Follow The Money

The is the core forum of BFC. It's all about informal and random talk on any topic.
Forum rules
Post a new topic to begin a chat.
Any topic is acceptable, and topic drift is permissible.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

We have talked about lobbying of our representatives by Big Business, but there never was a way to tell how much money was involved. Or, so I thought. Apparently these guys have been around for a long time, and they know. The link shows lobbying stats for the NRA, but you can look up any organization you care to. The cool part is that they break down exactly where the money flows. It was all pretty interesting to me and I couldn't help but share the resource with you: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/nation ... D000000082

Open Secrets has a ton of other interesting information I have not looked into yet. Looks like it could be addictive if you are into this kind of thing. :grin:
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

Wow, interesting. Yes, I've been to this sight before, but most of it is fairly meaningless to me, the way they list it.
Down at the end of the page on the NRA, it looks like they quit supporting Democrats at all.

Seems like the last time I was on their website, it had to do with charitable organizations, and who spends the most on charity work, and who spends the most in-house or for internal salaries. That was an eye opener also.

On a different note:
It is amazing how much stuff we forget how to do, when we don't get back to it for a couple of years.
I'm working on another simple web page, but had to relearn how to handle the photographs, size them properly, then condense them for the web. I did keep a couple of on-line places that can really compact an image without losing much quality, in my bookmarks folder.
What is even easier to forget are the little quirks about HTML5 coding.
The exact format of an instruction, some of which require a space, some don't.
Like <br /> when others don't like <li> </li> etc.
Mess up on one space and weird things happen, hi hi.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

The Open Secrets site has been around quite a while and I am certain they changed their web site during that period. There also are several different categories you can look into and drill down, each being organized in a slightly different way. I've seen people quote numbers and often wondered where they get the numbers even if they are accurate and not made up. This website is not a source of data, but they do aggregate what is open to the public and display it in a meaningful way. It would take me a lifetime to find all that public information. I like the fact that these guys did it for me. And without getting too critical, I'm not surprised the NRA and the Democrats have gone separate ways. Their interests are at polar opposites.

You may have forgotten a lot of HTML methodology but it's not all due to your fuzzy memory cells. The entire nature of web pages have changed since you made your first one and the mark up language had to be upgraded to meet the new needs. I'm also pretty sure there virtually were no mobile devices when you first learned how to mark up a web page. The rules of engagement were different back then because the devices used to see your web page were different. However, in spite of the fact you are likely using outdated methods, all you do recall still works. I have a few web pages that were generated in Microsoft Word. You know how poorly that was organized, I'm sure. Yet, today, nearly twenty years later, those pages still render. So you can forget a lot of the details, but much of the old deprecated stuff still works. There are more than a few web sties which will build web pages for you and be fluid. It could be they are just as inefficient as Microsoft Word was back in the old days. But, once you have the page looking the way you want in the site builder, you can easily go back into the code and clean it up. If you cared to.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

It is still a neat website to visit every once in awhile.

My very first website was in early HTML. I later had to upgrade it or it would quit working.
HTML went through a few iterations over the years, and I upgraded each time by rewriting my pages in the newer HTML formats.
I used to know the names of all of the HTML versions, but can't think of them off hand.
The hardest change for me was when they moved up to HTML/CSS.
The move to HTML5 wasn't so bad, but then too I used a pre-built CSS, called bootstrap.
I know HTML goes by version number from 1 up to the current 5.
But it seems like I had wrote in one called XHTML, then XHTML/CSS for a few years.
But now my websites are all Mobile Friendly HTML5.

I used to go to the trouble to Condense my websites to make them load faster.
This meant stripping out all the notes, and in many cases, all the unwanted lines, so it read like a newspaper with no breaks anywhere, hi hi.
I still kept a working copy with all of my notes for when I needed to make changes.
But today, with the high speed internet, fast browsers, etc, no reason to go to that extreme.
As long as you have the images Condensed as much as possible, page loads are nearly instant.

