Website of the Stavropol branch of the Russian Entomological Society opened

Since the forum of this site is censored for criticism, I will repeat my question here.

The topic completely removed from the forum was about the quality of uploaded PDF files of the conference Materials "Problems of Entomology of the North Caucasus Region". The fact is that they were uploaded (and are still being uploaded) as text PDFs, which contain the statement that they are "electronic copies". In fact, their markup (text distribution by page and page numbers) does not correspond to the paper versions of these collections. You can easily verify this by checking the page numbers of articles in the PDF itself with those on the html pages with descriptions of these collections. In response to my remark about this lack of them, Admin first suggested putting these collections in the form of scanned DjVu, and then completely deleted EVERYTHING (sic!) topics from your forum, including 2 more topics that are not unpleasant for the Stavropol branch of REO content of the third author.
My topic was deleted with the following wording:

In addition, the first message of this topic contains a deliberately incorrect statement.:

there are detailed data for each member about the area of interest, published works, contact details, etc.

As it is not difficult to see, this is far from the case.

Dear Shoffer,

THE FORUM DOES NOT CENSOR CRITICISM!

And I am grateful to you, as I said in my answers and in my letter, for your comments.

That, there would be no unnecessary disputes electronic copies of collections from the site of the Stavropol branch of REO are removed and I think that it is not worth inflating the problem from this and continue the bickering until the Moderator of this forum also banned us both for flooding!
And, as for the fact that your topic was removed from the forum, it was simply turned into a personal correspondence.
And, as for the topics of the third author, they did not concern the activities of the Stavropol branch of REO and contained information that, to put it mildly, discredited the honor of Stavropol institutions and inflated this flood with non-motional vocabulary in the future, as the fourth author tried to do in this topic, there was no point.
As for the members ' profiles, this list will be updated a little later, as I promised.

This post was edited by muravey - 12/21/2007 17: 04

No offense, but the site's design leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't vote on the site itself, because I realized that it wasn't worth it. if you want criticism, go to deforum or the Rubord forum, where they will point out the shortcomings in more detail. and so, for starters, a small example: it seems that the webmaster did not look at his work under the explorer (as well as add-ons above it-maxton, etc.) -


the site looks best under browsers with the mozilla engine (Firefox, Safari, k-meleon), worse-opera, and completely obscene under ie.

Dear Cornborer,

The site looks acceptable, starting with a resolution of 1024X768, and it has adapted to 1280x1024.

So, if you adapt it to a lower resolution, it will look even more obscene.

And it doesn't depend on the browser in any way.

And you think that everyone has such monitors and vidyuhi?!1280x1024. - this is great, but strange. Then it was necessary to raise the bar even higher. so that everyone who doesn't have a graphics studio is immediately eliminated.

Dear Guest with IP stamp frMywALQe3X1M

perhaps not everyone will be so interested in our correspondence, so I will answer briefly.
1) a person who calls himself a webmaster will NEVER write like this: the site is adapted for ... (here you can insert whatever you want - resolution, browser, etc.)
2) you can see the picture in my prev. have you seen the post? click to enlarge - this will be part of the screenshot below the maxton at 1280*1024.
3) regarding these words: "So, if you adapt it to a lower resolution, it will look even more obscene. and it doesn't depend on the browser in any way." for someone who knows html, this is a routine and mandatory task.

"And it doesn't depend on the browser in any way. "
Yes, and if I mentioned different browsers, it means that I reviewed the site with each of the mentioned ones. Right now I'm watching from under K-Ninja
The routine work of a webmaster is to test your brainchild under everything that is running on the Internet for at least 1% of users

Dear Cornborer,

The site looks acceptable, starting with a resolution of 1024X768, and it has adapted to 1280x1024.

So, if you adapt it to a lower resolution, it will look even more obscene.

And it doesn't depend on the browser in any way.

And why even adapt an informational site, which is mostly text-based, to the resolution?

