Misleading web designers

[jdiben]

I have been coming across a lot of poorly designed websites. When someone is designing their own site that's fine but the websites I am referring to are the ones with a "created by kickass webdesigns" link at the bottom. You click on the link and the web design company has an awesome website. You check out their portfolio and all the sites they designed look like crap. Who designed the web design companies website, obviously they didn’t do it. They just give the rest of us a bad name.

I am not referring to any WebProWorld members (none that I’ve noticed anyway). This is just something I have been noticing as I browse the web.

[carbonize]

Originally Posted by jdiben

I am not referring to any WebProWorld members (none that I’ve noticed anyway). This is just something I have been noticing as I browse the web.

With over 20,000 members I bet you are refering to quite a few to be honest. I made this comment in a different thread about how people call themselves web designers when all they can do is use Frontpage and have no understanding of HTML. These designers usually also seem blissfully unaware that there are other web browsers out there other than IE.

[redcircle]

Or those that seem to break all the webdesign no no's because they are learning from an html design book from 5 years ago.

[vwebworld]

Well, I happen to use FrontPage...

...and it works for me. FP, Dreamweaver,
Flash... these are the tools
with which website are created.

I started with FP because I had a concept
of what I wanted the website to "look like"
so a WYSIWG program worked. I "designed"
from the "look" back.

Now (years later) I have a better understanding
of the "stuff" behind the look... but I still do
use FP.

The results should be judged not by the tools
to create it, but by the impact, usability, and
the ability of the website to achieve its' goals/purpose.

~Roland
looking forward to FP 2003

[jdiben]

I have seen excellent sites created with FP, DW and text editors, I have also seen terrible ones created with the same tools. My original point is that if you cant recreate the quality of your own site for your customers either hire someone who can or change your line of work.

Originally Posted by Carbonize

With over 20,000 members I bet you are refering to quite a few to be honest

I am sure you're correct, I just cant recall anyone specifically.

Joe

[mysticlighthouse]

Also, it is imperative to take into account clients’ budgets. We have yet been able to design a site which is like our homepage because no one has the cash… most of the people that come to us want to know what they can get for $100… normally I would turn these people away, but because of the economy, there are so many of them. All of them do add up to a good amount of money, but the question comes to mind… is it worth it? A little profit is sure better than none at all. I’ve stopped putting things in my portfolio because I don’t want to associate my company with the work being done (for $100 mind you)… but if that is what the customer wants… that’s what they get.

[voodooboy]

I disagree regarding "budget" when it comes to design. The fee should be based upon the amount of content within the site. (Keep in mind I am speaking of design not database integration or the like) If a client comes to me with a budget, I first listen to everything they want; I then look at the amount of content going into the site. I then go back to the client and explain to them what they can expect to receive based upon their budget and needs. I design to the budget but put out a quality product. If I can not guarantee a quality product, that would meet or exceed industry standards (as far as design is concerned), I won't take the project. My $600 dollar sites look like my $2000 dollar sites minus the programming integration, flash, etc. I don't believe that if a client only has $100 dollars you should only spend an hour on it and say, "Here you go, this is what you can afford. Bye." and leave them with something that could have been done in MS Word. My standards and reputation as a designer stand on every product I put out. I don't throw out crap and then pretend I didn't do it. That is unfair to the client and unfair to your industry. If you can't display your work on your site, regardless of what someone paid for it, then you need to reconsider your career.

And let’s get one thing clear. This topic has nothing to do with what application you use to create web sites. I know people who use FrontPage, Dreamweaver, BBEdit, HomeSite, GoLive and so on and so on... Anyone can create a site using any of the above applications and it could still come out looking like total crap; or it could be incredibly awesome.

Design is a gift. Some people spend their life drawing stick figures (which is not necessarily a bad thing), while others sketch like Picasso. The web sites that have multi-colored text and a ton of flashing .gif's are the stick people. The others are Picasso, or knock-offs from people that steal others designs.

The question should be, as professional designers, would you design "other designers" web sites and why?

Look forward to seeing your responses.

[tiffglaze]

Scott Brinkerhoff you have captured the whole "big picture" of what the web design industry should be about!

Well done, an excellent post that should be read by every person involved in selling a web design service!

A thought - The stick people allow the Picasso's to shine!

