Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government It's funny.  Laugh. Politics

If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages 112

Posted by timothy
from the you'd-never-vote-at-all dept.
Kookus writes "Which party has the best team of web deployers/developers? Neither main page passes w3c's html validator, but Kerry's has much fewer "errors". These pages do not seem to do well on Bobby either... Both seem to be using Akamai's HTTP Acceleration/Mirror service which appears to be running linux, Granted that it is hard to please everyone; which team is doing the best job?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages

Comments Filter:
  • by orkysoft (93727) <[moc.xoblaerym] [ta] [tfosykro]> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:19PM (#10645520) Journal
    Well, one of them tells me I'm not authorized to access it...
    • No no no, your sig should say...

      "In Soviet Russia, you don't find The Grail, The Grail finds you!"
      • Well, I figured out that interpreting this important clue as to the real location of the Grail would be better left as an exercise for the reader... in Japan!
    • Re:Cheap shot... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kris_J (10111) * on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @06:46PM (#10647877) Journal
      It's not a cheap shot. Bush' website is blocking visitors deemed to be outside of the US. So...

      If I were chosing a US president based on their web pages Bush wouldn't even be on the ballot.

      • Well from what I understand the U.S democrazy offer just 2 choices. That's republican / democrats and that's about 1 more than Iraq. Every year the ballot results reads the following. I am not making this stuff up.

        1.) Republican or Democrat

        2.) Ralph Nader

        3.) Mickey Mouse

        4.) Howard Stern

  • wow, that's dumb (Score:3, Interesting)

    by guyo26 (151472) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:20PM (#10645526)
    stupidest idea ever. Granted, it's news for nerds, but if you're so undecided still that you pick based on which website looks better, then please surrender your franchise immediately
    • by CheshireCatCO (185193) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:33PM (#10645727) Homepage
      True, it's pretty silly. (And pretty clearly a joke, given the icons posted with the story.) But is it worse than picking a candidate based on who is more attractive or taller? Given that people seem to use things like looks or who they're most like to have a beer with, I'm not sure the web page validity is necessarily a significantly dumber criterion. They all leave me weeping for my country.
    • Re:wow, that's dumb (Score:2, Interesting)

      by aberson (461047)
      for political candidates it makes little sense, but I used this method for picking a dentist when I moved to a new area:

      1. went to my dental insurance website and found dentists sorted by distance from my home address
      2. googled each name until I found the first one with his own website (i.e. not just listed on some "dentists of NJ" website)

      The method actually worked very well - the first place with a website turned out to be a dental office that was new, clean, and technologically advanced. USB based x-r
      • Sounds like it worked out well for you, but it could also mean that dentist needs more patients. Of course, if the practice is new, then it's not a problem.

        I went through my list once, looking for names that said "not currently accepting new patients", and called those offices until I found one that was.

        Not terribly scientific, but better than judging by last names.
    • stupidest idea ever.

      Considering the site you saw this on doesn't even validate [w3.org], itself...

  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:25PM (#10645624) Homepage Journal
    ...then it'd have had to be Al Gore [archive.org].

    Not because his website is particularly great, but because, if you View Source, you get...

    Thanks for checking out our source code! I plan to use this space to post
    special messages to those who are helping to improve our web site -- by making
    our site the best it can be. The fact that you are peeking behind the
    scenes at our site means you can make an important difference to this Internet
    effort. I'm grateful for your help and support in this campaign. Now let's
    keep working to build the 21st Century of our dreams!

    Al Gore
    Because, as we all know, Al used to hand write his HTML... ;-)
  • not slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gmhowell (26755)
    I tried to validate slashdot [w3.org] from that url, and got an error. So I'm not sure.
    • The /. admins admit they can't bring their HTML up-to-date and up-to-spec because (a) they are busy with more important things, (b) some older browsers (And they get a fair # of hits from them) dont parse some "Correct" code---in fact, certain styles of coding have been left intact on /. for years so some older browsers will display the page more correctly.

      Or something like that. Can't find a link to it now, but I know i've seen this info on the site somewhere.
  • by Naikrovek (667)
    can't we find something more *political* to talk about? nobody who cares about politics cares about candidate website standards conformity.

    if what the current administration is doing doesn't stop, it will put an end to this nation as we know it within our lifetime. what they are doing is making decisions that line their own pockets without concern for the voters or the country. greed is destructive.

    did you know, for example that the current administration has previously sought legal means to postpone o
    • How is this?
      "For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush said.

      This is the guy who went to war because a certain country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and didn't.

