FARK.com: (7094474) A candidate for the Connecticut legislature spent $59.05 of his own money to set up an Internet website the state would have spent $180,000 on

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		A candidate for the Connecticut legislature spent $59.05 of his own money to set up an Internet website the state would have spent $180,000 on (courantblogs.com)		168
		More: Asinine, Connecticut Legislature, Connecticut, internet, Mr. Rochambeau, East Hartford, web sites

• • •

16268 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2012 at 9:45 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7094474

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

168 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

birchman		2012-05-08 11:00:06 PM

Perducci: "It's the least I could do," he said in his statement. "With Connecticut's portion of the cost ($90,000) coming from a manufacturing grant fund meant to create jobs in the State, I thought it important to keep that money available for what it was intended, rather than have it frittered away Hartford Style in a boondoggle website that few will care about and fewer will visit."

Bypassing the "few will care about and fewer will visit" stuff (I suspect that maybe some people actually do have an interest in history, even if this guy doesn't, and it could serve as a valuable resource for other groups or existing institutions), let's see... to create a decent site like the one described, you'd need:
- researchers
- archivists
- writers
- visual designers
- developers/programmers (of various types)
- user experience / usability experts
- project managers
- and various admin staff to keep things running

Then, to promote the site, you'd probably also have a few marketing people.

And to maintain it, you'd likely want a community manager of some sort, some IT folks, more researchers/archivists/writers, etc.

Even if all of these people are part-timers in temporary roles, that's still a lot of work being performed and jobs being created. Seems like the funding would be doing exactly what it's intended for AND creating something of value for the long-term.

You really don't need all that. Unless this site is also supposed to cure cancer all you need is one decent developer and a couple contract workers to take pictures and write content. But you're right, that would create a lot of jobs. We could also hire a bunch of people to dig holes and fill them back in again over and over, but it might be better spent on something useful.

vastcat		2012-05-08 11:01:00 PM

He made one good call, but you can learn a lot about a person by the people they choose for company, Bonus points view the google cache and see his comments that he was stupid enough to leave under his own name.

Link (new window)

Acharne		2012-05-08 11:01:11 PM

birchman: He said that, did he not? That's the part I'm calling BS on. I think you need to re-read my post instead of reading what you want to read. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "give it back" and said "not spend" instead, if that's what's confusing you. I'm very aware that it said "up to", I'm saying that it doesn't matter. Whoever gets the job will milk the budget for every dime it's worth, or it will be handed to some relative of a politician as a favor, and they'll do the same thing.

I wasn't confused, but yes, that would have been a more accurate way of stating it. The rest of my umbrage was the whole line of AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. While not really my place, that annoyed me. I thought it was rude. That being said, welcometofark.jpg and what not.

And you're right about government waste. Period. It's amaaaaazing how much waste there is, and I'm private sector!

ole prophet		2012-05-08 11:03:36 PM

Could have done it on with Google for $10.

xebeche_tzu		2012-05-08 11:03:47 PM

CujoQuarrel: It shows how our government(s) just piss away our tax dollars with no thought.

i242.photobucket.com

birchman		2012-05-08 11:04:57 PM

Acharne: And you're right about government waste. Period. It's amaaaaazing how much waste there is, and I'm private sector!

Like I said, my wife helps keep the books on our state federal grants. Oh the stories she has...even her own department is a joke, about 30 people doing the job of 3.

rmoody		2012-05-08 11:06:03 PM

ftfa that neither subby nor anyone who thinks he was clever read:

"...to spend up to $180,000..."

Just another "the gubberment is wastin' mah tax dollers!!1" idiot. Congrats on registering a domain name and throwing up a template, Cleetus. That's totally the same thing as functional website.

ChuDogg		2012-05-08 11:07:16 PM

rmoody: "...to spend up to $180,000..."

Do you know how to speak Government? That means it will cost at least $250K

buzzcut73		2012-05-08 11:10:04 PM

ChuDogg: rmoody: "...to spend up to $180,000..."

