BlueVoda

Hey all. I am not a programmer. I found BlueVoda online, and it has a lot of useful tools and looks easy to use, good tutorials.

Question is, will I be able to upload and publish a website created by BlueVoda? What issues may I face? I will be creating a lot of sub-domains, and using a template, so to make things MUCH easier for me.

Any comments are greatly appreciated!

leftwings22

BlueVoda is an extremely bad WYSIWYG editor designed to trap users into getting a "VodaHost" account. It creates dreadful, bloated HTML (or something resembling HTML, anyway) pages using code not seen since the mid '90s. No modern technologies are supported (not even PHP). It is so bad, you'd be better off with almost anything else.

-- si-blog --

Hmmmmmmmm... OK. Thanks for the input!

What would you suggest? NvU? I dont have a ton of time to learn all the programming languages and tricks out there, as my sites will be quite simple and basic for now.

Thanks!
Leftwings22

I suppose that would be fine, but it only takes a couple of weeks to learn how to make sites with HTML.

-- si-blog --

OK, great.

Thanks for the link, it is appreciated a lot, I will use it too. I have to get my sites up & running first, then I will focus on learning the HTML.

My original question still was not answered... Will a site created in BlueVoda work on DH?

Thanks again!
Leftwings22

I don't know anything about BlueVoda, so I can't answer your question - but NVU is a great editor and will make pages that function as expected on Dreamhost.



--Matttail
art.googlies.net - personal website

In reply to:

---

Will a site created in BlueVoda work on DH?

---

No. BlueVoda will only allow you to upload files to their own hosting service.

-- si-blog --

In reply to:

---

No. BlueVoda will only allow you to upload files to their own hosting service.

---

Well, *that* pretty much sucks ...

--rlparker

In reply to:

---

Well, *that* pretty much sucks ...

---

Doesn't it? But that statement could be applied to pretty much all of the WYSIWYG editors out there. BlueVoda is particularly bad because it produces old-style presentational pseudo HTML that only works as intended in IE. I read the Wikipedia article on it this morning, and it was less complimentary than I was LOL.

-- si-blog --

Your frequency has decreased, but it's interesting you "post" your favorite link to the article of yours, and protect it in the wiki around the same time you make sure someone else can't do similar.

How many times will you self-link this thing...

In reply to:

---

it's interesting you "post" your favorite link to the article of yours, and protect it in the wiki around the same time you make sure someone else can't do similar.

---

Which has what, exactly, to do with BlueVoda? Could you be more "off topic"? Scjessey's post was relevant to the thread. Okay, so you don't like the way scjessey sysops on the wiki - we get it!

So go edit the wiki page if you like, and argue about the edits and reversions on the wiki itself, or start a new thread in "Off Topic" if you'd rather "shout in a hotel lobby". Interjecting your "off topic" peeves into an unrelated thread is just trollish.

Contrary to what is implied in your post, that page is *not* protected, so go have at it if you want.

--rlparker

In reply to:

---

it's interesting you "post" your favorite link to the article of yours

---

It is not an article, Bob. It is a very popular, multi-lesson tutorial that has helped many thousands of people learn the basics of XHTML. It was entirely appropriate for me to suggest that the OP could learn XHTML instead of trying to struggle with a poor WYSIWYG editor.

-- si-blog --

I don't know anything about BlueVoda, so I can't answer that question - but I agree NVU or kompozer is a great editor.

So... you're saying jessey *doesn't* spam that link...

In reply to:

---

So go edit the wiki page if you like, and argue about the edits and reversions on the wiki itself, or start a new thread in "Off Topic" if you'd rather "shout in a hotel lobby". Interjecting your "off topic" peeves into an unrelated thread is just trollish.

---

Wow, very controlling, and defaming. So sorry, but my comment was on what was said in this thread. The link is related to current activities in the wiki. Often you call similar links "spam." The subject line was adequately modified.

In reply to:

---

The term troll should be used with attention since it is a very easy way of undermining an opposing point of view. Sometimes, overly using the word "troll" may constitute trolling in itself.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Usage

Re: Defaming and controlling: "Stalkers may slander or defame the character of their victims which may isolate the victims and give the stalkers more control or a feeling of power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#Psychology_and_behaviors

In reply to:

---

Contrary to what is implied in your post, that page is *not* protected, so go have at it if you want.