Regards
Tiffglaze

[carbonize]

I readily admit that I'm totally useless at the design part, code is my forte. I usually look at other sites or web templates for inspiration then code my own versions of them from the ground up, Changing parts to suit miy, or my clients, tastes.

[tiffglaze]

Sorry - I posted my message twice - just writting over it.

Tiffglaze (No-1 Everywhere! if you search for Tiffglaze that is :)

[mm99]

You see it all the time. There used to be this guy in the forums that "claimed" to be a designer. He had placed his page in the critique area and the only thing worse than his site was his portfolio. Then he complained about all the bad reviews. I advised him that he might look into using some available free templates if he wanted to try his had at web design. He even emailed me letting me know he was available if I needed help (cringe). It was a real hoot!

One thing I see along the same lines I see over and over again, are designers that claim to include SEO work with their service, and here they are in the forums with their sites seeking advice on how to get their site listed. When you look at the source code, it's very apparent that they no nothing at all about the service they "offer".

I've seen sites that devote a whole page talking about the seo services they offer and how important it is and here they are in the forums asking us why they are having problems getting listed anywhere.

Just my 2 sense worth...

peace...Paul

[janeth]

I agree with every ones post.
But the only person that can decide about who stays in business and who goes out of business is the customer.

It is the customer's job to find out if the seo site ranks for any good key words and also what is page ranking on his on site.

It is also the customers job to find out how good a designer is before they hire him. I will design the front page of the website for the customer to look at before he gives me the first Penney. I have had customers steal my designs and then not pay but that is life.

It takes more then just doing design work. You have to have a top notch customer service department also.
You have to answer your emails asap and try to show that you want the customers business.

[mysticlighthouse]

I agree that you shouldn't just churn out crap for the sake of a buck... but when you deal with large clients such as BoA... you don't want to put a lot of these $100 sites on your portfolio, because with your large clients it make look like you aren't up to par. No matter how good they are, for $100, they aren't going to look and function as well as a multi-thousand dollar project. PERIOD. I want to help these people that don't have the money, but hey, for $100 there isn't as much incentive to do elite work. I would never pop out a page in anything that wouldn't pass W3C or anything like that, but the level won't be as good as a corporate website.

[Sualdam]

I think you're all being a bit prissy about this :)

Take a look at this site (nothing to do with me at all):

https://www.cartridgeco.co.uk/

Now, I bet this is the sort of site you are talking about.

However, I have happily purchased online from these people and the service is excellent.

Is the web really supposed to consist of designs that everyone approves of? Could that ever really happen?

[mm99]

What we have for the most part been discussing are designers that claim to be web designers that can't design websites. This is a site that is poorly designed. I'm sure they would do much better if they had a better looking site. Here's one that another member came across. It ranks #2 under "wreath":

http://www.e-wreath.com/

Ya gotta love those animations. I really dig the dude palyin' his banjo on the rockin' chair. But look in the lower right hand corner and it says "Maine Web Dezign". Click it. More of the same. At the bottom of the page, they proudly list their credentials.

It's people who claim to be designers and don't know the first thing about it that kill me. There are just to many people that learn a little html and think they're in business. It don't work that way.

peace...Paul

[alienzhavelanded]

I agree with Scott. Every site I do is like my baby. If you like this stuff as much as me, then you feel the same way. This is regardless of how much I'm being paid to make it. I put my best into everything, even for $100. One of my personal faves I did for free and it looks great.

Not putting 100% into it because of a dollar sign is just stupid. Even more so if you take the money and then aren't even proud enough of the work to display it. Didn't your parents always tell you to do the best at whatever you do? Mine did, at least when they weren't buzzing you silly Earthlings with their saucer.

The Martian

[dean]

When you see a bad design like that, sometimes it's the perfect opportunity to land a new client. It's how I got one.
The trucking company had such a poorly designed website, it was easy to tactfully and reasonably point out things like multiple spelling and grammar errors, inappropriate content, bloated graphics, etc. They paid good money for their site. The computer repair shop that originally made the site had an impressive portfolio. What they ended up with was horrible. Now they are my client. The site I made for them is far from perfect, but I killed the background midi, changed the top graphic from something that looked like cooltext and about 250,000 bytes, killed the news and weather and horoscope, changed the colors to match the company trucks, added meta description, and other things too numerous to mention. It still needs a lot of work, but at least they finally got a response, (several), after 2 years with the other site and not a single response.

