Hi Guys.

 

Just wondered if you could share some thoughts with me on my latest site. I haven't put it in the reviews section as i'm not particularly wanting to get it reviewed 'per-se'. However if you want to comment on it thats fine...

 

Its: www.gardenfactors.co.uk

 

The reason i'm posting here is because I actually took this site for £500, which was less than half of my original quote because it was for a friend of a friend so to speak. I would guess (as its taken me 8 days full time) - I would have been more on the mark at £1200 for this. What do you think?

 

The site is fairly simple, but ive crated the showroom in php/MYSQL so it will be easier to add/edit new products etc in the future. (no it doesnt include an admin system for the client).

 

The brief they gave me was terrible. They gave me half an hour and rushed off - even though I tried to go through a proper plan. Grrrrr.....

 

50% of the site validates. However, they are a small outfit - and I have done my work on keywords, SEO as best I can with no text - and am loath to spend much more time on it without payment.

 

I would say the site is certainly functional as it is - but I would really like to add more copy, tune it and validate each page. What do you do when you've gone double over budget??

 

Another thing also is ive produced the design with mostly PNG's in div layers with a progressive jpeg for the main picture in the banner. Its well optimsed and works well in all browsers apart from IE. 6 because it doesn't support transparency on the PNG's! Again, I don't really want to change it to JPEG as in this particular case - it will 'de-optimise it'

 

The client is stuck with a 56k modem.

 

What do you think??

As the site specifically belongs to a customers I'd ask how you can sell it - they own it don't they?

I'm not sure he plans to sell it, he just wants to know how much you reckon it's worth — to see if he's lost out I suppose.

Considering the site was only registered on the 2nd of this month I would say not very much. The domain itself when it is just a substandard name garden(insert som random thing here).co.uk is easy enough to do so in that aspect the domain is not unique in any way. I mean someone could easily register gardenfactor.co.uk for a few pound (as in £5 )

 

As there is no page rank, no real search engine results for popular searches to do with gardening, probably not a great deal of unique visitors a day I would say that the domain isn't worth much at all. Of course if there is a company out there called garden factors that really really really want to have the .co.uk for their company then you might get something for it...but as it stands normally unless people want the domain because of a company name, the domain has to be well established and be doing something, such as getting lots of unique visitors a day or selling lots of stuff.

 

 

From a design point of view its seems like a basic design (but the php and mysql would up the price a bit), and you haven't taken the time to code some very simple things correctly (some of your errors in validation could be solved in about a second). So if you think that the design was worth £500 then fair enough. Like I say to a lot of people who ask this question, it is not our opinion that matters if you work out the hours spent on this site and divide the money you got by that and you come out with a reasonable hourly rate then it was worth it...if you come out that you were making a £1 an hour then chances are you have spent to much time on it. We can't judge if you got paid enough for the site as we don't know the factors that went into creating it, we just see the final product.

Yeah, sorry guys - maybe i wasn't clear...

 

I was interested in how much you would have charged for a simmilar site with a PHP/MYSQL database to run the products at around 9 days full time work...

 

 

Thanks.

 

PAul.

I wouldn't really now, as you said the pages don't validate, but i would say £500 was a bit excessive, just my opinion

Yeah, sorry guys - maybe i wasn't clear...

 

I was interested in how much you would have charged for a simmilar site with a PHP/MYSQL database to run the products at around 9 days full time work...

Thanks.

 

PAul.

 

 

full time work we will say 8 hours as thats normally the average working day...so that would be

 

8*9=72

 

so then

500/72=6.944444444

 

so roughly you worked for about £6.93 an hour, providing you worked 8 hours a day for 9 days...so do you think your skills and talent are worth that much? Taking into account that you didn't creat a fully valid site, and couldn't be bothered to make it cross browser compatible.

Hi Paul,

I suppose £500 for 72 hours work ends up at around £7.00 ph.

I'm sure you're not too happy working for that.

Even a conservative hourly rate of £15 ph would make that site worth nearly £1100 to you.

