------------------
I go to the point each year to have their new coaster break down, thats my life. Dragster and WT may have been closed, but MF is always there to fulfill my thrill needs
------------------
http://www.bgtguide.com
Schedule, pricing and a good map of the park. I don't care how flashy a site is as long as it has those three things.
------------------
Kind of hard to take a post as objective if a park or coaster name is part of the "user name"
It's hard to do better than Holiday World or Knoebels.
mOOSH
------------------
A random Mooshter's Dawntionary listing: Circumvent [n.] The opening in the front of boxer shorts.
*** This post was edited by Mamoosh 7/11/2003 11:50:00 AM ***
------------------
Walt Schmidt - Virtual Midway
But I definitely think that sites need to have photos. More often if I am looking at a amusement park website, I have to come to unofficial sites to see if the roller coasters are worth riding.
------------------
"Do what you believe in and believe in what you do," Jeffrey E. McCants
Remember that?
------------------
2002/2003
KWTM
By the way, I don't think parks would spend millions on rollercoasters if the general public weren't interested. Whether the public wants it or not, there's gotta be a pitch, and directions and schedule ain't gonna do the job...
Then again, if the goal of the site is strictly informational, then forget all the cool pix. I guess it probably comes down to a good balance of both.
------------------
"SOME people have NO class!" - Mom from the Whizzer queue
*** This post was edited by janfrederick 7/11/2003 1:35:22 PM ***
2) Put the admission prices, operating dates, and hours of operation where I can find them. Preferrably with a single click from the homepage.
3) USEABILITY! USEABILITY! USEABILITY!
I want all the information I could possibly want when visiting the park, and I want it easy to get to, and I want it easy to read. If you have a light blue background, do not use dark blue text (not to name any offenders, Paramount Parks...)
4) SPECIAL TO SIX FLAGS:
PLEASE either register a domain for each park, or give each park a top level directory that's easy to remember...say, for instance, "www.sixflags.com/greatamerica" or "www.sixflags.com/wyandotlake" so that we don't have to click through nine layers of "PICK A PARK" flash interface just to get to our home park!
The bottom line is, I don't want to search for information, I want to find it. I don't want to hunt all over a site to find basic information. I want the navigation to be clean and obvious
And yes, the Cedar Point site is pretty good, though some of the categories are a little ambiguous. The old Six Flags site with the little black dots, though, was awful...can't tell what any of the buttons are until you roll over them, assuming it works right on your browser. Ick!
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
beeman65 said:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980506133546/http://www.cedarpoint.com/Remember that?
------------------
2002/2003
KWTM
Oh GOD, make it stop...the horrible memories of that site...
That's a pretty cool site though. It has the old Guide to the Point site on it.
------------------
"Do what you believe in and believe in what you do," Jeffrey E. McCants
*** This post was edited by Jephry 7/12/2003 1:04:15 AM ***
http://web.archive.org/web/19980506133546/http://www.cedarpoint.com/Remember that?
Heh. I thought I knew so much because I had the scoop on their new attraction for 1998. Long before I dove headfirst into enthusiast-land.
And I have to agree with Rideman on the SF site(s) - they've always been over the top bad. Spectacularly bad even. The current one is a maze of stupidity that's the single slowest loading site I visit from time to time. If someone on a cable line has to wait 10 or 20 seconds for a page to load - then there's something seriously wrong.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 13
Carlo
You must be logged in to post