Repubs Spent 1.4 Million dollars on their failure website

handfleisch

More of the serious meltdown of the Republican party in the USA. Their new 1.4 million dollar website did not even work right when launched, and when you clicked on future party leaders, you got an error message.

Quote:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34992_GOP_Spent_More_Than_a_Million_Dollars_to_Launch_a_Disastrous_Website

GOP Spent More Than a Million Dollars to Launch a Disastrous Website

Politics | Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:15:22 pm PDT

Unbelievable. The Republican Party’s pathetically inept new website actually cost them more than a million dollars to set up: Entering digital age an expensive proposition for GOP.

And for that $1.4 million, they got a website that crashed continuously on its launch day, had almost no real content, was mocked across the blogosphere, allowed trolls and Ron Paul idiots to post antisemitic images, and violated several basic principles of good web design. Excellent work, GOP.

deanhills

I checked up on the report by typing the title in both Google and Yahoo Search Boxes. I found only one link about the Republican Website launch story. Can you give us an alternative bona fide link from the news media to verify the little green footballs story, specifically with regard to the cost of the Website?

As far as I can see the Website link works quite well:
http://www.gop.com/

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

I checked up on the report by typing the title in both Google and Yahoo Search Boxes. I found only one link about the Republican Website launch story. Can you give us an alternative bona fide link from the news media to verify the little green footballs story, specifically with regard to the cost of the Website?

As far as I can see the Website link works quite well:
http://www.gop.com/

With your internet skills, you could get a job at GOP.com...

New Republican Party site crashes hours after launch | csmonitor.com
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/10/13/new-republican-party-site-crashes-hours-after-launch/

New RNC website stumbles out of gate
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28253.html

Here was what you got when you clicked on "future leaders"

ocalhoun

This seems to be the fault of a web-design company, rather than the party...
Really, who charges more than a million dollars to design and implement a website, and then screws it up?

As for how much they paid for it... How much do democrats spend on websites? We need some comparison here.

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

With your internet skills, you could get a job at GOP.com...

.... thanks for the compliment Handfleisch ... Twisted Evil

to me you've just given me more "sleaze" links. To convince me I would have liked to see at least some reports from CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, ABC or any like bona fide news agencies.

This is obviously part of smear tactics, and I would have thought you were pretty much above that kind of stuff, in view of all your criticism of FOX News and the Tea Baggers?

jwellsy

Oh the irony of rightous indignation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Quote:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

UPDATE: The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration's decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

With your internet skills, you could get a job at GOP.com...

.... thanks for the compliment Handfleisch ... :twisted: to me you've just given me more "sleaze" links. To convince me I would have liked to see at least some reports from CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, ABC or any like bona fide news agencies.

This is obviously part of smear tactics, and I would have thought you were pretty much above that kind of stuff, in view of all your criticism of FOX News and the Tea Baggers?

The CS Monitor is a sleaze link? You really are out of touch. Sorry I cannot be your personal google, but your isolation must be why you have no idea that this was a leading feature story recently, that the ineptitude and unintentional humor of the new Republican website was a rather entertaining subject for several days, though now everyone has moved on (though the symbolic nature of this failure is still reverberating).

It's really silly to try to call this a smear tactic -- the Republicans publicly embarrassed themselves, voluntarily. Read the articles fer krissakes -- for example, check out how the head of the GOP changed the name of his column after a couple days because it was so dumb.

jmi256

jwellsy wrote:

Oh the irony of rightous indignation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Quote:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

UPDATE: The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration's decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.

LOL. So using 1.4 million of private money is ridiculed, but using 18 million (over 10x more) of taxpayer money to show where else Obama is wasting taxpayer money is lauded. Funny.

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

Sorry I cannot be your personal google

If it had been "bona fide" and credible news, all I had to do was put key words in a search box and it should have come up with at least a full page of links from Reuters, from Associated Press, etc. etc. like with any NEWS! Obviously it was a variety of "news" that has been created in order to make the Republican Party look bad, hence it barely made a couple of links, but got FULL coverage from Handfleisch for very obvious reasons.

handfleisch

jmi256 wrote:

jwellsy wrote:

Oh the irony of rightous indignation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Quote:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.

The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved," Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix."

UPDATE: The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration's decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.

LOL. So using 1.4 million of private money is ridiculed, but using 18 million (over 10x more) of taxpayer money to show where else Obama is wasting taxpayer money is lauded. Funny.

It's great to sit back and watch the grasping at straws by the defeated neocons. Comparing two dissimilar things and calling them the same, dishonest use of numbers, ignoring the point -- the usual Repub nonsense.

