well done? You're entitled to your opinion. I consider the source. :-) It's coherent to anyone looking at your site and your source code.
God no, what ARE you talking about? No. There is a fanlisting to mtsfemme somewhere on this godforsaken internet...it has, like, three members and it's not the prettiest of fanlistings. Long story there. :sighs:
*eyes* I DO however need a site to post all my fic that isn't ffn.net and my icons.... but that's rather low priority, I guess. Errr. I don't want to pay for webspace.
I looked at that person's site. I'm sorry, but s/he shouldn't be criticizing other people's sites.
Why not? Foe is fully entitled to an opinion regardless of his site or what's on it. Yeah, Foe (and myself) both list things like comic buys, etc, which are useful, if remotely, to those who know us and are interested in what we're looking forward to, etc. A fanlisting is almost the opposite of that. Its a list of people who like something. Posting a list of what you like at least serves some purpose in some sense, but what's the point of a list of people that like one thing?
I don't understand fanlistings really as there's no real purpose to them outside of adding yourself to it. Then what? Honestly what do they do for others?
Why not? Foe is fully entitled to an opinion regardless of his site or what's on it. Someone who criticizes others should at least be in some superior position to be criticizing, or at least acknowledge that they're not any better, even though they're stating their opinions.
Posting a list of what you like at least serves some purpose in some sense, but what's the point of a list of people that like one thing? To demonstrate that there are other fans out there? To show support? So you can see who's on the list and look at their sites, since you share a common interest?
Honestly what do they do for others? Just because it's not "useful" to you doesn't mean it's meaningless and a waste of Internet space. Fanlistings are fun for the people who join them and for the people who make them. There are all sorts of reasons people make fanlistings, and if you don't share those opinions, fine, but that doesn't make those reasons any less valid.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
::is ashamed::
I was so easily led when I was a newbie in fandom.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Frankly, I like adding stuff to fanlistings and making them more than just lists of fans, but I also like making sites just 'cause of the webdesign and the ability to make a pretty layout for something I'm into. Also, if something is obscure. It's basically a tribute or something, and not everything online has to be useful and informative. I also like being able to conveniently list things I'm a fan of on my site, with a link to a site that has other fans listed also.
I don't care that people aren't into fanlistings, but I am offended when people say they're useless, and haha, people who are into them are so lame and dumb and make shitty sites, but whatever.
no subject
I'll admit that it went from a "useless site" to "fanlisting sites suck" rant pretty quick, and if you were offended, that's still not the point of the rant, as its more a "take what you have and better it, expand upon it" and such. Foe is just a really outspoken individual, that's all.
I'm hard pressed to defend the useless part though. I see no reason for them honestly. What ARE the uses of them?
I'm not saying they are bad and shouldn't exist, I just don't understand why they do and what purpose they serve, so please if anyone can elaborate (and not a fanlist hater, I'd like to hear this from one who likes them), please do.
no subject
But you could easily make the same argument about anything else. Okay, so you do XYZ, which is a little bit. Why not expand on that and flesh it out even more? It's always, "You can make it better or do more."
The point of a fanlisting has always been to be a list of fans. Why? To demonstrate support and enjoyment and interest in a subject, which yes, may make sense more to people with websites. Webcliques existed long before fanlistings came into being, and fanlistings are different only in the fact that they allow people who don't have sites to be listed too. People can see that there are fans of this all over the world; so others can look at the sites of other people, and hey, isn't that neat, I didn't even know people in THIS PLACE had heard of it.
If someone doesn't like fanlistings, they don't have to join them. Having one fanlisting be at the top of a search engine result isn't any worse than having a porn site or a domain sitter there instead. And being "useful" - if it's not of any use to you, okay, but it's clearly useful to other people in some way, whether it's minor or not.
no subject
And this, in one line, neatly sums up Everything That Has Gone Horribly Wrong With the Internet.