I do all of my HTML5 work in Gedit. I've tried using those helper programs before and they are a pain to use.
And the ones offered on-line for building your webpages are nothing more than templates you fill in data.
It is easy to tell the places that use things like WordPress, etc. because all their websites look like cookie cutter websites.
I don't like that at all. I like the freedom of doing my own the way I want it to look.
Plus, if the template changes it don't mess up my work, because I don't use them.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

XML is a metalanguage and was invented somewhere along the HTML development curve. The purpose of XML is to allow you to replace HTML tags to modify the markup, which meant that you could actually write your own version of HTML if you had a need to do that. A lot of database manipulation took advantage of it but I still see it in places such as Windows system directories. The XHTML version is a combination of XML and HTML, which according to the books turns out to be an XML application. It gets used a lot for special rendering

You don't need CSS if you re willing to be redundant and write a lot of mark up code that is repetitive. CSS might equate to subroutines you are familiar with in BASIC. It's all about style and really doesn't change anything, but does make composing web pages a lot easier. The cool part is that the "C" means cascading, which means styles that you create can be inherited by other style sheets.

As you know this all can get pretty complicated even though HTML is limited in what it is intended to do. That's why they moved on up to HTML5. A lot of new functions and techniques were invented and the old inefficient stuff deleted. I've not used it a lot and don't know how backward compatible it is, but I can't see any of the new functions working in the old HTML. Likewise the old HTML doesn't know what to do with some of the new mark up created just for HTML5. If you are going to start from scratch, however, HTML5 is what you want to be familiar with.

There are a lot of different frameworks available for webpage developers, and I know you used bootstrap for a while. That kind of thing saves you the trouble of knowing how CSS works, but being a framework onto itself it's limited in what it can do. You would still need to know CSS if you wanted to modify anything not in its library.

As far as editors go, Linux Gedit is probably the best tool for you. It's not nearly as flexible as Notepad++ or EditPlus which writes a lot of the code outline for you dynamically. They also are pretty good at finding glitches in the markup, but then too there are a lot of tools in browsers these days that can make developing web pages much easier than it used to be. In the end you got to do it using tools you feel comfortable with regardless of what the latest trends happen to be. I think you have that part down pat. :grin:
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

I did learn to write my own CSS, and I think that is how my StoneBroke Manor website is still set up, even though I did my newest websites in HTML5. I changed over to BootStrap CSS to get some features they offered, and was going to strip out all the stuff in there I didn't use.
But some guy I once knew who was a programmer said leave it as it is, because, once BootStrap CSS is download on someones computer from accessing a website that uses it, it stays there so it don't need to be downloaded again. And if I change something in it, it will cause it to download each time someone visits my website.
The way he explained it was logical, so I heeded his advice and didn't strip anything out of it.
If I need something not in it, then I make the change on my HTML page using the Style command.

XML is a great language, always has been. It's just a shame Mickey$oft butchered it up for the DocX. It sure reaped havoc in many industries until code could be written to cure the bugs in DocX before they could use it to print from.
Heck, you may remember seeing the Black Diamond with the Question Mark in it on Social Media Posts.
This was a Dead Giveaway, they were cutting and pasting from DocX with its corrupt XML coding.

I did try using something like BlueFish for a while, but it was just easier to use Gedit for me.
BlueFish would not let you make a mistake per se, because if you made a Tag, it would automatically create the closing Tag for you. Because of this, and using a few Divs inside of Divs, I always ended up with more closing Divs and had to weed them out to get my age to pass the Test.
I'm proud to say all of my HTML pages show Zero Errors when tested using the W3C testing platform.
Can't say the same for the BootStrap CSS though, it always shows errors, no matter what you do. Or used too. I haven't checked their CSS now for probably over 5 years.

I keep wondering when HTML6 is going to come out and what changes I will have to make to my websites.

Gedit is more robust than you think it is. It uses colors to show tags and other things. A properly formatted tag will have some of the stuff associated with the Tag in Green, and Commands in Light Purple.
It does other things also that I normally don't use.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

Well, you know of course that I don't use Linux for anything serious, which means I've never made web pages from that platform. I have used Gedit for other purposes on rare occasion but never gave it a fair test to see how powerful it really is. Some day if Linux takes over the world by force and eliminates the Windows platform, I may try to learn more about the editor(s) built in. For now I don't need to know any more than what I do know already and I doubt that I will ever have a need to make another webpage from scratch.