Do you know how to speak Government? That means it will cost at least $250K

This. Up to is the number that you have to hit before you start submitting change orders.

Maynotlast		2012-05-08 11:14:43 PM

BULLshiat!!! It's 10% link to Wikipedia and 90% bragging about how cheap it cost. That's how STOOPID the GOP thinks you are, 'Merica.

CasperImproved		2012-05-08 11:15:06 PM

You guys realize that funding set aside for a future project is not the same as what is actually paid. Until the project is either bid on/assigned to/ or selected out of a catalog of existing services for an approved vendor, no money has been spent.

Yes... the governmental tards spend way to much on some things, and allot to little to some. But all that we are seeing here are what the press/candidate's pressmen want you to see.

Babwa Wawa		2012-05-08 11:18:16 PM

rmoody: "...to spend up to $180,000..."

I'll redirect you upthread to give you an idea of how things work up here in the nutmeg state.

mikeray		2012-05-08 11:23:24 PM

I am a republican and if this man was a dem i would call him an idiot.
I am a republican and this guy is still an idiot.

Mock26		2012-05-08 11:29:46 PM

What a crappy site. I mean, seriously, who used "XHTML+RDFa" anymore? That is so 2008. HTML5 is the wave of the future. Wake up, Connecticut. Do NOT vote for some out of touch fool living in 2008.

ParaHandy		2012-05-08 11:33:13 PM

WinoRhino: RealAmericanHero: 180k for some random little website about a trail is absurd. Although we do deserve good pay for good work, IT people most gouge the shiat out of you because they know you don't know better.

Here's a little tale from the town I work for:
School system wants to make the high school a wireless campus. Education generally is moving toward a 1-to-1 scenario, where every student has their own tablet / laptop device. So the school's IT department budgets for the project and these future plans. They're looking at systems that can handle the security needs, management requirements, and necessary infrastructure changes needed to support this. The town approves $80k for the project. A good estimate given the 50 APs required to cover the classrooms and grounds.

One of the town wackos who was running for selectman decides it's a cool idea to make this an example of waste in government. He brings it up at every opportunity telling everyone that wireless just means buying 2 or 3 netgear or dlink access points and hanging them up in the school. Ta-dah! Wireless for $200! Thankfully, the IT department had a well-written proposal outlining everything and the technical aspects. The candidate lost the election by a very large margin.

Though, $180k for the web site? Definitely hard to defend that one.

This, and lots of it.

Ontos		2012-05-08 11:40:29 PM

rmoody: ftfa that neither subby nor anyone who thinks he was clever read:

"...to spend up to $180,000..."

Just another "the gubberment is wastin' mah tax dollers!!1" idiot. Congrats on registering a domain name and throwing up a template, Cleetus. That's totally the same thing as functional website.

Because the government never wastes a tax dollar, right?

I forgot that all tax dollars are processed direct from angel-down and are only used to build money forts to hide gay-minority-autistic children and old people from Republican robot monsters that will eat their medicine for fuel to power their war on birth-control-pill factories with the inevitable result being forging the slag from the destroyed factories into chains to keep women in kitchens and enslaved into loveless hetero-sexual marriages sanctified by tyrannical churches that rule over the land and operate the non-union, slave-wage Republican-robot-monster-factories entirely staffed by Mexican babies.

If if you don't agree with that, you're the most racist, racisty, race-monger ever to come out of Racistville, Racist-ippi and you kick puppies.

Marcintosh		2012-05-08 11:56:18 PM

*interested takes look*
Oh, well, it looks like a $60 website from a republican legislator that has no design skills, codling skills or any other skills other than grandstanding at his peers expense. Not much to see there move along.
Nice thought though poorly executed. Want to pay for something? How about paying for a real website? That's a thought you showboatin' cheapskate.