"Webcliques" haven't "always been popular". In fact, they are relatively new. Before "cliques" there were webrings, which were actually useful, before improved search engine and neglect made them fall by the wayside.
Which segues neatly into what is annoying about fanlistings. Search engines treat them like they were real sites, with actual information on them. I suppose I can't tell people to stop making them - as much as I'd like to - but, by all that is unholy, WHY can't they easily be identified as such? Maybe a new meta tag, something like "meta-useful-content: DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!"
Now, since you've taken it upon yourself to critique Foe's site, uninvited, you won't mind if I do the same to yours? No? Good. Well, from a design standpoint, I have seen worse. However...
"Suggesting" a resolution and browser (even if it is and admirable and superior browser choice) is amateurish, user-unfriendly, and arrogant. It's not your place to tell your viewers how to configure their monitors, nor what software to use. A good designer is able and willing to make their layout work with any browser, at any resolution. If you used more relative positioning, you wouldn't have to worry about that, and viewers using higher resolutions wouldn't see all that dead space to the right of your layout.
Two words. JPEG compression. Two more words. Alt tags. That title image is pretty freakin' huge, especially at your suggested resolution of 800 x 600. It's like having a splash page, only it takes longer to load. With the blurring and erdoing effects you used on the image, you could compress it massively, with minimal loss of eye appeal. Ideally, you should use title tags on your images too, but without alt tags, it's not valid HTML. And, what's up with that image map, without any links? That's the only place you did use alt tags, which baffles me, especially since they won't give the effect I *think* you're going for, with your suggested browser.
Using that little 1 x 1 pixel GIF for your lines is a cheap and nasty hack, especially when you could get the same effect, and with far more elegance, using your stylesheet. Avoid all unecessary HTTP requests like that, it's good for everyone's bandwidth.
Your main page is pretty long. That is also amateurish, and always reminds me of those wacky conspiracy theory sites where they put EVERYTHING on the same page, regardless of relevance or coherance. Consider making an "updates" page, or perhaps aging some of those old posts into your archives faster? There's all manner of nifty blog scripts out there that will even automate this for you.
no subject
I'm sorry everything has to be useful. How nice it must be knowing that everything you say and do has some use to someone else.
Ironically, you later say: "Suggesting" a resolution and browser (even if it is and admirable and superior browser choice) is amateurish, user-unfriendly, and arrogant. Funny how what you said above- your own opinion of the downfall of the Internet- is extremely unfriendly and arrogant.
"Webcliques" haven't "always been popular". In fact, they are relatively new. Before "cliques" there were webrings, which were actually useful, before improved search engine and neglect made them fall by the wayside.
Uh, no, they've been around for ages. Since at least 1998, which is fairly long. Yes, webrings were around earlier, but what's your point? That webrings are useful, and fanlistings aren't?
I can't tell people to stop making them - as much as I'd like to
*laughing* Wow. Just... wow.
WHY can't they easily be identified as such?
Some are. Some aren't. You don't know what you get for any site until you click the link, even with meta tags and sections parsed out for you.
Search engines treat them like they were real sites, with actual information on them.
Search engines treat porn sites like they're real sites, too. They treat message forums like they're "real" sites. Go to dmoz.org if you want sites that have been looked over and checked for content.
Now, since you've taken it upon yourself to critique Foe's site, uninvited, you won't mind if I do the same to yours? No? Good. Well, from a design standpoint, I have seen worse. However...
Having seen your own site and your own coding? Sure, go ahead. And by the way, Foe did the same exact thing to other sites. But I guess because he and you and everyone else are right, it's somehow legitimized. But yeah, I know, if only we could make sites all exactly like your own. What a perfect world this would be. And if everything were useful to YOU, god, we'd all be in paradise.
Your oh-so-helpful suggestions about resolution and browser choice.
Thanks, but my site actually does work in all resolutions and all browsers. Oh, and the point of the site is to BE on the left, not centered. But whatever. Telling me how to make my site isn't arrogant in the slightest, right?