Dean
Champion Service, Inc

[simonm]

All the above, so true. One of the web sites I manage had a design so awful that it was an embarrassment to the portfolio - the reason it was there was the PR director had a friend who ran a web design company. I wouldn't touch them because their own site, though a marvel of flash was unusable. Word came down from above - the CEO no less - that they were going to be the designers - it took them 6 months! That CEO has since gone, the new CEO's comment was why is the main corporate web site such a joke, his words were more pointed, it took 6 hours to replace the old site - fortunately I had a replacement waiting for just such an opportunity!

[le_gber]

Hi all,

Very interesting post :).

I think that the origin of the problem is that the tools like FP and DW make building website an easy job. Or at least it's the feeling that people have when they try to built a page using these tools.

Oooh press a button and got a table, ooooh press another one and got an image ...

Anybody can do a table, put images all around and text in the middle. That was ok 6-8 years ago but is not acceptable today (or I least I do not beleive it is). The things that today's web designers need to consider are of course the look of a page but also the site's navigability, the browser and screen res. compatibility, the accessibility of the page (at least a minimum), the validity of the code (even if I do not validate my code it is well formed and won't crash in old browser or text only browser).

I also strongly believe that the designer or firm that produce a website nowadays should know about search engine optimisation. OK having an all flash website is cool - but what's the use if nobody can find it using a SE. OK having 50 words per page is nice to give a flavour of your company to your visitor - but why didn't you use 250 words or more and why isn't the page optimised (h tags, kwds, and the like) to help the page rank better?

What customers are after is website that is looking nice, a website that get results and enquiries or sales and a website that give them back the money they invested in it.

What visitors are looking for is a website that doesn't crash in their browser, a website that do not require plugin download before being able to view it, and a website that is easy to use and fast to load.

The job of today's web designer is to provide all that!

Leo

[simonm]

I would agree but for your last comment:

The job of today's web designer is to provide all that!

The web has perhaps moved on so we need to look at expertise - the SEO expert might be useless at design, the content has to come from somebody who understands the point of being on the web. There are technical aspects such as screen size, what about statistics gathering - do we get the web designer doing this? Negotiating with the CEO, not a job for a techie.

The term should be
The job of today's web manager is to facilitate all that!

[voodooboy]

I have to agree with Simon. There seems to be a misconception with the term "web designer". A designer is just that, a designer. He is not a programmer, copy editor, SEO expert, or DB administrator. The designer is a designer. I have been designing for 18 years, and have been designing for the Internet since '95.

I now tutor young folks on Internet use, programming and design. I have one young man that has a list about as long as my arm of everything he wants to learn. Everything from design to Flash, C#, PHP, Perl, MySQL, Oracle, .NET and LAN Network administration. I sat him down and explained to him that learning all this is great. And I will help him all I can. But I also had him take the list and circle the one thing that he really got pleasure out of doing. Was it the programming? The administration? The database configuration? You guessed it. He circled design. With that I told him to focus on that. Master design first. Network with people who can do all the other stuff, and build an enterprise with that network of talents. Then, he could start learning all the other stuff.

You have one true gift. You find that gift and then find people with gifts that can compliment your own. You can know it all, but you certainly can't do it all and keep your sanity. At least I can't. I hate programming. I can do it, but I hate it. So I let someone with that expert ability do it for me. The same with copy editing, database development and SEO. I can do more projects and make more money by networking with those that compliment my abilities. I am a "web designer". Not a programmer, an SEO expert, or a database administrator. And I like it that way.

This post started with talking about misleading web designers and has gone all over the board. I would still be interested in knowing "If you would design another designer’s web site." And why?

For me the answer is NO.

I have had other designers tell me they were too busy working on clients sites to design their own sites. I think that is a crock! I am busy with client’s sites. I get regular work and keep pretty busy but have "made" the time to design and RE-design my company site 6 times. I have flat out refused to design other designer’s sites because I believe they should stand on their own abilities and use those abilities to represent themselves and their company. If I design a programmers or SEO companys’ site and they request information on their site regarding web "design", I will only do it if I am the contractor for the designs produced through that company. They can do all the programming or whatever they do, but I do the design work and provide the graphics and layout. I stand behind my design, but I also stand on principle. And I will not help someone misrepresent their abilities within my own industry.

I look forward to your opinions.

