In my defense, you have cut off the second half of the sentence when quoting me. Which is not the sort of thing I'd expect to happen around here.
I hope this provides some context: what I mean is "poorly designed" in the context of the product, which is in the second half of the sentence you omitted. There’s a mismatch between the product quality and the website quality. You’re right—it’s a 5 or 6 out of 10 website. Not a bad score at all, certainly not poor. I would enjoy and not comment on most other content using this design style. However, a 10/10 product (let’s assume it is) should not have a website that looks like this. It damages the brand. And that, I think, justifies calling it poor. (But what’s the worst that could happen? Fewer sales? It’s fine, really.)
I disagree. Frank language is not disrespectful. And here I think the warm opening and closing, the specificity of the critique, and the useful suggestions are not just respectful, but helpful.
Also, I think anybody whose contribution is, "Oh, knock it off," doesn't have a lot of room to complain about somebody bringing the tone down.
There's more than one kind of poor design. These days there's quite a lot of bad design that looks slicker than something in the geocities era, but is worse in terms of how well it meets its purpose.
I agree with idk1; however pretty this page is, it's terribly designed as a product page. I am less likely to buy the product after seeing the page than before. And reading through the comments, that's true for many people. Is it pretty? Yes. But a pretty thing that harms your purpose is worse designed than an ugly thing that serves it.