Your oh-so-helpful suggestions on the images.
Yes, jpeg compression is something I need to work on, but if it loads under 100kb, I'm fine. As for everything else, I have Lord. It's like two different worlds. The people who think they know everything about design and how everyone should do what they say, and the people who think that maybe, aesthetics and creativity kind of *do* matter. But right- not information, so not useful. I keep forgetting that.
Using that little 1 x 1 pixel GIF for your lines is a cheap and nasty hack, especially when you could get the same effect, and with far more elegance, using your stylesheet. Avoid all unecessary HTTP requests like that, it's good for everyone's bandwidth.
*laughs* "Elegance" using a stylesheet. Right.
I just find this whole thing really really funny. Sorry.
no subject
I never claimed to be friendly, nor humble. :-)
"Since at least 1998"
And we all know "teh internets" were invented around 1998...
"Search engines treat porn sites like they're real sites, too. They treat message forums like they're "real" sites."
The difference being, porn sites do contain some content, such as it is. And both porn sites and message boards are easily identifiable by the description text that follows the link, if not by the URL itself.
"Having seen your own site and your own coding? Sure, go ahead."
My site is not perfect. It contains deprecated tags, and needs a facelift. I do that every couple of years. But hey, if you want to critique it, knock yourself out. But don't expect me to take one line snarks seriously. Show a little effort.
""Elegance" using a stylesheet. Right."
You do not understand CSS at all, if you can say that.
"But yeah, I know, if only we could make sites all exactly like your own. What a perfect world this would be. And if everything were useful to YOU, god, we'd all be in paradise."
NOW you're getting the point. And please, capitalize My name...
Ok, seriously. It looks to me like your site was designed to fill the enitre browser window at 800 x 600, but if inches of blank space to the right was what you were going for, then you've succeeded. And 100k is about twice as much as you should have for the enitre image size on a page. Granted, you can't always do that. I have some very large images in my gallery section. But it's really not a good idea to have huge images on the first page of your site, as it will tend to discourage dialup users. Unless the enitre point of your site is just to be exclusive to you and your little clique, and if that is your intent, then why not just password protect the entire thing?
Creativity matters. But a webpage is not fine art, it's more like commerical art. You have to balance the aesthetics with the usability of the page, all the while acting within the constraints of technology. A good designer has to be willing to accept compromises to make their design work.
no subject
Then don't lecture people on friendliness and arrogance? I dunno, just a thought.
And we all know "teh internets" were invented around 1998...
Exactly. Just like the world was created when you were born, and all that jazz. Or wait. Maybe the interwebs wuz created when webringz wuz born omfg! The birth of Usefulness!
The difference being, porn sites do contain some content, such as it is.
... Oh, I get it now. We're generalizing. Cool. I should have realized that from the beginning. So, say, because some porn sites have "content," we'll say all of them do, and even though some fanlistings have "content" in what is apparently your definition of the word, a lot don't, so we'll just say all of them are evil. Works for me.
And both porn sites and message boards are easily identifiable by the description text that follows the link, if not by the URL itself.
And hey, if the site actually says in the title tags "fanlisting" or in the meta tags "fanlisting" or in the opening tag "fanlisting," that often shows up. Weird!
My site is not perfect. It contains deprecated tags, and needs a facelift. I do that every couple of years.
Nice excuse.
But don't expect me to take one line snarks seriously. Show a little effort.
It took you effort to be that snarky? Really?
You do not understand CSS at all, if you can say that.
Actually, I was referring to the lack of elegance in your own stylesheet... or lack thereof.
NOW you're getting the point. And please, capitalize My name...
OMG, whee! Cookie for Me!
Ok, seriously. It looks to me like your site was designed to fill the enitre browser window at 800 x 600, but if inches of blank space to the right was what you were going for, then you've succeeded.
