Ravi Pachai — Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:48:28 +0000

thanks for your critique, I think its better to use four instead of 4 so I did change all the numbers. You have to bare with use in certain parts as my partner is German and he sometimes uses the wrong words in places but he's still very good!

all points noted,
thanks everyone!

Ravi

Megan — Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:59:35 +0000

All I meant was that at first glance someone might get a brief impression that this site is a lot like Site Point. Yes, when you do look at it more closely it is obvious that your site is much different. And I do think that your site offers more than site point does - I think I would be more likely to visit yours on a regular basis. I never said you were copying them - I said that to some people at first glance it might look like you're copying them.

"Reviews four internet marketing strategies which..."

I actually thought you meant "reviews FOR" not "reviews FOUR" - that's what I was talking about. Sorry - I just misread the intent of the statement.

Ravi Pachai — Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:37:02 +0000

Hi Megan,

I've already been over this with many people, and only a few would consider us trying to copy sitepoint. If you look at our site at can't tell straight off that we are definitely not a copy of sitepoint then you haven't looked close enough. The only thing SitePoint and SiteRoute have in relationship is that we both use articles.

Actually I think its unfair that you should say this as we offer alot more then SitePoint (intergrated username and password, homemade forums, webhosting info, resources, projects and alot more to come), they just offer articles and a very useful community.

I've talked with alot of SitePoint users including Wayne Luck, Eric Jones, and even Matt Mick. himself, and none of them felt that SiteRoute was a graphical copy of SitePoint (thought Matt M. was convinced we did steal the PHP coding from the SitePoint server, dont ask me how..) so it's not something Im worried about, if you feel this way, so be it. Just because something looks similar is no reason to call "copy" on anyone. Our coding, are layout, our features are very much different from SitePoint.

Thanks for your first critique, we did fix the grammar, and thanks everyone else.

Ravi

PS Check your spelling on "for", this isn't very good for someone saying someone else's grammar is terrible . Just thought Id point that out.

Megan — Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:07:53 +0000

I was just thinking that this site kind of reminds me of sitepoint.com (the basic layout shape is the same for both only flipped around, and the logos both have arrows, similar colour schemes etc.). This is something that you might want to think about. "SiteRoute" as a name is a lot like "Sitepoint" and you don't want to look like you're copying them (I know, I know that's not what you're doing but some people might just get that impression).

Try adding a coloured background to your left side menu - that might make a big difference

Megan — Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:44:03 +0000

The grammar in the introduction to the first article ("Secrets of Online Success") is terrible. Do not use "4" instead of "for". When using single digit numbers you should write out the entire word instead of just using the number (ie. "eight" not "8"). Actually, all these introductions need to be redone. The aforementioned first article by Michel Fotin also needs to be completely rewritten.

Otherwise, the design looks pretty good. The graphics do look a tad bit sketchy to me though. Some of the text is hard to read (especially "hottest discussions" and "latest articles". I also agree with Mike's points though - especially no. 2.

Parker — Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:26:26 +0000

Ok looks great already but here is a thing or two.

- You images arent' together. They are cut in half and not lined up properly.

- I think you should put color in the words on the left. They look blank compared to the rest of the site.

Ravi Pachai — Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:02:15 +0000

thanks guys,

Mike I'll talk to you about some of that stuff over ICQ!

Ravi

Nice

mjames — Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:58:56 +0000

Yeah, I like it, too. Very, very good!

jackchen — Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:50:36 +0000

Very nice! I like it!

Mike Fisher — Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:29:17 +0000

1). The top bar [that displays the 'menu'] looked like a banner ad when I firsted entered the site, and just glanced about the screen. It doesn't really jump out of the screen at me, which I think wouldn't be a desirable effect.

2). You've got nice table effects [right/top] - use them! Now it looks nice and organised on the right and top sides, and the rest just kind of hangs out in nowhere's ville. I think a nice effect would be to replicate the right table [in the beveling effect] and then place it behind the current blocks of text.

3). Another thing I noticed was the pictures to the right of the menu items on the front screen [The ones that list articles.] Some of them were so big that they lost quality - especially that Netscape [coughcough-crapbrowser-coughcough] one.

4). That bottom image hangs about in the middle of the ocean, if you ask me. Maybe taking it out of that table'd help.

Other than that, it looks great, easily navigatable, and other such good things. Really, I think the only problems I have are just completely personal preferences, and rely on the visual production media.