Worst web sites

envo said:
That's what forums are for
Click to expand...

Forums are used for online discussions. If there is a thread pertaining to a topic that is being discussed, it is always advised to used that thread as opposed to creating a new thread.
 
https://www.cti.ac.za/
Loaded a new site mid-load.
Light grey text on white background.
Colors are absolute ****.
I'm guessing a student did their site.


FNB
Grey text on white background.


Wall said:
Forums are used for online discussions. If there is a thread pertaining to a topic that is being discussed, it is always advised to used that thread as opposed to creating a new thread.
Click to expand...

This section might lead to a completely different approach to the discussion considering the people in this section most likely create sites and know what they're talking about whereas the other section is full of plebians who browse the section for the sake of ****posting/post counts/memes and dank af inside jokes.
 
Last edited:
Telkom's webmail app could easily win the worst website competition when viewed with Microsoft Edge browser.
This is not what I expected from an Internet service provider.

http://webmail.telkomsa.net/mail/
 
Try browsing theverge on mobile. It'll scroll you to the top every 3 seconds.
Wait did I or did I not post this on the other thread?
 
The worst websites should always be ranked in order of their size, for example:

[table="width: 500, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Site Home Page[/td]
[td]Standard[/td]
[td]After Ad related blocking (incl. JS)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]mybroadband.co.za[/td]
[td]5.01Mb[/td]
[td]1.01Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]gizmodo.com[/td]
[td]4.04Mb[/td]
[td]2.17Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]cnet.com[/td]
[td]5.92Mb[/td]
[td]2.27Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]engadget.com[/td]
[td]3.47Mb[/td]
[td]2.41Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]arstechnica[/td]
[td]2.57Mb[/td]
[td]1.59Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]theverge.com[/td]
[td]5.53Mb[/td]
[td]1.41Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Even worse, every article on mybroadband.co.za (as example) consumes well over 6.5Mb. Switching on Ad and unnecessary script blockers bring this in at a speedy 1mb.
 
[)roi(];16088578 said:
The worst websites should always be ranked in order of their size, for example:

[table="width: 500, class: grid, align: center"]
[tr]
[td]Site Home Page[/td]
[td]Standard[/td]
[td]After Ad related blocking (incl. JS)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]mybroadband.co.za[/td]
[td]5.01Mb[/td]
[td]1.01Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]gizmodo.com[/td]
[td]4.04Mb[/td]
[td]2.17Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]cnet.com[/td]
[td]5.92Mb[/td]
[td]2.27Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]engadget.com[/td]
[td]3.47Mb[/td]
[td]2.41Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]arstechnica[/td]
[td]2.57Mb[/td]
[td]1.59Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]theverge.com[/td]
[td]5.53Mb[/td]
[td]1.41Mb[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Even worse, every article on mybroadband.co.za (as example) consumes well over 6.5Mb. Switching on Ad and unnecessary script blockers bring this in at a speedy 1mb.
Click to expand...

Wowsers in my trousers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X