This post was edited by Bad Den-12/22/2007 00: 58

No, I don't think so, but tell me if there are many people who work at a resolution of 800x600, or 640x480. And, for example, try to open a site that is adapted to a resolution of 800x600 and look at it on a monitor with a screen resolution of 1680x1050 and you will see only a narrow strip where you can't read anything. The resolution of 1280x1024 was not chosen by chance, as now more and more people and organizations are buying themselves LCD monitors of at least 17". And there is no point in setting a resolution lower than its maximum on an LCD monitor, since graininess appears.

I'm sorry, but then we should also ban the sale of Plasma panels, because all TV shows come with a resolution of 640x480, and sometimes 320x240 and look terrible on them.

And again, I repeat, the site looks good with a resolution of 1024x768, which is supported by almost all CRT monitors and LCD 14-15", if there are not many panels in the same IE.

Once again, I apologize, but then let's do everything under the old hardware and release software not for modern computers, but for computers that work only with DOS. Progress does not stand still and you have to choose options that are more suitable for the current moment and believe me, I am not the only one who produces sites adapted to the resolution of 1280x1024.

And why even adapt an informational site, which is mostly text-based, to the resolution?

The site is not only text-based, but also has a number of tables, photos, and most importantly, a frame structure.

Many Web designers do not like this type of site design, but there are a number of advantages in any case that are essential for me and for some webmasters:

1. The main advantage of frames is that they keep parts of the page still while other parts scroll. It can be:

- graphic company logo (or advertising)
- navigation icons
- query results window, when a query is in one frame, and the results of this query are in another, etc.

2. Frames combine resources located on different servers. For example, you can use frames to combine your own content (and navigation graphics) with content on another server.

3. Using the <noframes> tag, you can easily add alternative content for browsers that don't support frames

Naturally there are also disadvantages:

1. Frames are not supported by older browsers (the <noframes> tag solves this problem).

2. Frames complicate the production process of the site, because to fill a single page, you need to create several files.

3. A large number of frames on a single page can significantly increase the load on the server.Four requests for 1Kb files (a group of frames and the contents of three frames) will do more work for the server than one request for a 4KB document. Accordingly, pages with frames take longer to load.

4. Framed documents can be a problem for search engines. A document at the content level may be skipped during the search.If a document contained in a frame is found by a search engine, it is likely that it will be displayed outside the context of the frame group and may lose the ability to navigate.

5. Users cannot bookmark a separate nested page in a frame document. Bookmarks only define the top-level frame document in its original state. There is no way to track the states of a group of frames, so you can't bookmark them.


Yes, but everyone chooses a more convenient option for themselves.
You can tell me why not to use layers for the same drawings. The answer is simple: if you use layers, then when you need to change the site design, it will take quite a long time than if you change it now.

dear muravey,
1) once again (last) I draw your attention: read the screenshot (see the picture in my post above, click on it) link in the menu "become a member of reo". so the word " reo " is not visible, it goes under the frame. and this is exactly under ie. all you need to do here is spell out the style more clearly, it's something for the webmaster to do, like <a class= "your style" href="blah-blah-blah">
2) frames are disgusting, and in every way. serious people don't use them.There are divs (layers) for this purpose. you correctly listed the disadvantages of frames, and then suddenly " ... you need to change the design of the site, it will take quite a long time..."

I'm afraid that's an excuse. especially since the design [if by this we mean something aesthetic-see Wikipedia ] the site doesn't have it yet.

Adamov,
If "on broken HTML" - then most likely not as a "webmaster", but as a "webmaster"

all that you wrote - sorry, not serious. for quite some time now, they have been making so-called rubber. in other words, the site is configured for the user's permission.
now as for the narrow strip from 800*600 from old sites on modern monitors. and this is also not a problem: the page scale is regulated by the browser option.

If we talk about this, the page can also be reduced in the same browser options.

But, again, if the page is made under 800X600, then the images will look appropriate at high resolution.

As well as if you reduce the page created for a higher resolution, texts will start to blur, especially those made in a smaller font.

Therefore, it is indicated that the site is adapted for.

And I would like to note in conclusion that the site does not claim to be a masterpiece of art and in each site you can find many shortcomings, even in the most professional one that a whole group of people worked on.

And I don't claim to be a professional Web designer, but I made a website so that people could learn about the Stavropol branch of REO and its activities.