[voodooboy]

mysticlighthouse said:

"I agree that you shouldn't just churn out crap for the sake of a buck... but when you deal with large clients such as BoA... you don't want to put a lot of these $100 sites on your portfolio, because with your large clients it make look like you aren't up to par. No matter how good they are, for $100, they aren't going to look and function as well as a multi-thousand dollar project. PERIOD. I want to help these people that don't have the money, but hey, for $100 there isn't as much incentive to do elite work. I would never pop out a page in anything that wouldn't pass W3C or anything like that, but the level won't be as good as a corporate website."

You are right. A $100 dollar site is not going to function like a multi-thousand dollar site. But for a multi-thousand dollar budget, you better be doing a hell of a lot more than html coding and graphic buttons. We are talking design here. By design standards, you shouldn’t be able to tell your $100 dollar site from your $1000 dollar site. Functionality wise: secure sections, flash animated navigation, database integration or custom backend administration; no they are not going to compare. But I show my $1000-$10,000 clients ALL my work; even the $100 sites. Why? Because my design standards warrant it. The $100 dollar sites may not have all the functionality and options found in a larger site. But they should sure look like they could.

And I'll say it again with no offense intended, as I am saying it to everyone. If your credibility doesn't create enough incentive for you to put out "Elite Effort" into all your work, regardless of profit, then you should reconsider calling yourself a designer and stick to something people can't see, like core programming.

[Sualdam]

Originally Posted by ghstdrgns

This post started with talking about misleading web designers and has gone all over the board

To be fair, it started off with a valid comment about poorly designed sites.

I think it started to wander naturally simply because there is no clear definition of what IS a good website design.

I cited one example because I know that from a design point of view the website is probably one of those that the purists would spit upon. But it achieves its aim in more ways than one: it sells a product, AND it comes high in the search engines (that's how I found it).

So bearing in mind that aesthetics are a personal thing anyway (within reason), what's wrong with it?

Everyone keeps referring to 'crap' this and 'crap' that websites - but do they know what they are calling crap? Or is it that they are applying their own aesthetic principles as absolute values?

The example I gave may well be 'crap' - but it works in all the necessary ways.

It reminds me of when people buy Macs instead of PCs - solely because they don't want a beige box in the corner. ;)

[voodooboy]

Sualdam,
An excellent point. Everyone has a different perception of what is good and/or bad design. That is why people choose one designer over another. That person’s opinion of their work compliments their needs and appeals to them. And yes the ultimate goal of a web site is to increase profit share, industry margin and/or drive home ones perspective. So where does design really fit in? (Hey, another good question)

A site that sells a "Printer Cartridge", whether it looks like Nike.com or a page full of multicolored text, is still selling a "Printer Cartridge”. The question then is does the "design" of the site create more value? When was the last time you closed your eyes before walking in to a room? Walked up to someone of the opposite gender and got to know them without ever once knowing what they looked like? Then after finding someone appealing, you open your eyes to see how they look? Would the site you referenced sell more cartridges if a professional designer created the site? Probably. People look at web sites the same way they look at people. It comes down to appearance first. Content second. If you looked at a site that looked like it was created on a typewriter, and they were asking for $75 an hour to design your web site, would you think they could design a site with the quality to represent your company? And that is what the original post was leading into. Designers that misrepresent their abilities by using an extraordinary template; or another designer to create their own site, yet produce less than ordinary site designs for their clients.

I have been coming across a lot of poorly designed websites. When someone is designing their own site that's fine but the websites I am referring to are the ones with a "created by kickass webdesigns" link at the bottom. You click on the link and the web design company has an awesome website. You check out their portfolio and all the sites they designed look like crap. Who designed the web design companies website, obviously they didn’t do it. They just give the rest of us a bad name.

The question here is, as a designer, would you hire someone else to design your site for you? Do you question your own abilities so much that you would misrepresent your abilities by using someone else’s designs? At least that is how I perceived the original post qouted above.

This post then brought up the issues of quality vs. profit. Do we sacrifice design quality based on the amount of the available budget? Yes stock photography is expensive. Yes our time is valuable. But if you take on a project, should you short change your own standards of quality or your reputation as a quality designer because the fee is less than market value? If funds are the issue, should you even take on a project if you don't intend on putting your all into it? If the budget is too low, should you buy a template for your client instead of doing your own design and just plug in the content?

It is a great string and I look forward to more comments.