Yes, it was. Because 800x600 is the minimal browser resolution most people should have nowadays. And the blank space was for all other resolutions... hence the whole border thing? But yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was a rule that all site layouts had to be centered.
But it's really not a good idea to have huge images on the first page of your site, as it will tend to discourage dialup users.
No, dial-up users can load the page relatively quickly, but thanks for giving them a thought!
Unless the enitre point of your site is just to be exclusive to you and your little clique, and if that is your intent, then why not just password protect the entire thing?
Uh... okay. I guess... same to you? You have a personal page which, as far as I can tell, is of little to no use to anyone who doesn't know you. Hence, only for your clique. So... password protect the whole thing, sistah! Preach on!
Creativity matters. But a webpage is not fine art, it's more like commerical art. You have to balance the aesthetics with the usability of the page,
Let's see. It works in all browsers... all resolutions... doesn't take ages to load... and I like it... hm. Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem here.
all the while acting within the constraints of technology.
*blinks* You're only constrained by what you're unable to do. And if you can do it, clearly it's not a constraint.
So many more snarky one-liners I could say... but I can't put in the effort. So, don't take this seriously, not that you would anyway, seeing how you're right, naturally.
no subject
That is painfully obvious.
My site has content, for anyone who chooses to visit it. It's not restricted to just a "clique", which I do not have, nor would I want one.
"Actually, I was referring to the lack of elegance in your own stylesheet... or lack thereof."
Snark about my stylesheet all you want, but please, make an attempt at coherence? Are you trying to say I don't use stylesheets? I certainly do. Are you trying to imply it's not well done? You're entitled to your opinion. I consider the source. :-)
no subject
Yep, painfully so.
My site has content, for anyone who chooses to visit it.
In your opinion.
It's not restricted to just a "clique", which I do not have, nor would I want one.
*shrugs* You're the one who brought up the whole "your clique" thing to begin with, and I never said my site was for a particular "clique."
Snark about my stylesheet all you want, but please, make an attempt at coherence? Are you trying to say I don't use stylesheets? I certainly do. Are you trying to imply it's not well done? You're entitled to your opinion. I consider the source. :-)
It's coherent to anyone looking at your site and your source code.
no subject
With that, you've descended to "I know I am but what are you?" territory.
Hasta. We've cluttered up Lyss's journal enough. Enjoy your little fanlistings.
no subject
Hrm. "Here is where we worship the Liz"
no subject
no subject
Hrm.
*pokes s'more at dystopia*
no subject
*pokes at your huge fic*
WANTS!
no subject
And, I'm getting there! I have to edit the last half, because it was all written last night, and I was very tired!
no subject
I looked at that person's site. I'm sorry, but s/he shouldn't be criticizing other people's sites.
And some people like fanlistings.
no subject
Why not? Foe is fully entitled to an opinion regardless of his site or what's on it. Yeah, Foe (and myself) both list things like comic buys, etc, which are useful, if remotely, to those who know us and are interested in what we're looking forward to, etc. A fanlisting is almost the opposite of that. Its a list of people who like something. Posting a list of what you like at least serves some purpose in some sense, but what's the point of a list of people that like one thing?
I don't understand fanlistings really as there's no real purpose to them outside of adding yourself to it. Then what? Honestly what do they do for others?
no subject
Someone who criticizes others should at least be in some superior position to be criticizing, or at least acknowledge that they're not any better, even though they're stating their opinions.
Posting a list of what you like at least serves some purpose in some sense, but what's the point of a list of people that like one thing?
To demonstrate that there are other fans out there? To show support? So you can see who's on the list and look at their sites, since you share a common interest?
Honestly what do they do for others?
Just because it's not "useful" to you doesn't mean it's meaningless and a waste of Internet space. Fanlistings are fun for the people who join them and for the people who make them. There are all sorts of reasons people make fanlistings, and if you don't share those opinions, fine, but that doesn't make those reasons any less valid.
no subject
It seemed like a good idea at the time. *shrug*