---

Twisted semantics as you should know - it's not protected automatically by software, but you damn well know it's very protected by jessey with his admin status. You also damn well know attempts to "have at it" will run into banning and be a waste of time.

In reply to:

---

It is a very popular, multi-lesson tutorial

---

If you do say so yourself, jessey. OK, a multi-page article then. Nobody said otherwise. So... you're saying you *don't* spam that link, like you prevent other people from doing.

In reply to:

---

Wow, very controlling, and defaming. ...

In reply to:

The term troll should be used with attention since it is a very easy way of undermining an opposing point of view. Sometimes, overly using the word "troll" may constitute trolling in itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Usage

Re: Defaming and controlling: "Stalkers may slander or defame the character of their victims which may isolate the victims and give the stalkers more control or a feeling of power."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#Psychology_and_behaviors

---

Ha ha ha! That's rich, indeed. I point out that a particular act on your part is "trollish" and you start screaming, 'shenanigans!" meh ... if you think for one minute, you have been "defamed" in any way that is actionable, locate some some money that you don't mind wasting, throw it at a lawyer, and get yourself some education on the matter.

Wikipedia may be useful for a lot of things, but you have to be able to understand the different contexts in which words are used, particularly when it comes to things that have common usage meanings *and* legal meanings, or you will end up just looking ignorant when you repeat things you read.

*This* forum is for "3rd Party Software & Scripts", and the thread was about BlueVoda. Your interjecting your whine/bitch/kvetch/protest/whatever with scjessey's linking practices and/or sysop activity in the wiki *does* constitue "trolling" in my opinion, and blathering on about how you interpret Wikipedia's definitions of such behavior is just as "off-topic" as your original trollish post.

If you don't like your posts being referred to as "trollish", then don't make off-topic posts that attack others and hijack threads.

It's simple enough to start your own thread, in an appropriate forum with an accurately descriptive subject/title, though I admit that might not meet the goals of a "troll", because people could then actually *choose* to read the post based on it's subject, rather than have it foisted upon them when viewing a thread about a WYSYWYG html editor. A lot of users use the "flat" view in this forum, and changing the subject line doesn't remove the "off-topic" post from that view.

--rlparker

So... you're saying jessey *does* spam that link...

and you're *his* meat puppet at wikipedia.

In reply to:

---

So... you're saying jessey *does* spam that link... and you're *his* meat puppet at wikipedia.

---

How you derive "you're saying jessey *does* spam that link" from my post is beyond reasoning, and your attempt to hijack this thread into a discussion of wikipedia edits is just another typical troll tactic. Once again, completely off-topic, and irrelevant to the thread in which it was posted.

Playing with *this* kind of a troll has no positive aspect, little entertainment value, and is, in fact, just boring - so I'm done with you. Enjoy yourself, by yourself.

--rlparker

Give me a little credit for a more thoughtful comment than your "on-topic" comment to that point: "Well, *that* pretty much sucks ... "

In reply to:

---

How you derive "you're saying jessey *does* spam that link" from my post is beyond reasoning

---

>> So... you're saying jessey *doesn't* spam that link...

> So... you're saying jessey *does* spam that link...

It's playing with the fact you *never* addressed my comment regarding frequent "posting" and protecting of that link. You went straight to off-topic claims and ad hominem attacks. Yeah, it's not funny when it has to be explained. In short sentences.

Yeah, nobody likes to be seen as the pot calling the kettle black. Simple explanation: You change the topic to avoid addressing a comment. You call people trolls and puppets and topic changers, when lo and behold, maybe *you* is one.

Last word. For once. Woot. Well, *that* pretty much *doesn't* sucks ...

In reply to:

---

It's playing with the fact you *never* addressed my comment ..

---

Ha ha ha. Well, doh! *that's* called "ignoring your comment". You can troll, and *try* to entice, bait, needle, etc. others into discussing what you want to discuss, but it seems you don't always succeed.

You did, however, succeed in presenting just enough "entertainment potential" to entice me to respond in spite of my firm intention to completely ignore you; My bad - score one for the troll and congratulations on your success with that.

Oh, hell! now I've spoiled the "last word" status that seems important to you and as as result, no doubt, we'll all get to read another of your brilliant responses; mea culpa!

--rlparkerEdited by rlparker on 08/11/07 04:12 PM (server time).