Another example of how not to run a business. My hosting provider has a problem. They've automated their systems to the point where bad actors are using them to do bad things, there's not enough human interaction to spot the bad actors. This part isn't a surprise, it's a universal problem of technology and the demands of making money in scale. My provider has chosen to try to mitigate this problem with more automated systems, and chose an 'anti-spam' system called Vade to monitor traffic over their network and shut down ports that are identified as sources of spam. Pretty clever sounding, and maybe it works for corporations, but it's failing in my experience of being a hosting client. Specifically, my servers keep getting blocked, all false positives, and the only recourse is an onerous process for me to "prove" each time that I'm not sending spam. Now, I get that systems can have errors, and I did my best to work with my provider to help them ...
Why is CiviCRM so ugly? Out of the box, a CiviCRM public contribution page is surprisingly ugly. Worse, if you ask your designer to make it look better, they are likely to take a long time, grumble loudly, and then maybe a year later it starts looking ugly again. It's a bit tragic that this is sometimes the first experience of people with CiviCRM, and since it's not likely to get fixed any time soon, here's a post explaining a bit of why, and how to remediate the issue. Why is CiviCRM so ugly? My first answer to this question is technical, but I'll try to make it accessible to the casual reader. A visitor's "objective" visual experience of a web page, is a product of: a. their device and browser (an iphone using safari, a desktop using chrome, a tablet using firefox, etc.) b. the html of the page c. the css (cascading stylesheets) d. the page's javascript When you're looking at a CiviCRM page, then you're looking at collection of html+css+js t...