Mr Site (computer geek needed!!)

[lauren.]

Hi. Sorry another website question!! I think im going to design my website with Mr Site but am a little confused about the packages. The basic package says 'webhosting available 75Mb' the next package up says 'webhosting available 150Mb'??? have no idea what this means and what kind of a difference it would make to me. Also would I be able to get a better overall result on Mr Site than on Wix??

Thank you in advance

Lauren

 

[Kimberley*]

hey i bought a package with mr site, but hated it. sooo limited in what you can do, very very basic. i kept my web domain and designed my own in the end, i didnt like mr site. xx

 

[hippy-chick]

I have had my mrsite for a year now and love it!
I started with the basic but upgraded to the middle package.
Its great, loads of pages and you can have online shops too.

I would go for the middle package, approx £60 per year and highly recommend it!

Take a look at my site

www.guruholistictraining.com and it will show you what type of pages you can have.

The basic package is very limiting, about 8 pages and no shop.

 

[Ruth Mills]

The figure quoted in MB (75 MB or 150 MB) would be the amount of web space in megabytes that they give you for that particular account.

Each web page, image, etc, on your website has a size in bytes. The average size of the HTML for most web pages is around 10 KB (kilobytes), and the average size of images usually varies fro a few KB for small images, to 100+ KB for larger images. But you don't need huge images on your website, so you should always create a smaller sized copy for use on your website of any images that you take on your digital camera, for example.

75 MB should be adequate for most websites unless you have loads of images (assuming your images are no more than 100KB each in size, you'd be able to put around 750 of them in 75 MB of web space), or multimedia content such as video.

I haven't used Mr Site personally, although I have noticed issues with the HTML syntax that it generates when I've seen other people's sites that have been created using it. The HTML errors in the Mr Site websites that I have seen are usually handled gracefully by most web browsers, but usually cause several errors to be displayed when validating Mr Site web pages using the W3C validator, The W3C Markup Validation Service - this could result in accessibility issues and is bad from a technical perspective in general.

 

[hippy-chick]

Infact I have just this minute paid for another year!

 

[lauren.]

Thanks for all replying. Hippy-chick, your website is great, I think Id be fine with the smaller package as I wouldnt even need half the amount of pages you've got!!

Thank you Ruth (I was hoping you'd reply!) can I just ask how Mr Site compares to Wix - in your opinion?

 

[Ruth Mills]

Thanks for all replying. Hippy-chick, your website is great, I think Id be fine with the smaller package as I wouldnt even need half the amount of pages you've got!!

Thank you Ruth (I was hoping you'd reply!) can I just ask how Mr Site compares to Wix - in your opinion?

Lauren - please could you point me in the direction of a Wix website and then I will let you know what I think (from a technical perspective); I don't think I've used Wix either though, so wouldn't really be able to advise from a usability perspective...

 

[lauren.]

I saw one on here a couple of days ago, think I can remember it. Will have a look and let you know. Thanks for your troubles am so grateful, I feel so bamboozled with all this internet business!!!!!

 

[steve@nouvatan]

why not ask ruth to quote you for a web site and design she offers a web hosting service ect
shes done loads of geeks web sites and you will be pleasantly surprised at the low start up costs, i cannot praise her enough shes an all round good egg very professional and quick to respond
It will cost you nothing to inquire :lol::lol:

 

[kimi1101]

I use mr site, the middle package, and it does the job for me. it cost me £25 and i thought, "if i get one cut and blow dry from it, i will have made my money back" and i must say i ahve had at least 10 clients come in and say, i googled hair in stirling and you came up. thats maybe not down to the mr site package but i just didnt wanna commit to anything too pricey to begin with, and i have defo made my money back. would recommend it. xx

 

[-sophisticutz-]

The figure quoted in MB (75 MB or 150 MB) would be the amount of web space in megabytes that they give you for that particular account.

Each web page, image, etc, on your website has a size in bytes. The average size of the HTML for most web pages is around 10 KB (kilobytes), and the average size of images usually varies fro a few KB for small images, to 100+ KB for larger images. But you don't need huge images on your website, so you should always create a smaller sized copy for use on your website of any images that you take on your digital camera, for example.

75 MB should be adequate for most websites unless you have loads of images (assuming your images are no more than 100KB each in size, you'd be able to put around 750 of them in 75 MB of web space), or multimedia content such as video.

I haven't used Mr Site personally, although I have noticed issues with the HTML syntax that it generates when I've seen other people's sites that have been created using it. The HTML errors in the Mr Site websites that I have seen are usually handled gracefully by most web browsers, but usually cause several errors to be displayed when validating Mr Site web pages using the W3C validator, The W3C Markup Validation Service - this could result in accessibility issues and is bad from a technical perspective in general.

It's because these are always drag and drop for the layperson. The coding is normally very basic and yucky.
These are great I think for personal websites but for businesses I am not a fan. Everything is normally embedded directly on the page, out of date code and just generally messy. Take them out of IE and there is generally always an issue on display.

If anyone is going to design there own website using these sort of services, I would advise getting a basic HTML guide/instruction book, so you can go in and tweak the code.

HTML, XHTML and CSS for Dummies: Amazon.co.uk: Ed Tittel, Jeff Noble: Books

HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide Definitive Guides: Amazon.co.uk: Chuck Musciano, Bill Kennedy: Books

 

[Ruth Mills]

It's because these are always drag and drop for the layperson. The coding is normally very basic and yucky.
These are great I think for personal websites but for businesses I am not a fan. Everything is normally embedded directly on the page, out of date code and just generally messy. Take them out of IE and there is generally always an issue on display.

But what if one were to combine the power and ease of use of the "WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)" and "drag and drop" interfaces with a fully XHTML-compliant content management system, in a nice, elegant, flexible design? Surely that's got to be possible???

 

[-sophisticutz-]

But what if one were to combine the power and ease of use of the "WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)" and "drag and drop" interfaces with a fully XHTML-compliant content management system, in a nice, elegant, flexible design? Surely that's got to be possible???

It would be great! I'm sure there is a job there for you Ruth

I personally loathe WYSIWYG but then I am a code snob, lol

I did have a play with Dreamweaver MX years ago but ended up switching to HTML view out of frustration

 

[Ruth Mills]

It would be great! I'm sure there is a job there for you Ruth

I personally loathe WYSIWYG but then I am a code snob, lol

I did have a play with Dreamweaver MX years ago but ended up switching to HTML view out of frustration

LOL, it all takes time! There are some interesting Javascript-based WYSIWYG editors out there, such as TinyMCE, that look promising, but it's a question of how you then tie that in with the underlying content management system, and also enforce that what comes back to the server (and especially what gets written to the database) is compliant XHTML.

I don't loathe WYSIWYG per se - as long as the underlying code that you get from it isn't too ugly - and as long as you can see the code that it churns out. I guess that's why I have always preferred Unix and Linux systems to Windows lol...