The point: GOP.com launch was a failure, a heap of unintentional humor. Remember the "error" page when you clicked on "Future Leaders".

The dissimilar things: The cost of the launch of GOP.com is not the same as the revamping, improvement and years of upkeep of Recovery.org. GOP spent 1.4 million on just the launch and new site; they are still paying for its upkeep, so add on more millions to that boondoggle.

More on the numbers: "As much as 18 million through 2014" means that is the maximum over a five year period, for a site serving all Americans in all aspects of stimulus spending by the US government -- in other words, a huge project. Recovery.gov is already a lode of info, animated graphs, and multi-purpose features, and it's being upgraded. Maybe $3m per year is an acceptable deal for the teams of people, coordinators, researchers, writers and officials who will have to keep on it over the years. But to even compare it to GOP.com, which has the big achievement of a photos page like some high school website, is absurd.

One more thing. There is only one source for this whole 18m Recovery.gov story, a blog, and the writer cites a press release but does not even link to it. So there is no way to further track down info.

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

One more thing. There is only one source for this whole 18m Recovery.gov story, a blog, and the writer cites a press release but does not even link to it. So there is no way to further track down info.

And we barely found two links for the subject of this thread handfleisch. The dramatic way you announced this "news" sounded as though it had been splashed all over the media. It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.

LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"

jmi256

handfleisch wrote:

deanhills wrote:

It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.

LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"

It may be because you're using a Czech Republic version of Google, handfliesch. I used the same search terms you did in the US version and came up with a considerably lower number of hits, many either not related or from opinion/biased sites/blogs, not legitimate news sources. I guess in CZ it’s a bigger deal for you than it is here. Regardless, I still don't get why you are harping about a few broken links on a privately funded website yet are ok pissing away 10x that much in public money basically for nothing. Is this really your major beef with the GOP that you're spending your time researching this? The internet is designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. Or are you saying you never posted something and then went back and “fixed” it after someone pointed it out?

handfleisch

jmi256 wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

deanhills wrote:

It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.

LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"

It may be because you're using a Czech Republic version of Google, handfliesch. I used the same search terms you did in the US version and came up with a considerably lower number of hits, many either not related or from opinion/biased sites/blogs, not legitimate news sources. I guess in CZ it’s a bigger deal for you than it is here. Regardless, I still don't get why you are harping about a few broken links on a privately funded website yet are ok pissing away 10x that much in public money basically for nothing. Is this really your major beef with the GOP that you're spending your time researching this? The internet is designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. Or are you saying you never posted something and then went back and “fixed” it after someone pointed it out?

Having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to say. I linked to the CNN report about it, which showed what an embarrassment it was live while it was happening. Are you trying to say that it never happened, or was an obscure news story, as DH seems to think? Is that really your approach-- Let's just pretend it didn't happen? Did you even read my response that shows your comparison between the GOP.com launch debacle and the Recovery.gov upgrade is apples and oranges -- actually, apples and orangutans? Recovery.gov is "basically for nothing"? Are you serious?

(edited to make it nicer)

jmi256

handfleisch wrote:

jmi256 wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

deanhills wrote:

It did not make the headlines, it did not even make the major news media. It got about three hits on the Internet, and obscure ones at that.

LOL. 3 hits? How are things out there in the Arab desert otherwise?

CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC8lT9cE9hg
Links to NY Daily News even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/gopcom-rnc-website-relaun_n_319335.html

http://www.google.cz/search?q=republican+website+launch+error+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___CZ345&client=firefox-a

400,000 hits on "republican website launch error"

It may be because you're using a Czech Republic version of Google, handfliesch. I used the same search terms you did in the US version and came up with a considerably lower number of hits, many either not related or from opinion/biased sites/blogs, not legitimate news sources. I guess in CZ it’s a bigger deal for you than it is here. Regardless, I still don't get why you are harping about a few broken links on a privately funded website yet are ok pissing away 10x that much in public money basically for nothing. Is this really your major beef with the GOP that you're spending your time researching this? The internet is designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. Or are you saying you never posted something and then went back and “fixed” it after someone pointed it out?

Having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to say.