I tested Bootstrap when it was first released. Like your experience I walked away from it because it was top heavy. I felt more comfortable writing my own CSS because that's how I did things when I was being paid to do it. It's been so long since I made any web pages that it could end up being an entirely new experience if I went back. I've not read anything about an HTML6 in the works. HTML5 was supposed to be the end all but I have a feeling that was just a wish and not really feasible.

I know what you mean about having too many closing tags when you automate the process of writing the markup in an editor. A lot of that can be overcome if you go through the trouble of indenting the code properly. It's only a visual technique and the rendering engines don't care about indents. All the other code I wrote in one programming language or another makes extensive use of indents so that when it came time to mark up a web page it was just natural. That didn't prevent me from adding too many closing tags, nor having too few, but it does make troubleshooting a bit easier. I got to be pretty good at troubleshooting. LOL

I've seen some of your StoneBroke Manor web pages and was duly impressed. I might have tried to do things differently, but then that is what all coders do. They can't just copy what somebody else does and use it. Regardless, your site worked very well as I recall and could easily pass for something done by a professional who is paid to make such things.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

I don't think any Linux Distro will ever become mainstream. Most folks who buy computers want it simple and point and click to do anything at all on it. This is one reason Windows became so popular. And all programmers wrote for that platform. Easy Money as they say.

I remembered what it was about HTML, when I rewrote my website using XHTML, I did so using STRICT suffix. That meant it had to perfect to pass the test.
W3C has changed their testing program, so even though all of my pages pass perfectly, they don't pass when you use the W3C HTML5 button I have at the bottom of the page. It shows errors because it tries to test it as XHTML not HTML5. If I run my pages through Nu.Validator they test perfect. But I've not found a way for it to work using the Button.

My StoneBroke Manor website is still the way I originally wrote it, with only a few minor changes to make it HTML5 compatible. I don't think I used BootStrap on that one, just my own CSS.

My other Websites, ClassicHausLimited and Roaring Falls are both BootStrap CSS.
Plus I did a little trick to get the left column with a Float Image to work on them.
Had to put a Container inside a Container.
And although my website is Mobile Friendly. If you zoom in or out from 100% it can mess up the width of that left column so the Float Image gets partially hidden. To make sure this does not happen would take over a whole page of coding with options for every device and browser. Like we had to do in the old days so our pages worked on all browsers. Now they are all fairly uniform so we don't have to go through that headache anymore. And as usual, Windows Explorer was the thorn in our side, hi hi.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

Can't be certain about this but floating images are not mobile friendly. Images, however, can be made to be fluid. That is to say they can be made to change size automatically depending on the screen size. I believe the technique is browser independent, but images can shrink automatically down to a point where they become useless if they are fluid. That's one of the reasons ads are so big and cover up content. They would be unreadable if you had a small screen to view them.

From what I recall of the STRICT metatag it is used to adhere to the current version of HTML and nothing else. As I mentioned above I have some very ancient web pages that still render, but that is only because the STRICT rules of rendering are not declared. This became an issue somewhere back around HTML2 or HTML3 when some major changes in the markup structure were being introduced. Some developers using the new rules could not make the old HTML work easily, thus they declared their page to adhere to the STRICT rules. It was up to the viewer to have the right browser back then. Of course a lot of people didn't and simply stopped going to those STRICT pages. Fortunately, as you point out, browsers today are nothing short of self contained operating systems and can render anything. That eases the burden to make things compatible and gives viewers the option to use whatever browser suits their needs.

I'm undecided about the value of those W3C web page tests. Google has a routine of their own that does not always agree with the W3C standards. In the end they all render well enough to be usable so that putting the sticker on your web page just adds to ego gratification and doesn't do much for functionality. A lot of people thing the W3C should have the last say. Then there are those who don't.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

Maybe I should clarify something. A Float Image does not mean it floats around on the screen like munchkin in a screen saver.
No, it means it is LOCKED into a Fixed Position above the background image. In my case, I have a different background image in the left column and all the main body of the webpage is to the right of that.
I know you've been to my website before, but here is an example page:
https://classichauslimited.com/htmlpgs/ ... ibles.html
If you zoom in you'll see the main body of the page will cover up the side bar and the float image.
It does this too if you are on a mobile device. In fact you probably won't see the left column or the float image.