When you quoted for the work, did you think it would take you this long to complete?

These things happen to all of us; the lesson being to never do things on the cheap, no matter who it is for.

However, at the end of the day, a site is only worth what someone will pay for it.

There are 2 ways to look at this; either charge more or speed up the development process to keep in line with the quote.

Hi Paul,

I suppose £500 for 72 hours work ends up at around £7.00 ph.

I'm sure you're not too happy working for that.

Even a conservative hourly rate of £15 ph would make that site worth nearly £1100 to you.

When you quoted for the work, did you think it would take you this long to complete?

These things happen to all of us; the lesson being to never do things on the cheap, no matter who it is for.

However, at the end of the day, a site is only worth what someone will pay for it.

There are 2 ways to look at this; either charge more or speed up the development process to keep in line with the quote.

 

Good point. £1200 was closer to my original quote. Thats what i'm saying. It isnt a mistake I will repeat. No work is better than working for nothing....

 

In terms of the comments above - im not sure how many other people would have included flash work and database development for this time and price. (My own fault admittedly) - but please bear in mind that I had to spend hours scanning and cropping images and typing out text that my computer illiterate clients couldnt even supply me with in word.

 

The Wc3 errors on my front page (90%) are due to the fact that I have embedded a flash banner into the page. I haven't clue how to sort these errors out, as I have simply just clicked the 'add flash movie' element in dreamweaver. Most of the other pages validate - and I will continue to try and sort them out.

 

The question over the main banner not rendering properly in IE. 6 is more a failing in the browser rather than the standard I have crafted it in. How long do we continue to patronise sub standard browsers at the expense of utilising the web to the full?

 

 

 

I think the lesson here is to simply not quote until you know exactly whats involved and you can uncover any surprises...

The question over the main banner not rendering properly in IE. 6 is more a failing in the browser rather than the standard I have crafted it in. How long do we continue to patronise sub standard browsers at the expense of utilising the web to the full?

 

So we should all put up with your website not working correctly in IE 6, just because the browser doesn't work to your satisfaction?

 

I think that is a very narrow minded view on things, as it isn't the users fault that they are using IE6 — your "computer illiterate" clients might not have a clue that IE6 has some shortcomings.

 

You can't blame the browser either, what's done is done, and you need to support it until people stop using IE6 all together. It really isn't that hard to make things work cross browser, it just sounds like you can't even be bothered to try, especially with the validation!

So we should all put up with your website not working correctly in IE 6, just because the browser doesn't work to your satisfaction?

 

I think that is a very narrow minded view on things, as it isn't the users fault that they are using IE6 — your "computer illiterate" clients might not have a clue that IE6 has some shortcomings.

 

You can't blame the browser either, what's done is done, and you need to support it until people stop using IE6 all together. It really isn't that hard to make things work cross browser, it just sounds like you can't even be bothered to try, especially with the validation!

 

Thanks. It would take 5 minutes to render the banner as a jpeg and replace it. Job done - it would be compatible cross browser. Try it and see. The only thing that doesn't display properly is the transparency in the PNG's. I have included all the hacs necessary to make it work in every other way in IE. 6 and even 5.5.

 

If I couldn't be bothered, I wouldn't have worked for all these hours for next to nothing would I?

 

All my pages but 2 validate in Wc3, and they would all validate if I could sort out the problems. I have sorted out all the other pages.

 

I don't think these comments are entirely fair. Sure, I have probably asked for some of them because of my own tone in this post, however - some jobs end up not worth doing in the first place. This is probably one...

All your pages Should be coded to standard, not all but...they should ALL meet standard. The client has paid you to provide a service and you should do it correctly.

 

Why not use one of the many PNG hack so that your site will display correctly in IE6?

 

 

You wouldn't be happy buying a car that you have been told works only to find out a little later that its failed its MOT on multiple issues? so why should your clients suffer with a site that doesn't work cross browser and doesn't validate...ohh cos they only paid £500, well you agreed to build the site for that much so you should get it to work on every browser how it is supposed to look. So what if you don't think its worth it, give the money back and tell them to find someone else...you accepted that amount so you need to do what you agreed to do and to a the highest possible standard.