It’s pretty simple. As you wrote, DH may be out in some desert (which, btw if you’re going to complain that someone is “researching” you and “using it against you,” you really shouldn’t do the same). He didn’t get many hits when he looked into it because he was looking for more for reputable sites. The link to your Google results that you posted was from a Czech Republic version of Google, which I’m assuming is where you are located since Google usually defaults to the version where you are located. Now I don’t know if he looks at Google or whatnot, but he didn’t come up with as many hits, and I was just saying it could be a difference in the version of Google you are using. Some countries (such as China) force filtering of content. And for example, I did the exact same search you did (using the same keywords) but using the Google version here in the US and got considerably less hits than what you cited, and most of those hits were either blogs, opinion sites, etc. I didn’t look closely at your results, but maybe many are the same. I’m not an expert in how Google does its filtering, but I do know that the number and quality of results is based on what people are linking to. So you guys in the Czech Republic must be linking to more blogs and opinion sites talking about this piece of gossip. I don’t have a problem with that, but was just pointing out why DH may be getting fewer (if any) results.

handfleisch wrote:

I linked to the CNN report about it, which showed what an embarrassment it was live while it was happening. Are you trying to say that it never happened, or was an obscure news story, as DH seems to think? Is that really your approach-- Let's just pretend it didn't happen? Did you even read my response that shows your comparison between the GOP.com launch debacle and the Recovery.gov upgrade is apples and oranges -- actually, apples and orangutans? Recovery.gov is "basically for nothing"? Are you serious?

I didn’t say it never happened, but I do think that even on the slowest of news day most reputable news outlets would have better things to do than report on some broken links on a site. Was the site down? From what I’ve seen in your posts, yes. Should the GOP be pissed off at the development firm who did the work for them? Probably. Is it newsworthy? Probably not, but of course there will always be those “hope to fail” types (as you like to call them) who will make a mountain out of a molehill.

handfleisch wrote:

[ (edited to make it nicer)

And that dovetails exactly into my point about the web being designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. So the GOP had some broken links and they fixed it. Should we have federal hearings about it? (Please note the sarcasm.)

handfleisch

[quote="jmi256"]

handfleisch wrote:

, but I do think that even on the slowest of news day most reputable news outlets would have better things to do than report on some broken links on a site. Was the site down? From what I’ve seen in your posts, yes. Should the GOP be pissed off at the development firm who did the work for them? Probably. Is it newsworthy? Probably not, but of course there will always be those “hope to fail” types (as you like to call them) who will make a mountain out of a molehill.

handfleisch wrote:

[ (edited to make it nicer)

And that dovetails exactly into my point about the web being designed for iterations, optimization and beta versions. So the GOP had some broken links and they fixed it. Should we have federal hearings about it? (Please note the sarcasm.)

Well, whatever. My point still stands solidly -- that it was the latest embarrassment for the Republican Party. Plenty of conservative sites were also dismayed and incredulous. You can minimize it and be in denial about it all you want (it was not just broken links, but again, whatever), however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

What is also hilarious is how you take a relatively small thing like this and turn it into 'a major embarrassment for the republican party'.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

What is also hilarious is how you take a relatively small thing like this and turn it into 'a major embarrassment for the republican party'.

Didn't they teach you in school what quote marks mean? If so, who are you quoting, exactly?

But you're right (even though I never used the word major) -- it was just a run of the mill embarrassment for the Republicans.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

Didn't they teach you in school what quote marks mean? If so, who are you quoting, exactly?

When quoting someone specific exactly, I use quote tags or double quotes: "
When paraphrasing, referring to a word or phrase as a word or phrase and not in context, or when mocking, I use single quotes: '

Wink

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.

The press has already forgotten about this a long time ago. All in all it must have been a blip "yawn" that had turned out into not much of a yawn either. When I did a Google search tonight there was nothing on the first four pages about the Website having been down, I did not look further, but obviously it has been a non-event:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=republican+website.

The UK Telegraph article on the first search page did not mention that the Website had been down in its article of earlier in October about the new Website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6319824/Republican-Party-launches-new-website.htmlI thought it was a well balanced article with an objective report about the event.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.

The creation of a single, malfunctioning website is hardly historical.

People denying that the holocaust ever happened, or saying that the American civil war was only about slavery... those are examples of historical amnesia.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

however in the age of the internet and the important of site launches, it was a hilarious screw up that will be remembered for years to come. Just the Future Leaders = Error Page is a classic.

Hilarious screw up, yes. Remembered for years? Probably not. (except in some news archive)

Not everyone suffers from nor celebrates historical amnesia.

The creation of a single, malfunctioning website is hardly historical.

People denying that the holocaust ever happened, or saying that the American civil war was only about slavery... those are examples of historical amnesia.

No, those are examples of historical revisionism in the first place and oversimplification in the second. Amnesia applies to more often to the recent. Examples of the kind of amnesia that holds sway in the US are, for example, forgetting events from recent history or last year. The same person who bought a small car during the gasoline crisis of the 80s buying a gas-guzzling SUV or Hummer in the 90s, not remembering that gas prices were ever once skyrocketing. Another example would be people forgetting multitude examples of incompetence by one of the only two main parties (the latest being the inability of to even launch website without becoming laughingstocks).