Sadly this is beautifully indicative of the mentality of the republicans I know.
Really a shame. I would have hoped for more.

meanmutton		2012-05-09 12:03:10 AM

WhoIsWillo: RichieLaw: Osomatic: Call me wacky, but perhaps on the state's version there would have been something other than a single link to Wikipedia.

True, but a $180k sounds incredibly exorbitant. I mean, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but this was an incredibly politically savvy move.

It would have been more politically savvy to create a website that actually completes the goal of the legislation.

There is one. It's right here. That's kind of the point.

jjorsett		2012-05-09 12:04:36 AM

meanmutton		2012-05-09 12:04:55 AM

meanmutton		2012-05-09 12:09:44 AM

Aidan: RichieLaw: Osomatic: Call me wacky, but perhaps on the state's version there would have been something other than a single link to Wikipedia.

True, but a $180k sounds incredibly exorbitant. I mean, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but this was an incredibly politically savvy move.

Agreed. Even if it was sort of a "Look, we can spend 10 grand and make a really awesome site, but not 180 farking thousand", I think the statement was powerful and funny and very smart. As a "omg give poor people more money" type of person, even I thought that was way too much money for one stupid website.

Considering that the money came explicitly from a fund that gives working class Americans jobs (it was part of a fund to increase manufacturing in CT), I'd imagine that the D's would be the ones most disgusted with something like this.

gameshowhost		2012-05-09 12:16:12 AM

"The cost of up to $180,000"

TFA's headline writer and subby are a bit dim, it would seem.

/'would have' v. 'up to'
//and linking to wiki... brilliant

WhoIsWillo		2012-05-09 12:29:00 AM

meanmutton: There is one. It's right here. That's kind of the point.

That is not a tourism site.

oren0		2012-05-09 12:34:52 AM

freewill: thegod082: AP style indicates that "Internet" should be capitalized.

AP style is out of date, then. Plus, those are more guidelines than what you'd call actual "rules", anyway.

Not to turn this into a grammar flamewar, but you're wrong. Internet (as referring to the singular Internet, rather than something like an intranet) is a proper noun, and therefore grammatical purists insist on its capitalization. Apparently, though, this subject is contentious enough to merit an entire Wikipedia article.

I sound fat		2012-05-09 12:37:21 AM

BunkyBrewman: Let's see how long it takes for this site to get Farked.

http://rochambeautrail.com/
Link

The site! It does NOTHING!!!!

seriously, perhaps some of that money was supposed to go for content.

still, 180K is WAY too much, but to say you set up a site for 60 bucks when the site is just a parking space is dishonest and it blows your credibility. People need to consider the effect of unnecessary lies and exaggerations on their credibility. He COULD have spend 1000 dollars on it, done it right, and he still would have made his point and been honest about it.

He didnt have to lie.

safetycap		2012-05-09 12:42:42 AM

meanmutton: WhoIsWillo: RichieLaw: Osomatic: Call me wacky, but perhaps on the state's version there would have been something other than a single link to Wikipedia.

True, but a $180k sounds incredibly exorbitant. I mean, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but this was an incredibly politically savvy move.

It would have been more politically savvy to create a website that actually completes the goal of the legislation.

There is one. It's right here. That's kind of the point.

The point was not to have a site that had content contributed by random people on the internets, but rather by people who were actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about the subject.

Also that UI was pretty bad. That's why you hire and pay for good designers.

• Is the site 508c compliant? No? Better hire a coder who knows how to fix it.
• Does the site work well on different browsers (IE6+, FF, etc)? Did you test it? No? Better hire someone to make sure it works.
• Does the site work on mobile devices? No? Got to get someone to address that.
• Is the site being monitored (Nagios, etc) to ensure uptime? No? Who's on call this week?
• Who's monitoring the contact form or webmaster mailbox? No one? How do you get feedback? Hmm. Better think about that.

In other words, some douche "built" a site with WebsiteTonight™, Webuildr® and/or FastSite© by chosing a theme and adding a link and some text, and now thinks he knows "the web."

I sound fat		2012-05-09 12:43:42 AM

thegod082: freewill: magneticmushroom: hehe, "internet website." Subby sounds like my gramma,

He capitalized "Internet", too. I'll bet he uses the word "cyberspace".

AP style indicates that "Internet" should be capitalized.

AP style is wrong. There is no logical reason it should be capitalized except for some college professor writing the standard 20 years ago hand never heard the word without THE in front of it, and made an incorrect conclusion. If you assume things are correct because college professors tell you they are, you will live a life of destitution outside of school. Learn to ask common sense questions. it will help you in the future.

/ and apostrohes are for losers)
// and semicolons are useless.
/// dont get me STARTED on the Bass Clef.

xebeche_tzu		2012-05-09 12:59:20 AM

I sound fat: AP style is wrong. There is no logical reason it should be capitalized except for some college professor writing the standard 20 years ago hand never heard the word without THE in front of it, and made an incorrect conclusion

Oh my. Now that a prescriptive grammarian has weighed in on the subject, let's ask one simple question.

1) Is it a name?

And if it is, the answer is yes, of course. So your argument is that of all the servers, networks, and computers that comprise the www, the collective term for all of it is not a name, but just a generic term. As in "Billy is not coming to work today, he's staying home with________" I think it's a name, and so it should be capitalized.

Stoker		2012-05-09 01:04:54 AM

He deserved the HERO tag.
I can only guess by many of the posts here why it wasn't used.

cousin-merle		2012-05-09 01:36:14 AM

Babwa Wawa: Actually, I'm well versed with this bullshiat - I live right outside Hartford. Let's introduce you to google. Google, GAT_00. GAT_00, google. This is - quite literally - $180k to set up a web site about a trail over the course of the next seven months.

It's a boondoggle at best. At worst, considering how dirty our politics are, it's ten-fold payback for a campaign donation.

The act was written to maximize grant money from NPS, so stop acting like a moron. Writing "UP TO $180,000" means they want to qualify for the maximum amount of grant money. The people who voted for it OVERWHELMINGLY 31-4 probably knew this. The guy who bought the domain is just playing you for the ignorant sucker you are with his publicity stunt. GOVERNMENT IS BAD, AM I RIGHT, DURR HURR. Have fun buying the domain back from your derp-ass senator for $200,000 (without the matching grant from the federal government).

P.S. Click on "contact" on that website.

"Bachand For State Representative
Paid for by Bachand For State Representative, Diana Koegel, Treasurer, approved by Greg Bachand.
www.electbachand.com"

Instead of a website promoting tourism, you get a website promoting Bachand. I hope he sticks you with the bill.

I sound fat		2012-05-09 01:50:45 AM

xebeche_tzu: I sound fat: AP style is wrong. There is no logical reason it should be capitalized except for some college professor writing the standard 20 years ago hand never heard the word without THE in front of it, and made an incorrect conclusion

Oh my. Now that a prescriptive grammarian has weighed in on the subject, let's ask one simple question.

1) Is it a name?

And if it is, the answer is yes, of course. So your argument is that of all the servers, networks, and computers that comprise the www, the collective term for all of it is not a name, but just a generic term. As in "Billy is not coming to work today, he's staying home with________" I think it's a name, and so it should be capitalized.

Well, I was half kidding, but if we are going to argue, its not a proper name, its the major internet, but not the only internet. It would be the same as capitalizing "the Car" when you are saying that you are going out for a drive in "the Car" because its the car you use most often.

Enigmamf		2012-05-09 02:07:37 AM

$180k buys you a lot of well research, well educated, well designed content that can be presented in an engaging manner.

$60 makes you look like an idiot.

freewill		2012-05-09 02:13:05 AM

oren0: freewill: thegod082: AP style indicates that "Internet" should be capitalized.

AP style is out of date, then. Plus, those are more guidelines than what you'd call actual "rules", anyway.

Not to turn this into a grammar flamewar, but you're wrong. Internet (as referring to the singular Internet, rather than something like an intranet) is a proper noun, and therefore grammatical purists insist on its capitalization. Apparently, though, this subject is contentious enough to merit an entire Wikipedia article.

According to your own link, that reasoning was developed in the early 1980s, and a New York Times column suggested that this thinking was already on the road to irrelevancy ten years ago. The Economist, the Financial Times, CNN, and Wired all use it without capitalizing.

I say there is hardly enough of a consensus to say that "purists insist", and that capitalization is an abomination before the Lord.

/ THIS IS NOW A GRAMMAR FLAMEWAR, JERK.

oren0		2012-05-09 04:09:40 AM

freewill: oren0: freewill: thegod082: AP style indicates that "Internet" should be capitalized.

AP style is out of date, then. Plus, those are more guidelines than what you'd call actual "rules", anyway.

Not to turn this into a grammar flamewar, but you're wrong. Internet (as referring to the singular Internet, rather than something like an intranet) is a proper noun, and therefore grammatical purists insist on its capitalization. Apparently, though, this subject is contentious enough to merit an entire Wikipedia article.

According to your own link, that reasoning was developed in the early 1980s, and a New York Times column suggested that this thinking was already on the road to irrelevancy ten years ago. The Economist, the Financial Times, CNN, and Wired all use it without capitalizing.

I say there is hardly enough of a consensus to say that "purists insist", and that capitalization is an abomination before the Lord.

/ THIS IS NOW A GRAMMAR FLAMEWAR, JERK.

That's some nice selective quoting you have, leaving off the NYT, AP, and of course Wikipedia itself as entities that do capitalize it.

I think a good analogy here is capitalization of the word "sun". Tattooine may have two lower-case suns, but when we're referring to the entity orbited by the Earth it's the capital Sun. It's true that there may be multiple internets, but generally the one thing that Fark lives on is by far the most common usage of the word. In that case it's one thing with a name identified a proper noun: the Internet.

bunner		2012-05-09 04:16:21 AM

I knew I should have finished reading that book on how to use HTML.

Goimir		2012-05-09 04:36:28 AM

burning_bridge: And yes, earmarking that much money for something like this is silly. To me its just another example of the white-hairs in government passing silly legislation about "the email machine" they can't even begin to understand.

Here's the thing. Not all white-haired people are idiots when it comes to computers. Every older businessperson I know knows how to use a computer. They can hit amazon, send email, post to forums, use instant messenger, etc.

It's these out of touch morans you people keep electing. They don't use computers. They hire people to use computers.

geez

ghare		2012-05-09 06:37:59 AM

Enigmamf: $180k buys you a lot of well research, well educated, well designed content that can be presented in an engaging manner.

$60 makes you look like an idiot.

Sorry, but 180k for a website that no one will ever visit is too much. Stealing the money from unrelated sources also stinks.

I mean really, how much tourism is this website going to generate? NONE.

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers		2012-05-09 07:02:26 AM

baorao: sure $60 isn't the final cost, but anyone looking for a brochure site should be able to find a high school or college senior willing to do it well for a couple grand at most. At the very least his stunt should pay some dividends when he sells them back the domain name.

Have you seen a website created by a high school or college senior for a couple grand? They'd be better throwing $10K at the problem and hiring a professional design firm using a WordPress back-end so that in-house folks could add and update content.

kim jong-un		2012-05-09 07:28:11 AM

Cagey B: RichieLaw: Osomatic: Call me wacky, but perhaps on the state's version there would have been something other than a single link to Wikipedia.

True, but a $180k sounds incredibly exorbitant. I mean, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but this was an incredibly politically savvy move.

"Politically savvy"? This is the kind of stunt that yokel know-nothing candidates pull to get press coverage, and is remembered for about three seconds. Also, when you tell people things like "geez, Wikipedia already has all the information we need", you look like an imbecile.

You just posted twice in a thread of an unrelated internet forum.

You seem mad.

MythDragon		2012-05-09 07:38:52 AM

$180,000? I'll Roshambo you for it.
www.besprent.com

CSB:
Back when Avatar dropped on video, me and some other guy both went for the last Bluray in stock. Faced with the quandary of how to resolve the conflict, I suggested we Rochambo for it.The guy was unfamiliar with the concept, so I explained that I would kick him square in the nuts, and then he could kick me back, and we would continue as such until one of us gave up. The guy had 20 pounds on me, and for some reason he seemed to think it was a good idea.

So I wind up, and deliver a mighty blow to his sack. The man is obviously staggered but still standing, trying not to heave. He looks at me, and asks "So it's my turn now?". I say, "Naw, you can have the movie" and walk off. The guy seemed really perplexed, and I didn't hang around long enough for him to figure out what had happened, as he probably would have kicked my ass quite royaly.

Aidan		2012-05-09 07:59:04 AM

meanmutton: Aidan:
Agreed. Even if it was sort of a "Look, we can spend 10 grand and make a really awesome site, but not 180 farking thousand", I think the statement was powerful and funny and very smart. As a "omg give poor people more money" type of person, even I thought that was way too much money for one stupid website.

Considering that the money came explicitly from a fund that gives working class Americans jobs (it was part of a fund to increase manufacturing in CT), I'd imagine that the D's would be the ones most disgusted with something like this.

You hit the nail right on the head, sir.

Babwa Wawa		2012-05-09 08:17:07 AM

cousin-merle: The act was written to maximize grant money from NPS, so stop acting like a moron. Writing "UP TO $180,000" means they want to qualify for the maximum amount of grant money.

So as long as at least half of the money they're going to waste is federal, it's OK?

cousin-merle: Writing "UP TO $180,000" means they want to qualify for the maximum amount of grant money.

If you don't think they're going to spend every dime of that money, you're a fool. If they were really interested in not wasting money, they could have made it a broader marketing effort, or included trail cleanup, markings, etc...

But see they don't want that. They limited to scope of work, so it's more profitable to whichever crony they give the work to. Connecticut is renowned for its pay for play politics - we're right behind Illinois. Our last governor and the mayor of Hartford both went to prison for exactly this type of shiat.

cousin-merle: The guy who bought the domain is just playing you for the ignorant sucker you are with his publicity stunt.

How am I a sucker? Frankly, I could give a f*ck less about this politician. The fact is that the $180k they're going to spend is an absurd waste of money. He did everybody a favor by bringing attention to it. His point was inelegantly made, but it's a fair one.

cousin-merle: Instead of a website promoting tourism, you get a website promoting Bachand. I hope he sticks you with the bill.

If you really think that rochambeautrail.com is the only domain they could put this site on, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

PunkRockLawyer		2012-05-09 08:39:52 AM

Fubini: Also, the whole point of the proposed website is to promote tourism in the state. Wikipedia hardly does that, and if you tried to turn it into an ad for tourists it'd be reverted for not having a neutral point of view. This guy is really just a moron showing that he can register a domain name.

Marketing
Web Design
Hosting
Web Programming
Upkeep
Oversight

None of these things come cheaply, moron.

Everyone always forgets security! Government websites are popular targets for hackers, even pointless websites like this one. (Maybe especially pointless websites, because no one thought to make sure they're secure, so the script kiddies get right in.) No one is going to pentest a website for $59.05.

Should be easy enough to guess or brute force the password on the login page. (Not that I'm suggesting anyone do such a thing of course.)

Also, if it's a government contract, aren't different companies supposed to have a chance to compete for it? It's not supposed to be just one guy going "OK, we'll use GoDaddy." I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to that disreputable company, especially if others weren't even given a chance.

vossjck		2012-05-09 08:56:13 AM

Osomatic: Call me wacky, but perhaps on the state's version there would have been something other than a single link to Wikipedia.

Its still not worth 180,000 dollars when we are closing all sorts of education programs for lack of funds. Nevermind that the money came from a fund to support manufacturing, which actually creates jobs.
You could do a nice elegant site in say 24 to 48 hours of work, cost maybe 2400 to 5000. Lets go crazy and say 10,000. What the hell are they spending 180,000 dollars on!

It is simply government waste, or someones company is getting a big, cushy, easy job.

Pharmdawg		2012-05-09 09:13:48 AM

Does a state in 2012 not already have a department of tourism with a website, webmaster, and a couple graphic designers that can tack this up in a day and make a few graphics improvements over the next month or so for about 1 percent of that cost?

JustGetItRight		2012-05-09 09:44:58 AM

burning_bridge: Headline: "Rochambeau, Part II: Candidate Pays $59.05 To Set Up History Website The State Would Spend $180,000 On"

Omitted reality: "...to spend up to $180,000..." (emphasis mine)

Some of you may find this hard to believe but it wasn't likely that they'd spend the whole amount to do it. Its not like some check was wrote out and handed to someone or something, that was just the amount they budgeted for it. Whatever doesn't get spent is kept in the general fund or whatever fund it was earmarked from.

And yes, earmarking that much money for something like this is silly. To me its just another example of the white-hairs in government passing silly legislation about "the email machine" they can't even begin to understand.

Don't tell me you think that any government agency at any level would do anything other than spend every single cent appropriated to the project?

You really think that?

Really?

DerAppie		2012-05-09 10:04:54 AM

ha-ha-guy: 180k is an insane price. If you want to go fancy:

8-10k to a history grad student to research/write the content over the summer. This is of course overpaying, but it keeps some grad student off food stamps for a summer.
2k for photos, diagrams, and perhaps some photoshop work to a graphics artist on contract
10k to a web monkey to make the website and get a service contract where you get X hours of updates
2k to buy the guy who runs the state website a new server solely for this website (not that it needs it)
15 dollars to register the domain name for a couple of years

...and the above involves some rather generous payments.

For 180k I'll spend the next year studying the trail, its history, learn PHP and do a course in graphical design.

/And then I'll spend 10 minutes doing some basic HTML and deliver a crappy site.

georgeyporgey		2012-05-09 10:26:09 AM

I_Am_Weasel: Kazan: dahmers love zombie: Well, it takes a month or so for the public comment period. Then the bids, where they have to make sure that if a female/minority owned company puts in a spectacularly overpriced bid, they accept it. Then there's the mandatory review for ADA to make sure there are wide enough wheelchair ramps on both sides of the URL.

This was really quite a racist/sexist/ageist/ableist thing that the legislator did with his $60.

not sure if kidding, or incredibly stupid

I think the kidding is obvious. A wheelchair ramp is only required on one side of the URL.

Please make sure that the ramp is left handed accessible.

Hella Fark		2012-05-09 10:54:16 AM

where's the HERO tag? you can argue all you want about what constitutes a decent tourism website, but the bottom line is this guy called BS and showed that one can get the same information across by significantly cheaper means, if nothing else it will cause people to re-think what they really need and how much it is really worth. that's an approach our government should be taking across the board

oren0		2012-05-09 01:12:14 PM

PunkRockLawyer:
Everyone always forgets security! Government websites are popular targets for hackers, even pointless websites like this one. (Maybe especially pointless websites, because no one thought to make sure they're secure, so the script kiddies get right in.) No one is going to pentest a website for $59.05.

BS. This is a site with text and pictures on it. No forms, no logging in, litle (if any) script. Security for a site like this is a solved problem that doesn't require hiring pentesters. It should also be hosted on the same server as other state tourism sites, and therefore be controlled by a hardened password.

People here are asserting all this time that needs to be spent on engineering. Not every website requires starting from an html tag and writing everything from scratch. Prior art and templates make development of something like this a snap.

Displayed 50 of 168 comments