You can write it off as a mistake that YOU charged too little, but you CANNOT blame your client for this and they shouldn't have to suffer because of YOUR mistake. It really is that simple.

Well said Dizi! Exactly my thoughts as well.

All your pages Should be coded to standard, not all but...they should ALL meet standard. The client has paid you to provide a service and you should do it correctly.

 

They are - other than the problems I'm struggling to solve. Read my other posts - I have said this 3 times now. You can always offer help if you wish!

 

Why not use one of the many PNG hack so that your site will display correctly in IE6?

 

Thats a helpful suggestion - I'll look into that. Do you have any links available?

 

 

You wouldn't be happy buying a car that you have been told works only to find out a little later that its failed its MOT on multiple issues? so why should your clients suffer with a site that doesn't work cross browser and doesn't validate...ohh cos they only paid £500, well you agreed to build the site for that much so you should get it to work on every browser how it is supposed to look. So what if you don't think its worth it, give the money back and tell them to find someone else...you accepted that amount so you need to do what you agreed to do and to a the highest possible standard.

 

Ok. Can you explain to me why any of this is fair or valid? haven't I explained above that the only reason it's not compliant is because of certain issues I can't resolve? Had I known about the hacks for PNG - i might have used them. Unfortunately - we can't all be web gurus. I'd love to give them their money back - but they haven't paid me yet and havent been contactable for 2 weeks by phone, email or at their business address.

 

I accepted the amount to do less actually. I never agreed to place the content in php/mysql as it would have elevated the cost. However, I felt it was the best thing I could for them - and would allow them to update easily. When I quoted for the job - I didn't anticipate it would take 6 hours of prep on the photo's or creating their text for them when they dropped that bombshell on my doorstep.

 

You can write it off as a mistake that YOU charged too little, but you CANNOT blame your client for this and they shouldn't have to suffer because of YOUR mistake. It really is that simple.

 

I agree with you totally. It's my mistake. I have said that above (and got no recognition only criticism for my honesty). Frustrating isn't it??

 

Let's put it this way. They got a job at 50% of what I would have normally charged at a reasonable rate of £6.00 per hour rather than £15.00 per hour (which is still very cheap indeed). I really don't think they are going to be suffering....

 

Thanks for the lack of support though.

 

And your supposed to be a moderator??

I accepted the amount to do less actually. I never agreed to place the content in php/mysql as it would have elevated the cost. However, I felt it was the best thing I could for them - and would allow them to update easily. When I quoted for the job - I didn't anticipate it would take 6 hours of prep on the photo's or creating their text for them when they dropped that bombshell on my doorstep.

 

I'll stay out of the major "discussion" in this thread but I'm curious - why are you doing development, content writing and photo editing if that wasn't in your contract? Maybe just as something to know for next time, but it is always helpful to write out an extensive brief about what is included in your price. It's also helpful to write what isn't included (for web design it's a good idea to list SEO, writing/editing, etc. here). Clients often don't know what web design is and isn't; they may not even know that you won't provide the content until you explicitly tell them.

 

Even if they gave you a sub-standard brief - or no brief at all - it's a good idea to get all of this in writing for your own benefit. Not trying to sound harsh, only helpful... for future projects.

And your supposed to be a moderator??

 

 

I am first of all a member of this forum and as such like every other member on this forum I have the right to express my opinions. As a mod I am a damn good one because I don't let my personal views and opinion of others effect my moding, I will always do my dues as a mod with no bias. BUT much like I allow members of this forum to share their opinions no matter what they are, I expect members to realise that I am just as entitled as they are to share my views.

 

 

Anyway look on google and search from "png ie6 hack" you will find there are loads.

 

 

 

 

And as the rest of the argument is just going around in circles I am closing this thread. If you disagree PM me and explain how this thread is useful and not just an argument about if you should correct the errors on the site you said you would create for £500.