STRICT worked just fine up until HTML5 came out. It still works, BUT, you get error messages if checked.
Heck, if you use the HTML 5 checker button I currently have, it will show errors because it is using the wrong W3C checker. HTML5 uses the NU validator, and I've not found an automatic link to it yet. I do have a couple more to try if I get time.
But I have one heck of a lot of pages I will have to upgrade when I do. Either that or disable all those links.

There are four different websites I use for Validation, not just W3C. Some of them catch things W3C misses too.
For HTML5 I've only found three so far that work properly, and are free to use, hi hi.

YES it is a boost to ones EGO to have a perfect website. I worked hard to make sure every one of my pages were classified as Mobile Friendly by Google when they were using that to determine who to show in search results.
My old StoneBroke Manor page was the hardest to get to be mobile friendly without completely rewriting the whole thing.
But then no sooner than I got every single page cleared as Mobile Friendly by Google, they stopped giving the mobile friendly words above your website title.

I know many professional websites belonging to very large companies still using Transitional. Sad!
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

I don't want this to come off as being overly critical, because that is not my intent. The fact is that I viewed that sample link to your web page in four different browsers and got three different renderings. I used WaterFox (a derivative of FireFox), Microsoft Edge, Opera, and Google's Chrome, and only that last browser rendered the page with the floating image visible. The other browsers gave me the main content shifted to the left margin, or in the case of Opera near the left margin. This is the reason I question the value of those validator programs. Your site does in fact comply with all the rules, but it does not render identically in all the most popular browsers. I can't imagine what would happen on a tablet, a smart phone, or, heavens forbid, on my ancient flip phone. But it won't be pretty. I don't suppose it matters that you used Linux and its browsers to create the websites, but I viewed the results using Windows which is what most of the viewers of your sites would be using.

I'd like to offer you some suggestions regarding how to fix this particular problem, but I can't. It has been too long since I had to solve such problems. About all I can recommend is to use your home page for that site as a template and make all the other page layouts in similar fashion. Use a straight single column top to bottom flow, forget the floating image, and keep the navigation simple as possible. If you need to divide the content, do it vertically and not horizontally. That is easier to view in most browsers and from what I understand easier to code as well.

Hopefully you know by now that I think you are a remarkable person. The range of your skills and creativity far exceed those of at least 90% of the folks residing on this planet. Including most webmasters. The websites you created are typically not made by amateurs. The fact that you did make them and they all work as well as one could hope for is a testament to your capabilities. Today's Internet, and the web browsers used to navigate it, is a whole new world compared to the day you made those websites. Not even the pros can keep up with the pace of change. Thus, when I suggest the websites could use some adjusting, it's not an indictment against your previous work and current abilities. The Internet is just running at a pace slightly faster than us old farts can keep up with. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

I just viewed my websites on Firefox, Opera, and Chromium, and they render perfectly, and with the float image in the right place where it stays put.
I used to use a website that checked all platforms and browsers on all kinds of devices.
here is their link, but they never upgraded the ability to do html5
https://browsershots.org/
So all I get now is a server error.

Even so, I've seen my website on my wife's Schmartz Fone and it looks great on there too, albeit without the side bar.
Oh, I don't have that float and sidebar on all pages, and not on the opening main pages either. Just on the sales pages.
That could be why you didn't see it.
Try viewing this page if you want to see the float and sidebar.
https://classichauslimited.com/htmlpgs/antiques.html

I hear ya on things changing faster than us old farts can keep up with!

Sometimes there is such a long time between when I need to do something on my pages, I have to study to learn how to do some things all over again.
Speaking of which, here is one page that I wrote for the saxophone, and it took me a bit to get my head wrapped around doing scrolling images.
https://classichauslimited.com/htmlpgs/ ... ments.html
I've viewed this page on Debi's Windows computer using both Windows browsers, and no matter what else I look at it with, it still works. Now on her Schmartz-Fone it does not show the sidebar or float image, which is how it is supposed to work.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

We are talking about a common problem with websites, i.e., they don't render the same way in all browsers on all devices. It's been my experience that the majority of developers don't care about that particular issue. They develop something for their specific audience which is expected to be using the most popular tools to view the site. If things look different in Linux or in some browser the developer didn't bother to check, that's too bad. Those aren't the people intended to benefit from viewing the site.