And who doesn't like the design and content, that's what criticism is for.

Moreover, I agree with almost all the statements.

But sometimes, the design does not always determine everything, and I just ask you to treat this site as another site .

This post was edited by muravey - 12/22/2007 02: 13

The site is not only text-based, but also has a number of tables, photos, and most importantly, a frame structure.

Many Web designers do not like this type of site design, but there are a number of advantages in any case that are essential for me and for some webmasters:

1. The main advantage of frames is that they keep parts of the page still while other parts scroll. It can be:

- graphic company logo (or advertising)
- navigation icons
- query results window, when a query is in one frame, and the results of this query are in another, etc.

2. Frames combine resources located on different servers. For example, you can use frames to combine your own content (and navigation graphics) with content on another server.

3. Using the <noframes> tag, you can easily add alternative content for browsers that don't support frames

Naturally there are also disadvantages:

1. Frames are not supported by older browsers (the <noframes> tag solves this problem).

2. Frames complicate the production process of the site, because to fill a single page, you need to create several files.

3. A large number of frames on a single page can significantly increase the load on the server.Four requests for 1Kb files (a group of frames and the contents of three frames) will do more work for the server than one request for a 4KB document. Accordingly, pages with frames take longer to load.

4. Framed documents can be a problem for search engines. A document at the content level may be skipped during the search.If a document contained in a frame is found by a search engine, it is likely that it will be displayed outside the context of the frame group and may lose the ability to navigate.

5. Users cannot bookmark a separate nested page in a frame document. Bookmarks only define the top-level frame document in its original state. There is no way to track the states of a group of frames, so you can't bookmark them.
Yes, but everyone chooses a more convenient option for themselves.
You can tell me why not to use layers for the same drawings. The answer is simple: if you use layers, then when you need to change the site design, it will take quite a long time than if you change it now.

I understand that a pianist plays as well as he can. The frem structure is closer to your heart, but IMHO, it is more convenient only for creating the navigation part.
There is no advertising on the site, and it is not possible (and even necessary, by and large) to make requests. And there are so many minuses (you listed them yourself).
Tables can easily be adjusted to the resolution by specifying their dimensions not in pixels, but in%, for example.

In general, I would strongly advise building a site of this plan on any engine (CMS), such as Joomla, phphNuke, etc., since

Usually, sites are optimized for the most common IE, and this usually applies to complex sites with dynamic content, etc. And such a simple site, as discussed here, can easily be configured so that all of it is read correctly by all popular browsers. Again, if you optimize the resolution, then under 800x600 or 1024x768, but not under 1280... Just because the site is optimized for a certain resolution doesn't mean that it won't be possible to work with it at other screen resolutions.

The design is meaningless to discuss due to its complete absence. From what immediately caught my eye: awkward frames - the top one needs to be squeezed three times; replace times with a different font, preferably sans-serif; "immerse" emblems in the text or something else, they don't look perfect in a separate column; the abbreviation "RAN" doesn't need to be highlighted in bold.

You can ask the author to look at examples of similar sites on the Internet. Design, structure, etc. Offhand, not ideal, but quite acceptable site of the Saratov branch of REO:
http://www.zin.ru/societies/res/saratov/
We just need to wait for the Zino server to come to life...

To the site author:
The fact that you have taken up the creation of the website of your branch is great and wonderful. You don't need to be offended when you hear criticism, much less abandon the site. If you put your brainchild in the public domain , don't expect any leniency.Almost all the comments I've seen are appropriate and fair. You don't have to argue with them, but accept them and learn from them. It is probably easier to rewrite the site by copying the content, rather than correcting it. You can't rely entirely on editor programs. After the page editor, it is highly desirable to view the page with your eyes and optimize / correct it manually. Also, you don't need to chase after bells and whistles. A good website doesn't have to be complicated. You can create a great beautiful and at the same time functional website at the same technical level as your current one. But otherwise...

