I don't see anything wrong with that. Just because it doesn't use the fanciest and newest version of bootstrap, doesn't mean the site is bad. Sure it uses an o

I don't see anything wrong with that. Just because it doesn't use the fanciest and newest version of bootstrap, doesn't mean the site is bad. Sure it uses an old version of HTML but what the heck? It can read it just fine and safari's reader works perfectly – much better then most of the sites that use modern CSS. I'd rather have a site that loads quickly then a site that loads tons of MBs for scripts, big images and fonts (and thus eats up all my mobile bandwidth) just to see a site that breaks safari's reader, and disables zoom so I can barely read it. I'm not saying that all of those fancies sites are like that but a lot are. Especially when they're made by backend engineers who don't know much about UX design. I'd rather get a well made HTML 4 site then a badly made HTML 5 site.