You are not a developer nor are you targeting a specific demographic. Most of all, you are not being paid to create a site that pleases your boss. Well, with the exception that you are your own boss and the site works to your expectations. I gather from your comments that is the case. My evaluation was simple enough. I took the single link you provided and and pasted the address into four different browsers. You have my report on the results. Obviously I have no stake in how other people experience what you publish. Plus, it's dumb to argue against a successful effort and I don't need to appear any more dumb than I already am. You are getting the results you want and expect. I'm just putting my 2-cents in for what amounts to rhetorical reasons.
Try viewing this page if you want to see the float and sidebar.
https://classichauslimited.com/htmlpgs/antiques.html
Like the link you provided in your original post, no side bar nor floating image is visible here in the FireFox derivative browser. I use.

I feel your pain regarding web tools that do not work. The sad part is that some of those tools are being provided by highly respectable sources. You would think they would have an interest in the quality of their work.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

It should be visible in both Firefox and IceWeasel at 100% view setting.
On my wife's cell phone, I did find out if I zoom out to only 85% then it starts to show, but it doesn't at 90%.
I normally keep my browsers set at 110% for most of my daily work, and even then, a smidgen of the sidebar can be seen.
I was actually surprised to see any part of the sidebar at all, since it is not supposed to load on mobile devices.

On the bright side. It is only there for show, not a part of the Main Container for the webpages.

On the page that shows the Saxophone, do the images scroll automatically with about a 5 second delay on each?
https://classichauslimited.com/htmlpgs/ ... ments.html

The look just fine on my wife's Schmartz-Fone!
But since she don't have a mouse pointer to put on top of them to stop the scrolling.
Holding her finger down on the image makes it stop.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

On the page that shows the Saxophone, do the images scroll automatically with about a 5 second delay on each?
Using my WaterFox browser, they do scroll from right to left with about a 5 sec delay. :mrgreen:


The sidebar and floating image can be made to be visible on all devices that have the ability to render modern web pages.
https://blog.hubspot.com/website/fluid-design
To state it concisely your website is not fluid. That is to say the page does not automatically resize itself to suit the dimensions of the viewing device. It's a nuisance in some cases and a critical fault in others. Your web page(s) render well enough to be useful to the people you would like to see them so that you really do not need to make things any more fluid than they already are.

The link I provided also talks about responsive web page design, which is the ideal situation in today's mobile device world. I'm pretty sure you can make your site fluid with just some minor changes. Making it responsive, while much more desirable is a bit more difficult and time consuming. Fluidity just changes the size of the page while responsiveness also changes the layout to suit the situation. Tricky, but if you are aiming for perfection, that is the way to go.

I was wondering why you see the pages differently than I do. It's hard to believe the Linux/Windows difference is causing it, and I am pretty sure it's not. You say that your browser is set to 110% zoom and I believe that could account for some of the discrepancy. I adjust the zoom level on my laptop browsers because the default fonts are so damned small. I didn't view your web pages on the laptop, however.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

That website basically explains exactly how my website pages are set up.
If you look at my home page on a cell phone, you get all the link buttons lined up under each other like a ladder, not spread out across the page. It is supposed to do this rather than shrink down. Mainly because if you shrink the text down, nobody could read it. So each element on the page is supposed to be moved so you can scroll up and down.

All I can say is every web browser and computer I've used, my website looks as I expected it too. Even the computers up at the library which are Windows 8 and Windows 10 computers now.
If you zoom down to 90 on any of them, the main body shrinks down away from the left side column. If you zoom up over 100% then the side column begins to get covered up.

I just ran a few of my pages through the Google Mobile Friendly Test, and all the pages I checked passed with flying colors.

My website pages are meant to be viewed at 100%, and when I view those pages I do set my browser to 100%. But for normal everyday work on the web I use a setting of 110% for most places.

I've also looked at my website using different resolutions rates on my monitors. Some of them can make weird things happen.
I should also add that my pages are purposely set up for a square monitor, not a wide screen monitor. But they still looked as expected on the wide screen monitors too.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

The fact of the matter is that I can navigate your website without any problems. If it looks a bit different here in O'Fallon than it does in Knoxville, then so be ti. It doesn't matter. The content is what is important and that content is clearly displayed as you intended it to be. I don't think you could improve upon what you have created even if you cared to do so.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

My old StoneBroke Manor website is about as close to the way it appeared 30 or more years ago, when I first built it on Inlink. Albeit a lot of stuff was removed and never put back, because I lost it somewhere along the line.
I had to remove things because Inlink only allowed us so much web space in those early years.
I just haven't had the time to try and modify it. I was just lucky to keep up with the changes to HTML with all the other stuff I had to do with working and caring for my late wife, then moving and trying to make money down here.