Plin... While writing, a bunch of new messages appeared:- /

To muravey:
Regarding the forum. The fact that you deleted the topics, arguing this action by transferring the conversation to a personal account, is unacceptable. The only reason for deleting posts is a violation of the forum rules, namely obscene language, insults, etc. Everything else: disputes, criticism, even for someone unpleasant - is inviolable. As a last resort, you can close the topic. But don't erase what you've already written. Personally, I would immediately leave the forum, where they erase my posts without well, Sooo good reason.

About everything else. There is no point in dispute here. You are arguing with something that has long been accepted and described in hundreds of html and web design textbooks. If you have already decided to "optimize" the site, then optimize for the most common browsers and the most common resolution (IE and 1024x768), and do not philosophize about supporting ancient monitors, etc. You will also remember about EGA and tube computers.

To all:
Frames, even with some of their shortcomings , are not absolutely evil. Some modern browsers understand them, and they make navigation easier. If you do not look for an ideal and do not build the perfection of design into an end in itself, then let them only need to make the site in such a way that they facilitate navigation, and do not make it difficult - as on the site of the Stavropol branch: D

This post was edited by Salix - 12/22/2007 04: 08

Salix correctly noted: of course, there is no subject for dispute. is it to clarify what has been said, here, this is what "rubber" looks like - for example, this site - http://lunevan.narod.ru/fire.html
and it is absolutely true, it is easier and better to make sites on the cms, especially on jumla. there is no simpler and more convenient option than Joomla - see for example. here http://www.siteground.com/joomla-hosting/j...a-templates.htm

Yes. Thank you all for your comments, and I'll try to take them into account.

To Cornborer:
Off top. Do you happen to know why the Herbology lab's website isn't on the official Vizrov site? Made beautifully, much nicer than the crudely put together official website. It just got interesting.

Even on this site, I was amused: you hover the mouse over a button to click, and it "runs away"... Cool

This post was edited by Salix-12/22/2007 04: 14

Now more and more people and organizations are buying 17 " LCD monitors. And there is no point in setting a resolution of 800x600 on an LCD monitor.

I'm just such a user! I will know that I am the last of the Mohicans.

Em... Another off top Tell me, plz, is there any benefit from thanks? Do they accumulate somewhere? Why are they needed and what are they generally eaten with?

This post was edited by Salix-12/22/2007 04: 13

THE FORUM DOES NOT CENSOR CRITICISM!

Somehow, I didn't doubt that you would say that.
Okay, let's hope I imagined it.
But, nevertheless, I prefer to conduct a constructive dialogue here.

To avoid unnecessary disputes electronic copies of collections from the website of the Stavropol branch of REO have been removed

And do you think this is an adequate response to my comments?

And, as for the third author's topics, they did not concern the activities of the Stavropol branch of REO and contained information that, to put it mildly, discredited the honor of Stavropol institutions and inflated this flood with non-motional vocabulary in the future, as the fourth author tried to do in this topic, there was no point.

By themselves, they did not contain any non-verbal language.
I haven't personally seen the fourth author, but if so, you can only delete his message.

In summary, I want to express my hope for the development of your site and for filling it with high-quality content.

I join the critics of this site.
It's really unpleasant to watch.
The site name header occupies half of the screen.
Scrolling of useful text is small.

2Cornborer

Thank you, I didn't expect that the design of E-INFO could be so highly appreciated! My abilities and knowledge are extremely limited, limited to plain HTML. But even then, the site looks "right" under Explorer and its add-ons, under other browsers (Opera, etc.) - "crooked", but I try to track obvious blunders. Some scripts work only under Explorer, but I haven't found any alternatives here yet. Excuse me. So, most likely, the bar is a little too high, but, anyway, thank you

It is convenient to track the hardware characteristics of users visiting the site and make your own site (resolution, color rendering, browsers, etc.) based on tracker data, for example, http://extremetracking.com Here's what this tracker has collected in 7 years for E-INFO http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=bryodema

Dear Shoffer,

At the expense of the third author. I was responding to your message - it was in no way related to the activities of the Stavropol branch and the site, and even more so entomology. And secondly, such messages-this is a very soft word-discredit the honor of Stavropol institutions without having any ground under them.