      What a freaking hippocrite.
      • Re:oh wow (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zach Garner (74342)
        | This is the guy who went to war because a certain
        | country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and
        | didn't.

        You need to realize that Bush didn't go to war because of WMDs. He had his own personal reasons for the war. The WMD issue was just their idea at the best way to justify the war to the US population.
        • Good point... Part of his "Crusade"

        • Bush supported the Iraq war for pretty much the same reasons John Kerry supported the Iraq war.

          "I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?"

          -- John Kerry

          • From CNN today:

            Kerry also used a Bush campaign line, telling the crowd that the president had jumped to conclusions about Saddam Hussein's connection to the September 11, 2001, attacks and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

            "I'm going to apply the Bush standard to this: Yesterday ... George Bush said and I quote him: 'A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security.' Well Mr. President, I agr

            • John Kerry has not given me the impression that he'd run the war any better, plus he's gone and insulted our current allies in Iraq, and promised (and eventually backed down on) the ridiculous notion that he could get France and Germany to help. Not to mention that you can't successfully fight a war and keep calling it a "mistake" and a "distraction".

              If John Kerry wins the election, and were to take the Iraq sitution seriously, he'd be giving the exact same optimistic account that Bush is. He'd have to.
              • Insult is a term used by W to spin what Kerry said. Kerry said we are paying for 90% of this war (money and casualties).
                I know... "What about Poland?!"

                Bush (approximately): 'He says we didn't have allies? What does he say to Tony Blair? What does he say to Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland?'

                President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland: 'They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.'

                So, I ask you this? What is more insulting? Being lied to about why you are

                • First, that quote from Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland was taken way out of context.

                  Second, I was more thinking of Kerry (and his advisors) very literal and direct insults at the leader of our biggest ally in Iraq. That's right, I'm talking about the copious insults hurled at Iyad Allawi.

                  He comes and addresses Congress, thanking America for all of its efforts and sacrifices, and gives a positive assessment of Iraq's progress towards democracy. (Note: It is Allawi's job to do this kind of thing.)

                  But Ke
                  • Firstly, out of context or not, he is quite plainly not satisfied with how he was treated by this administration. Much like many others.

                    Regarding Allawi, it is alleged that his speech was written for him by this administration. And in that speech he failed to mention beheadings of innocent contractors, no-go zones where the military in control of the country WON'T go, an average of 80 insurgent attacks EVERY DAY, and that the Iraqi police force isn't as trained as they should be at this point in time. (O
        • You need to realize that Bush didn't go to war because of WMDs. He had his own personal reasons for the war. The WMD issue was just their idea at the best way to justify the war to the US population.

          True, but there was a lot more evidence to indicate that there were no significant amount of WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. So, didn't they realize that they were going to look very foolish? Or did they expect everyone to accept the bait and switch to say we did it for humanitarian reasons, or to promote
    • nobody who cares about politics cares about candidate website standards conformity.

      I care- standards conformity in the website leads to other forms of standards conformity that you may care more about. Like the Just War Standard, Verion 0.1b, which was written by Augustine of Hippo in City of God in 400 A.D. which states that a just war should never be conducted outside of your own territory. You should not take revenge in your enemy's territory, and you shouldn't fight your wars on the territory of th
  • also (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Naikrovek (667) <jjohnson@@@psg...com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:37PM (#10645782)
    lets talk about how compliant slashdot is before we talk about other sites' compliance, please.

    you know, the whole "police yourself before you police others" thing that we hear so much these days.
    • amazing UID, very nice..

      'police yourself before you police others'.... Not to start something(ok, maybe to start a LITTLE something) but that is anti-common cliche if ever there was one. Quite the opposite is happening in the US these days, unless you count something like 'police ourselves as if you yourself were the others... all the while also trying to policing others'.
      • yes quite the opposite is happening, that's for sure.

        i meant it like this - i've heard many folks say that we should police ourselves before we police others, referencing the crap that's going on in iraq.

        that's what i meant - many folks feel this is the important thing to do - police GWB out of office. and that's what i meant.

        btw, uid 666 does not exist - if it wasn't purposefully avoided, i would have gotten it. at least i think 666 was blacklisted... i dunno.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    <HTML><HEAD>
    <TITLE>Access Denied</TITLE>
    </HEAD><BODY>
    <H1>Access Denied</H1>

    You don't have permission to access "http&#58;&#47;&#47;www&#46;georgewbush&#46;com&#4 7;" on this server.<P>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>
  • by Otter (3800) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:41PM (#10645829) Journal
    Politics (Michael): Two Bush cousins put up a pro-Kerry site!