[Gary Golden]

A person's conception of art varies by the individual and such is a website, there are no two the same and each is a depiction of character. I would choose not to criticize how a site is put together as every persons eye for detail differs, remember this site only has 20 thousand plus members, how many people are their in this world. Do we really want everyone to confirm to our ideals, No! It would get boring real quick.
Personally I hate modern art, but still people pay a fortune for it! What I like has no bearing what someone else likes, this is just like websites it would become boring if every site would follow the same format. Though every site is a depiction of a personality, some will fit what you like while others won't. So if someone asks for your opinion then they probably want your design, but in the end a person should go with what they like and only ask the opinion from someone whose site they like.
This is just my opinion, if it does not conform to yours that is alright.

Happy web designing!

[wenwilder]

Creativity demands nothing less than all you have, talent alone is never enough. - If I could remember who said that I would be a step a head of myself today. The truth is, the more creative a web design company/person is the more successful they will be.

The ability to use a program is not talent and it's definately not creativity. You can view a Monet at a museum, but you can not go home and paint a Monet, simply because you are not Monet. BUT...a very creative person can take FP or DW and create a website others will be envious of, not because they know the program better, but because they have the talent. Beauty, in all it's many faces, is what we appreciate. Creativity is what we demand and how we reach beauty, but talent is the foundation.

My talent is not web design. If you want a cracker jack site with multiple fonts and annoying colors, then ask me to design your site. I'll have it done it about three hours and I promise you will absolutely NOT like it. That is why I DO NOT design websites. My talent is details. I have the ability to see the little things that people miss.

There is not right way, or wrong way to design a website. There are beginners and there are the experienced, who once were the beginners. (We tend to forget that sometimes) The cold hard truth is, people tend to be pickier about the way they portray themselves then about how they portray those who they are paid to portray. After all, isn't a website just a portrayal of a person and their company?

One could argue that the client does have final say, and perhaps the designer was just following what the client wanted - no matter how unprofessional the end result might be. Maybe the designer spent months designing their own site before 'opening their doors' and then discovered that designing sites on a deadline for someone else was not the 'fun' they thought it would be - then stopped putting their all into it, and the client accepted it that way.

I look back on the sites I designed six years ago and go "Oh my goodness! And they paid for that?" I have learned a lot since that time, one being that I do not like to design websites and two, that I REALLY shouldn't design websites.

Poorly designed sites are only poor if we judge them by what we know, and not by what the designer knows. :)

Tomorrow when I wake up the sites that I think are bad, will still be bad in my opinion, but in 24 months they will either not be around.....or they will have learned a thing or two and become one of the sites we all pass around. We each learn, we each grow, and we each see things differently as time passes.

Great thread by the way! ;)

[dean]

Originally Posted by Golden

I would choose not to criticize how a site is put together as every persons eye for detail differs

How a site is put together isn't all about art. There are certain issues that are universal to a good design, things like load times, spelling and grammar, adding meta descriptions, browser issues, etc. You might not think about things that you may have come to do as a matter of course, but there actually are sites that have been done for pay that lack these basics.

[WebWizard]

Originally Posted by mysticlighthouse

Also, it is imperative to take into account clients’ budgets. We have yet been able to design a site which is like our homepage because no one has the cash… most of the people that come to us want to know what they can get for $100… normally I would turn these people away, but because of the economy, there are so many of them. All of them do add up to a good amount of money, but the question comes to mind… is it worth it? A little profit is sure better than none at all. I’ve stopped putting things in my portfolio because I don’t want to associate my company with the work being done (for $100 mind you)… but if that is what the customer wants… that’s what they get.

I have to agree with Scott on this one. The quality means EVERYTHING in this situation. The money does too but if you can't compromise with both of them, then there is/will be some sufferring for loss/lack thereof clients.

Sue Elvins
A Page Or 2
www.apageor2.com

[Electronic Perceptions]

Originally Posted by wenwilder

I look back on the sites I designed six years ago and go "Oh my goodness! And they paid for that?" I have learned a lot since that time, one being that I do not like to design websites and two, that I REALLY shouldn't design websites.

I hear you here Wen! I started out as a "web designer" in 1997, using Netscape Composer to create the first few sites. Back then though, you had to dig into the code to fix "messes" the software created, so it didn't take me long to start coding all of them in raw HTML.

