Examples of Bad Websites
There are countless examples of embarrassing website designs and development out there. These are the latest examples we have discovered. For each site below we provide a brief analysis to assist you in avoiding the same pitfalls.
After looking at the websites and critiques below, please visit our free advice area.
Help us clean up the Internet!
Central Ohio Fabricators
Today's bad website mentions that they've been manufacturing quality products for over 20 years. That dates this website at 2004. Back then, this website might have been HOT. Use of Flash was the "in" thing, and expensive. Today? Not so much. Concerns about usability, privacy and security put the nail in Adobe Flash's coffin. It is an ongoing mystery to us here at boogersite.com why there are any websites still left out there that feature Flash.
There is no navigation to speak of, even after enabling Flash to run, the hamburger in the top left doesn't expand. At the time this website was created, the now-prevalent hamburger wasn't in use. So it's probably just a "design" choice. What hopefully was NOT a design choice is the test-pattern red and gray area on the right. Awful.
We are not sure exactly what this website is about. Peeps? Flowers? Those are the only two images on the landing page. Images always have helped set the tone for what a website is about.
Colors can also set the tone, so maybe the pink and purple (in combination with the chicks) are to inspire memories of Easter.
Wrong. This website is promoting a workshop to prepare young ladies for earning a spot in a sorority. Not sure which sorority, or which college - there isn't a hint of location on this website. The link to 'Contact Us' doesn't work, and neither do any of the other navigation options. Ladies, you are on your own.
P & M Computers
These days, it's never a good idea to depend on Flash for elements of your website. Especially not this many, and especially not on your landing page. In May of 2016, Google told us it would eventually block Flash player content on Chrome. That day arrived in December of 2016. Facebook made the same ban for videos but a year earlier. So this bad website has been flaunting its old technology for over two years past obsolescence.
Another issue with this site is that it's all image. None of the content on this poorly made website is ever going to be indexed by search engines, all they're 'seeing' is...nothing.
If you're going to hire a company advertising their "best practices" in the arena of technology and IT services, you'd likely want to hire a company with those practices on display.
Does anyone remember the movie Pinocchio? The 1940 film about a marionette that wants more than anything to be a real boy? This bad website reminds us of that movie, because we believe it wants to be a real website.
It appears that the website itself is trying to sell its own domain, and why not? If you purchased "oj.com," and you're not O.J. Simpson, it makes sense to shop it to orange juice companies.
There's no point cracking on the design, if you can call what you're seeing a "design." But you CAN marvel at the huge set of keywords - 384 of them - which include (inexplicably) 'karmel,' vodka, alzheimers, Israel, queen, shopping mall, big bucks, beer in the morning, and chili.
Today's bad website is all about the appearance. A company could be the absolute best at what they do in their particular industry and their website could have an abundance of useful and relevant content - but if it looks old and unkempt, internet searchers might just click on to the next result.
We could play the keyword game, as this site has 45 keywords or phrases. Back when keywords were important, 2 or 3 per page was considered best practice. But for old time's sake - what would you assume a website was about if there were keywords "Marvel Schebler" "Agriculture" and "Governors?" Perhaps the latest comic-book based film about a politician who farms. Hey, why not? It's one plot that hasn't been used...