    Politics (Pudge): Oh, yeah? Well, Kerry repeatedly got Red Sox scores wrong!

    Politics (Timothy): But they both --- serve their campaign sites on Linux!

    Audience: Hugs all around! And if we cared about HTML standards compliance, we wouldn't be reading Slashdot!

  • 403 Access Denied

    (and the error page does not have a correct DTD)
  • 1. The Hulk for President [komar.org] page W3C validates [w3.org]

    2. The halloween webcam - vote for Hulk [komar.org] page W3C validates [w3.org] (except for the (intentional) marque tag, which most browsers handle, although Internet Exploder handles the behavior='slide' better than Firefox)

    3. Hulk's web site has "survived" being FARK'ed, Slashdotted, Ernie's House of WhoopAss, etc. ... and also provides hourly updated web stats [komar.org]

    4. Hulk's web site was "attacked" by a "Kerry-Bot" that tried to stuff the ballot [komar.org] but those votes were chucked and I

  • With all the replication logic that must be implemented to serve the website's contents to all the Internets, Bush's site is clearly technologically superior to Kerry's. This is why they must limit access only to the US [slashdot.org]

  • Tried www.georgewbush.com from europe says:

    Access Denied
    You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server.

    I guess they are not interested in the votes of Americans living abroad.
  • What about the third parties? It's only fair to give them a chance to compete with the big guys.
  • seriously (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glog (303500) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:30PM (#10646477)
    Can you people come up with any dumber reasons who to vote for? Here is a selection of other things you might consider when voting:

    1. What did each candidate have for breakfast?
    2. Do they snore?
    3. Who does your dog bark at more?
    4. Do you get better tv reception when Bush is on or Kerry?
    5. Who would Leiutenant Worf vote for?

    Give me a break already!
    • People come up with dumber reasons all the time. At least you can read the website and find out where they stand on the issues.

      6. Who has the better looking television ads?
      7. Which one is taller?
      8. Who are your parents voting for?
      9. Whose niece/nephew got arrested for drug possession?
      10. Who did Fau^H^Hox News tell you to vote for?
    • 5. Who would Leiutenant Worf vote for?

      I guess you haven't read Klingons for Kerry. [wweek.com]

      75% of Klingons support Kerry
      25% of Klingons support Satan
      0% of Klingons support Bush

      Note that the person quoted as saying "A good war is based on honor, not deception, The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war." was one of the people^wklingons who plans on voting for Satan.
  • by Morrisguy (731956) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:32PM (#10646494)
    Bush(www.georgewbush.com [georgewbush.com]): 303 errors.

    Kerry(www.johnkerry.com [johnkerry.com]): 2 errors.

    Nader(www.votenader.org [votenader.org]): unable to validate.

    Badnarik(badnarik.org [badnarik.org]): 13 errors.

    Cobb(www.votecobb.org [votecobb.org]): 217 errors.
  • Badnarik: 13 Errors [w3.org]
    Bush: 303 Errors [w3.org]
    Kerry: 33 Errors [w3.org]
    Nader: Unable to validate [w3.org]

    It should be noted that Kerry's page is just a splash screen. If geeks voted based on errors, it would be Badnarik in a landslide!
  • Www.georgewbush.com kills my mozilla, dead, everytime. Building a website is apperantly "hard work".
  • .. I wouldn't vote for Bush, we can't see his website.
  • I could make just as an informed decision as someone who just watched the local evening news.

    That is to say a uninformed decision.

    Anyone who votes based just on what they find on the websites is an idiot. It's like taking a rapist's word for it that he won't do it again.

    The submitter's 'Neither' is telling. Does he know that there are other parties?

    Yeah, It's Funny. Laugh.

    I would, but I'm sick to my stomach of this fucking election, the 'major' candidates, the rhetoric, and lies.

    ha ha.

  • I suppose this is a better option than deciding not to vote for someone because they don't know their baseball facts [slashdot.org]. Even I know that the Sox won with a triple blurns in the bottom of the 7th Blurn.
  • the libertarian web site beats the two major party sites which actually has to watch what they say. Badnarik even says that he strongly supports the second amendment; we all know george 'double-yah' bush would love to say something like that, but knows he will get his ass chewed for that. And thats why Badnarik is cool... http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org]
  • http://www.cpusa.org/ [cpusa.org]

    'Nuff Said ;-) .
  • Bush's site uses ASP. Kerry uses PHP. ASP evidence: http://www.dangrover.com/blog/data/upimages/busher rorsmall.jpg PHP: search through the source, you'll find a few .php links. http://php.weblogs.com/php_vs_asp

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...