One would think being retired I would have plenty of time. But like my dad said after he retired. He had so much stuff to get done, he don't know how he ever found time to work. He normally worked from 7 am until around 6 pm, and longer on holidays.
His heart attack was actually a blessing to him, because I took over running the shop for him.
Once he was able, he came back to work and mostly just handled the bookwork and driver routing.
And raise heck with me for not doing things the way grandpa did them, hi hi.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 8735
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Follow The Money

Post by yogi »

Your websites, all of them, are serving the purpose for which they were intended. I would have built it differently and so would any number of developers who get paid to do such things. Webpages need to have some common features, but the arrangements and proliferation of those features is infinite in number. Who has the right technique? The answer is everyone and nobody because there is no such thing as right and wrong on the Internet. You either know how to render a web page, or you do not. How well you do the rendering is all technique and there are no rules for that, W3C be damned. Updating your sites to the current level of HTML development is an academic exercise. Those pages would reach the audience you want to see them regardless of how crude or sophisticated your methods happen to be. If you really want to be concerned about something, get involved with search engine optimization (SEO). It's the search engines that bring pages to the viewers. Rarely do cross links or random landings bring you visitors, unless, of course, they are bots looking for something to index.

I'm retired for twenty years now. I did a lot of Honey-Do projects and pursued a few personal interests during those twenty years. The last six years I've been on vacation even from that lack of productive activity. I sit here and do nothing, except complain a lot in these forums, and still get money from the government. OK, it's my money, but I'm not working and doing anything to earn it. People who don't get out of the rat race after they "retire" did not actually retire. They just changed directions. I suppose that's ok if they are happy working themselves into their grave. In your case you more or less must continue pursuing an income because the alternatives are not pretty. Retirement is a time to back off from the work routine. Enjoy the daisies and take care of yourself because you are getting older and more frail every day. Retirement is a time to reap the benefits of all those years you spent making your mark in society. Of course I can say that because both my wife and I have Social Security checks coming in every month. But that too is going to change if the Republican Party has their way when they take over.
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 6288
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 17:54

Re: Follow The Money

Post by Kellemora »

What I don't like about many of the websites I visit is they are all Template based and Menu Driven in such a way, the best way to describe the vast majority of them is they are Cookie Cutter Websites.
I wanted my websites to be different, and laid out the way they are most appealing to me.
The main reason I have that little sidebar on the left of my pages, and with the little float image.
Is simply because you can't do that using things like WordPress or other Host Provided, web page building tools.
My StoneBroke Manor was my first attempt at building a website from scratch, and I still like the way I did it!
This is why my other websites are more or less of more modern copy of it.

During the years when I built the StoneBroke Manor website, I also had other websites that no longer exist.
One was a complex site with hundreds of pages, but used in a unique way.
It was for finding out what kind of plant you had, or tree.
It showed pictures of a small element of the plant, basically with Yes, No, Don't Know questions.
For example: It showed the stems of a plant, one with leaves opposed to each other, another with leaves one each side but distanced from each other. You picked which one your plant had, or Don't Know.
From there it jumped to the shape of the leaf. I had like six basic leaf shapes for them to select which one was the closest to what theirs looked like. When they selected one, it would take them to more detailed leaves of the same shape group, but each was slightly different. From there it would show different plants and how they looked when grown. Then if they were blooming plants, what the possible types of blooms those plants had, etc, ad infinitum until they got to the best possible selection of which plant or tree they had.
But other fancier websites came along that worked entirely differently than mine, and much faster and easier also.
And I had the whole thing hosted on someone else's gardening website, not a website of my own.

I got rid of my business, so no longer have a side source of income, and my SS is not even enough to cover my medications.
I'm just lucky my brother decided to buy a couple of my meds for me.
Trump is the one who wanted to raise the lowest SS checks up, not the Dems!
Post Reply