Some of those first year sites though... good grief! I cringe at the thought of them now LOL!

A couple turned out decently but overall, the first ones were horrible in my estimation today.

I also didn't like web design, and am not much of a graphic artist - I can do layout, navigation, SEO, and Web writing really well; not to mention promotion and marketing, but the graphics and fancy stuff just isn't for me. I also did programming/developing in those first couple of years and I burnt out in the end. Clients wanted a "jack of all trades" at miserable pay, and I decided it wasn't worth it in the end.

I keep my sites simple today, and many people probably consider them "old fashioned" by web standards. But they're clean and fast loading, and they do what they're supposed to do. That's good enough for me :)

- Kathy

[vilesilencer]

Originally Posted by janeth

I agree with every ones post.
But the only person that can decide about who stays in business and who goes out of business is the customer.

It is the customer's job to find out if the seo site ranks for any good key words and also what is page ranking on his on site.

It is also the customers job to find out how good a designer is before they hire him. I will design the front page of the website for the customer to look at before he gives me the first Penney. I have had customers steal my designs and then not pay but that is life.

It takes more then just doing design work. You have to have a top notch customer service department also.
You have to answer your emails asap and try to show that you want the customers business.

agree agree agree agree agree....

I always give them that draft page free, before money is even mentioned. I use that page to explain how each step up the money ladder makes that site better.

And you are right Janeth, often it gets pilfered. That's happened a lot. But that's a good thing, it means your on the right track and your designs are desirable. Thats the positive spin I put on it anyways, no point getting upset about it.

The content will always rock, if they provide the right content for me. It's their business, they want to sell it, and more often than not they know what they want on all pages including images and my job is predominantly coding. I'm not a marketing person, or a salesperson. I'm a designer. The customer gives me the content.

The actual site itself will be given the attention that their $/hr can buy. Same as any job I have had. It's a job not a torture fest. If they are paying $600 they get a $600 site not a $2000 site, it's not a charity. If they want all the bells and whistles they pay for them. If they still want a great site, but can't afford to pay for me spending all that extra time on it, then they can do that also. Either way they get a site worthy of sitting on the portfolio :)

[Craftix]

Original Post
------------
I have been coming across a lot of poorly designed websites. When someone is designing their own site that's fine but the websites I am referring to are the ones with a "created by kickass webdesigns" link at the bottom. You click on the link and the web design company has an awesome website. You check out their portfolio and all the sites they designed look like crap. Who designed the web design companies website, obviously they didn’t do it. They just give the rest of us a bad name.

I am not referring to any WebProWorld members (none that I’ve noticed anyway). This is just something I have been noticing as I browse the web.
----------

So far the focus of this group has been either on what constitutes a good designer or who and why would a good designer put together a site for another (poor) site designer.

However I'll raise a point I have seen with an increasing amount of alarm. Other so-called design companies ripping off, verbatim, the website and verbage of another legitimate design company! This happened to my firm on three occasions! We were able to find out about these rip off artists and then have our lawyers deal with the offenders. But a company from Arizona, a company from Texas, and a company from Ohio all used our site design (stolen not mimicked) to attempt to pass off as their own company! One was even bold enough to use our logo being too lazy to try and replace it with their own.

So there is one explaination for how a poor designer could be out there with a good home page!

The scary part is this can happen without you knowing about it.

Try plugging in some of your own unique verbage into a search engine sometime and find out who may be ripping you off, you may be suprised!

[vilesilencer]

Yup i'd say it happens a lot Craftix. I was surfing recently and came across a link on a dodgy page that I don't remember requesting. Upon further investigation, I found that I recognised a large majority of the links on the page....

It dawned on me later that it was my friends links page, lifted word-for-word straight off his site. I mailed him and he was pissed about it all, but what can you do? I imagine the rest of his site is probably floating out there stolen too...

Is there a means out there to stop cyber theft, that actually works?

[matauri]

Originally Posted by vilesilencer

Is there a means out there to stop cyber theft, that actually works?

That is a topic that has done the round of the forums on a few occassions, and has carried on many pages worth.

There are all kinds of ways of pilfering off sites. You can have scripts that can reduce it to a degree, but anyone with any net savvy knows how to read source code. And if you are calling info from another file, with enuff experience someone can find that too.

Online isn't that different to hard copy, except it's easier to track online. Plageurism has been around for eons, and prob will be for many more.


Cindy