|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: November 15, 2002 How to Build Lame Web Sites -- There are books on building "succesful" (sic) Web sites, "Web sites that work"," and even "killer" Web sites (are these sites for murderers, or perhaps places you can find hit men for hire?). So far, however, I have not seen a book that explains how to build crummy, dysfunctional Web sites that chase away customers and produce no useful results. (MadMan comments: I especially like the "Baffle 'em with Cyberbull" bit. How I wish companies would ditch the "happy people" photos and start talking plain English instead of something out of the bullshit generator.)
Reader Comments...
This guy never heard of Web Pages That Suck? (What gives!) Posted by: Frank on November 15, 2002 10:59 AM
Lame: lacking needful or desirable substance. Suck: to be objectionable or inadequate. Posted by: on November 15, 2002 12:04 PM
I'm sorry, Mr. Humboldt University dude, I didn't get what you're saying. Is this article lame, sucky, or both? :) Posted by: MadMan on November 15, 2002 12:48 PM
a) I'm not a mister. b) Why allow anonymous posting if you're just going to resolve my IP address and post information about me? Posted by: on November 15, 2002 04:19 PM
Well, he should have heard of WebPagesThatSuck since it's been around since August 1996, but he said there were no books out -- and the article is a very old one written way back in January 1998. My WPTS book came out in April 1998, so he's technically correct -- there were no books. Not sure about the usefullness of the link. Which brings up an interesting question, how many articles written in 1998 are still worth reading? 1999? 2000? Where's the cut-off? Kind regards, Vincent Flanders Posted by: Vincent Flanders on November 15, 2002 04:47 PM
I like reading older articles for a historical perspective, if nothing else. Satire is a good read anytime, which is why we keep reading Mad Magazines that we have boxed away from 20 years ago, even when we don't get the Dustin Hoffman joke. I'd say the purely technical articles aren't worth a read just because technology has moved on, but opinions stand the test of time a little better. Posted by: Lydia on November 15, 2002 05:47 PM
"b) Why allow anonymous posting if you're just going to resolve my IP address and post information about me?" Yeah that is a little bit naughty, MadMan (fair enough if the site displayed IP, but it doesn't)
I apologise for my naughtiness. It wasn't appropriate. Of course, we still don't know who the anonymous poster is. Won't do it again, I promise. Posted by: MadMan on November 16, 2002 11:02 AM
Ooops! I skimmed right past the "January 1998" date! Hopefully we know more now about where to put the date of an article... Posted by: Frank on November 16, 2002 12:08 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |