Topic: Face Lift for Cryptowisser.com! (Feedback Wanted) (Read 430 times)

Hi again HeRetiK!

Just wanted to follow up and let you know that we have followed your suggestion and included an Active Since-column for all exchanges: https://www.cryptowisser.com/exchanges/

Thanks for your constructive feedback. Happy to hear your thoughts on the implementation.

All the best,
Cryptowisser

Hi buwaytress!

Thank you for your comments.

1 and 4 are duly noted, and yes, brand recognition is important to us of course, but it should not be to the detriment of our visitors' experience.

2 - thanks, we'll keep this in mind. We are now using CoinAPI's API, over we have limited influence.

With respect to 3, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I know that not all exchanges divide between maker fees and taker fees, and where so is the case, we have tried to insert the most relevant fee in those field to facilitate comparability. For instance, some exchanges say that they don't have any trading fees but instead charge "service fees" at a later stage in the settlement process, so from the user's perspective it's the same thing as trading fees. In those cases, we have inserted the "whatever you call it"-fees as the taker/maker fees. Have you found any exchanges that have additional fees but where we have listed the fees as 0? If so, we would be very happy to receive that information.

Many thanks again!

All the best,
Cryptowisser

I have a vague memory of what the old site looked like so I can only comment on what I see now:

1. First impression reminded me a lot of AskJeeves, and perhaps it was just that bald-head icon guy that really popped up at me. Can't say I like it, but it is very recognisable if brand recognition is what you're after.
2. The price ticker should be a ticker of BTC ask prices at the top 5 exchanges, to reinforce what you are.
3. Add additional fee, commission. Some have 0 fees but a high commission. Some have none (like Bitpanda) because the pricing is all-in, but there is a commission stated only in FAQ. Or a LBC model.
4. Upgrade to SegWit already!;)

Not a problem at all! Good luck with your site!

Thank you SFR10! As for your comment to the security score issue, you might very well be right here. We'll have to think about how to do this and then also who should do it.

I managed to obtain an old picture from icorating sent to us by the exchange BTC-Alpha, but it doesn't explain what items they included in their rating. Picture here:
https://imgur.com/a/ijQ4YEw

But I assume that they have dropped that security score system for some reason. Anyway, we'll definitely think more about the security score going forward and we acknowledge that the current metrics has its limitations.

Many thanks again SFR10!


Thanks for following up on #5! Very helpful indeed. I have added all of your items to our to do list and we'll try to fix it ASAP.

Again, very helpful Initscri. We are very thankful.

All the best,
Cryptowisser

Regarding #5: Can confirm on mobile, the following happens:

1. The ad at the top isn't 100%, this should probably be changed to fill the entire screen.
2. Menu slides right to left. Better off changing to hamburger menu as previously mentioned.
3 (most important as requested). The language toggle & search are removed/non-existent.

I also noticed that the Sign Me Up button for the newsletter is somewhat pushed off screen.

This is iOS Chrome (latest ver)

You're very welcome. Since my comment was subjective, I'm sure it might be a major facelift for others
^{- The flexibility part and its current speed is definitely a positive thing.}

For security score, I think it's best to hire someone that's skilled and reputable enough to test everything that Mozilla's observatory does and "doesn't ^{[it might make those ratings a bit subjective but it'll be much more accurate than what it is now]}"...
^{- I'm not that familiar with the previous rating system of icorating but "this" is what I could find and although they have some sort of ratings, they haven't explained how their current rating system works (unless I missed it somewhere).}

I have to say, I want to second Vod's point here. Absolutely refreshing to see a website owner take constructive criticism in a positive manner and respond the way you are. Kudos to you.

I'd quote, but I'd feel like it would make this post longer than it needs to be. I'll respond to the points where you requested further feedback.

Regarding #2: I would really hone in on the guides vs. the blogs. It's going to help you with SEO the most iMO. I'd add the header link. You can definitely keep them as separate sections, no doubt. Adding a link to the "Guides" section on the menu definitely isn't a bad idea.
Regarding #5: Right now it's just something I noticed using Inspect Element and shrinking the screen size down to the mobile viewport. This 90% is reliable in determining bugs on mobile from a computer, but not always (hence why I suggested if there is mobile specific code it may not apply). I'll test it on my phone tomorrow ( just a tad late here so I'm doing what I'm probably not supposed to do which is posting instead of sleeping ). I'll report back tomorrow (or today depending on timezones)

Glad to help! Cheers!

Hi nelson4lov,

Thank you very much for your kind words, and for your observations and suggestions. All of your suggestions (1-3) are very helpful. We actually already have item 3 on our to do-list so happy to hear that you think that's a good move. As for 1-2, we'll check this ASAP (had no idea about item 2). Btw, I see on your profile that you promote OWNR Wallet. We do not have that wallet listed in our Wallet List, so if you email [email protected] (please make a note in the email that we have recommended you to contact us on Bitcointalk) we would be happy to include you.

Again, many thanks!


Thanks!


Thank you Stedsm for very helpful feedback! We will look into this promptly. As for the top 5 and the placement in our list (https://www.cryptowisser.com/exchanges/), it is based entirely upon user score. We feel that it is much better to let the people in the crypto community make their voices heard when ranking the exchanges, rather than ranking them ourselves. Just because an exchange is large or famous (Binance or BitMEX) doesn't necessarily mean that it is good, although it is of course an indicator that so is the case. But again, the ranking system is somewhat prone to manipulation as has been discussed above.

We will - in due course - integrate APIs on our site. When doing that, we will be able to present trading volume. So, to conclude on that, we agree that trading volume is a data point that could be very useful to see, we have just not found the time yet to do it from a development stand point. KYC status is in the pipeline, and we will consider regulation status/certificates.

Thanks again!



Wow - thank you for your very detailed and helpful feedback! It does really help out. We continue to be amazed over how helpful and constructive members of this forum are, and your response was one of many pieces of evidence for just that. Again, thanks x 1000. As for your comments:

1. Duly noted, we'll keep this in mind.

2. Interesting. Guides and Blog are intended to be separate sections so as for the menu, we would probably add Guides to the right or left of blogs. Maybe just write an article explaining the absolute basics for people that are entirely unfamiliar with crypto. Answering questions such as "what is a cryptocurrency?". "How can I buy/sell one?" etc. What do you think?

3. Thank you! Will speak to our main dev and see what we can do. Very helpful.

4. Duly noted. We will consider this closely!

5. Very helpful indeed! May I ask which phone/phone browser you are using? Thinking it might help our devs a bit when looking at this.

6. Thanks, this is something we have been struggling with. We are using CoinAPIs data here and unfortunately don't have full flexibility on how to present it. We'll see if there are any better solutions to this though. Great suggestions.

7. Agreed, we will fix this ASAP. Well spotted!

8. Agreed, we will fix this ASAP. Again, love your attention to detail.

A BIG thank you to you Initscri.

********************

And to all, we love this community and how helpful it is!

All the best,
Cryptowisser

The site looks good. It's a modern design, clear and decisive use of information. Everything is displayed clearly and concisicely.

The only criticisms I would have are as follows (and once again this is just my opinion):

1. The main striking thing to me was the purple/pink footer color. Doesn't really match with any other component / color on the site. I know this may make the site less "basic" but it was definitely a surprise to me when scrolling down. Unsure if this design choice was intentionally different than the rest of the site. This one is purely my opinion, so I'd probably put it up to a poll more than anything else.

2. Try to find a way to further promote your guides section. I understand it may just be the blogs, but it does make it seem like something separate. Either change the text "GUIDES" in the footer to "BLOG POSTS" or further promote the separate guides section (if separate). Perhaps consider renaming the Menu item from "Blog" to "Guides" instead, or adding an additional menu if separate sections.

3. Mobile view results in the menu being scroll-able horizontally. I'd recommend converting this to a hamburger dropdown (or slide out) menu instead. Will clean the site up quite a bit. I am checking this from a browser simulating so if there is JS / device specific code to fix this then I may have missed it. (See image below)

4. As mentioned above as well, the option to search/change language (flag) seems to be removed on mobile.

5. The ad (at the top of the page) with the black background seems to be floated to the left w/ a black background. Probably a better way to sort this out. Maybe center this, or remove on tablet views. https://prnt.sc/rv6q6y

6. Try to fix the NaN when a value is null in the header (sliding numbers/stats). Doesn't look professional. IF NULL just simply remove the element; and perhaps code something in where if more than 3 items are NULL just remove the component all together.

7. Putting an empty email address in the Newsletter form greets with a success message. Probably should validate this better.

8. May want to add some padding to the bottom of pages/posts so this doesn't happen (https://prnt.sc/rv6sdr)


Once again, just trying to help out. Hopefully your developers can work upon these points to making the project the best it can be.
I do want to say the site does look great and is an awesome resource! Great job!

Your web interface is quite impressive (but couldn't load as quick on my mobile as on PC) and some parts were broken in my phone (maybe phone-to-phone display difference). I'm very much surprised to see exchanges like Binance and BitMex not being in the top 5 list. Okay, I'd need some extra info if I were to hop into your site to get knowledge about these exchanges. Is it possible for you to gather their volumes, let us know their KYC status (needed or not), regulation status, certificates, etc.?

You can tell a lot about the person by the way they react to requests to do something. 

Hello, I've checked out the new design. The new look is fresh out of the box. Kudos guys. While I like the new design, I do have a few observations and suggestions.

[1] I think there should be some margins between each boxes with the exchange details. On mobile, it looks packed and clustered. more space please even if it's not much.

---

[2] The email list signup is little unresponsive on mobile. It overflows in the x direction. Do well to check it.

---

[3] Pagination could go a long way here: https://www.cryptowisser.com/wallets/

---

Aside from this, I have no problem with the new design. It's refreshing compared to the last – more colorful too.

Haha, thanks! Always happy to receive positive feedback from members with Legendary-status

This is a good move. it is good that you want to learn and accept advice.  
you have potential, so older forum members will not be rude to you  

Hi Vod,

Sorry, we have combined the posts now. It was a matter of lack of knowledge of how to post, not an attempt to abuse the system. Promise.

Glad you like the design!

All the best,
Cryptowisser

Ten posts in a row?

Combine them or delete them please - one bump per 24 hours as per forum rules.

BTW - your site design is very nice. 

Hi Yogee,

Thank you for your post!

We do not ourselves rank any exchanges. The Top 5 and the placement in our list (https://www.cryptowisser.com/exchanges/) is based entirely upon user score. We feel that it is much better to let the people in the crypto community make their voices heard when ranking the exchanges, rather than ranking them ourselves. Just because an exchange is large or famous (Binance, BitMEX, OKEx etc.) doesn't necessarily mean that it is good, although it is of course an indicator that so is the case.

Duly noted regarding the banner ads. Ideally, we would like our entire site to be free from ads, but we have a lot of costs to cover and have to make ends meet somehow. We will consider your opinion though.

As for the fees, we can PROMISE you that we are the site with the most frequently updated and correct fees of crypto exchanges. In the world. We did our last manual check-up on 31 March 2020 and we make one every 1-2 months. In contrast, the exchange fee info at CoinGecko (a site which we actually admire and look up to a lot), are incorrect in a lot of the cases (I would say at least 15-20% of all the exchanges they list are presented with incorrect information on fees).

Thanks again for your input!


Thank you for your input HeRetiK!

Maybe the slower feeling is due to caching? That last time you visited our old site it was cached whereas this new one is not? The site is in fact substantially faster than what it was prior to the update.

You're right that there is of course a manipulation risk when ranking by user scores. However, we feel that this is the most democratic way of ranking. Also, if we see that an exchange has received a 5-star rating from someone with a certain IP-number, and that 20-30 other exchanges have received 1-star ratings from the same IP-number, we can roll back these ratings to ensure accuracy and fairness in the rating system. But, as you correctly point out, there are of course issues with this ranking system as it is in most ranking systems. We are continously considering how to improve and enhance this function.

Thank you also in particular for the input on activeness. This data point is actually quite easy for us to obtain and present so I think we will include it in the next update!


Thanks Pakhitheboss! Appreciate your feedback.

As for the exchanges, see what we wrote above to Yogee and HeRetiK. The ranking system has its flaws, but we still see it as the best way to rate.

When referring to logo, do you mean the Cryptowisser logo or how we present the logos of the exchanges?


Hi davis196,

Thank you for your feedback! We appreciate your thoughts. We are not promoting the top 5s. They have the placement they have based on user scores. Placement based on user score has its limitations (see above what we wrote to Yogee and HeRetiK), but we still feel it's the right way forward.

You are absolutely right that we have affiliate links to the exchanges with clickout-buttons, but this has never been a secret. The information is presented here for instance, in the question "How do you make money?": https://www.cryptowisser.com/faq/

As for the realness of the reviews, what is it that you feel is not real? Preparation of the reviews is what has taken the absolutely longest time to do, so any feedback on how they can be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Again, thanks for your feedback! Much appreciated.


Thanks Kupid002 - we will keep this in mind going forward!


Thanks for the input! We agree with much of what you're saying. In particular that content is more important than presentation (although presentation is also important of course).

As for the empty spaces, we believe this is due to AdBlocker. A problem, for sure. We will consider how to fix this. Thank you for pointing it out!

The wallets are ranked in the same way that the exchanges, cards and merchants are ranked: by user score. There is no evaluation of each vote, it is only when we discover obvious manipulation attempts that we go into the database and reverse such IP-numbers votes. Please also see what we have written to Yogee and HeRetiK above on this.

Could you please elaborate on how you want the coins to be arranged? They are currently arranged in alphabetical order.


Do you mean this company: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/miamis-vanity-cosmetic-surgery-now-accepts-bitcoin-1384197344? We will add it to our site in due course.


Hi Pmalek,

With reference to what we have written to Yogee and HeRetiK above, you are right that the user score rating system has its flaws. We are however struggling to find a better rating system. An exchange that is well-known and heard of by most people is not necessarily the exchange that treats its users the best, in our opinion and from our experience. But, credibility is everything for us so we will definitely think thoroughly on what we can do differently in this respect.

Thanks again for your feedback.


Thanks examplens for your feedback. Referral earnings is indeed how we make money (in addition to ads), but we would never do anything to risk the credibility of the site. That is why we are so focused on user ratings when listing the exchanges for instance. Cryptocurrency is listed alphabetically.

Thanks again for your feedback, we put great value on the opinions of the long-standing members of the crypto community such as yourself.


Hi SFR10,

Thank you for your feedback. While we were of course disappointed to hear that you felt that the facelift part wasn't major, we appreciate your honesty. In any event, we moved the site from Wordpress to another hosting service when doing the facelift and we are now much more flexible and agile than before. Site is also much faster. So there have been a lot of additional benefits from that.

We agree with you that the Mozilla Score has its limitations and we have thought a lot about what options there are to this security score. Do you have any insights? We know that icorating previously had a quite sophisticated security rating system but when visiting their site now I can't seem to find it...

***
All the best,
Cryptowisser

I wasn't sure about the old version but did some digging and found the following "archived page" ^{[there were other recent versions but all of them weren't cached properly]}...
^{- Based on it, I don't think the facelift part was a major one.}

---

In addition to other comments, I don't think the security rating by Mozilla's observatory shows an accurate representation of safety & security levels for each website...
^{- Read what they've listed on their FAQ page about having a good rating in relation to actually being a secure website:}

everything is subordinate only to referral earnings. It is legit, but if they forcing some anonymous exchange just because of better referral rate, it completely discredits this website as a credible source. Also, cryptocurrency listed is probably from owner portfolio, I have never heard of many.