And, at the expense of the fact that criticism, or just reproaches and imposing your opinion, like open access to copying, sorry, then you could immediately demand exactly how you do it. Set collections, for example, in MSWORD format. I listened to your opinion that the pages do not match, so I removed the collections from the site - this was the solution, and you Shoffer keep raising the issue about it. I do not understand what you are trying to achieve, whatever you do in whatever forums you write again shows a personal dislike for me and the site, but this is your personal business. You started doing this on the forum of the Stavropol branch, so your message was deleted.



THANK YOU TO MANY OF YOU FOR THE "HEALTHY" CRITICISM, ESPECIALLY Cornborer, REALLY MAKING A WEBSITE USING Joomla WILL BE THE BEST WAY.

AND I ASK YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SITE WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND ONLY ON ONE ENTHUSIASM.

AND I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL WEBMASTER, IF THE STAVROPOL BRANCH HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL WEB DESIGNER, IT WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, AND I AM ONE OF ITS MEMBERS AND AN ENTOMOLOGIST.

Insect expert,
I will repeat once again that the design Entomology.ru I rate it highly. Moreover, the design is in the narrow, direct sense of the word. Just to be clear: good, professionally made sites create teams. which include a minimum of a designer and coder, as well as a SEO optimizer, graphics specialist, editor, and many other small things, such as a script driver, flasher, etc. therefore, the author's site (the site of one person) cannot fail to lose out in its parameters to the professional one. This is like an author's song compared to a professional one created by the efforts of a large team - a composer/poet/singer-performer/musicians/director+accountant/...

You are talking about flaws in the part that relates to the work of the coder. Here you are right, indeed, there are really a lot of moments where to grow.

muravey, regarding criticism, I can say that you should not take it too much to heart. Salix has already written about this, emphasizing: it is good that you have taken on such an important task. Let me just say that our institute does not have a single professorial website owner. Everything that was put up on the Internet was made by biologists (usually entomologists). Finally, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) has not given money for making websites for a long time, so our inform.resources are only a side output from the implementation of projects - work on them is reflected in only one item 3.16.1 in reports for the current year

Dear friends and colleagues,

The website design of the Stavropol branch of REO has been updated.
Removed the frame structure, I hope the site has become better.

I would also like to congratulate all of you on the upcoming New Year's holidays and wish you all the best in 2008.

This post was edited by muravey - 27.12.2007 23: 15

Pictures:

NewYear_2008.gif — (22.52к)

Yes, now I see that you did not create this topic in vain and "read" the site's criticism. I would, from the height of my primitive taste, say that this is the perfect design!

Well, it's a completely different matter, it's nice to see and read

On small things still priderus:

1. In the headings " RUSSIAN ENT. GENERAL INFORMATION. RAS "remove the word "RAN", this is superfluous, Russian ent. society we have only one

2. Section "Life of the department" - very large and different headings at the bottom. Some are lowercase, some are uppercase, and the font size is different - it's not clear why.

3. Especially in my opinion, it is too colorful-multi-colored headlines, in some places too large. More uniformity would be needed.

The Council. Try changing the font to Arial or a similar sans-serif, just for fun, on one page-you might like it.

Oh, I looked into the codes, it would be better not to do this... Later I will write.

Oh, I looked into the codes, it would be better not to do this... I'll write to you later.

As for the codes, I'll correct them later, I first do it in Dreamweaver, and then edit it later. So far I have done this, but I will clean and put it in order later.

I didn't have much time, I wanted to be in time before the New Year , and after that I will thoroughly watch and edit.

This post was edited by muravey - 12/28/2007 01: 01

And ... well, good luck With the codes the first thing that caught my eye was the tags that appear when copying text, in particular, directly from the word.

By the way, the link to your site appeared on the REO website in the list of regional branches

As for the codes, I'll correct them later, I first do it in Dreamweaver, and then edit it later.

And why does the Dreamweaver insert this?:

Here is an excerpt from the Dreamweaver tutorial

Dreamweaver is very careful with the code you create. The only meta tag that it puts in the default page header is a tag that defines the encoding (of the form < meta http-equiv= "Content-Type" content= "text / html; charset=windows-1251">). If you delete it, the tag will not be recreated the next time the page is loaded into the editor.