Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posthumous Webbys

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the 21-nerf-missile-salute dept.

Logic Bomb writes: "The Los Angeles Times takes a look at the nominees for this year's Webby Awards. The most obvious, and at this point predictable point of interest is the large proportion of nominated sites that no longer exist. But it seems people are finally acknowledging that beyond just being a shakedown, the last few months may be showing us what the web is most useful for. As the story says, "Take Activism nominee VolunteerMatch.org. It links do-gooders with opportunities, a use of the Web that, in retrospect, makes a lot more sense than selling dog food."" Hey, I bought cat litter from a certain online retailer which is now closed. Efficient? No, but it was amusing to see the UPS guy hauling 35-pound tubs of litter. Update: 07/19 8:31 AM by michael : The winners are now listed.

6 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sex by Nightpaw · · Score: 3

    They're still trying to close all the pop-up windows.

  2. Link for the Webby Awards by Katravax · · Score: 4

    Since the original post was so nice to not actually link to the awards, here it is: http://www.webbyawards.com/main/.

  3. Darwin Web Awards... by don_carnage · · Score: 4

    Someone should draft the "Darwin Web Awards" for those sites that we are happy to see leave the web gene pool.

    --

    --
    Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
  4. Re:Strange Taste by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 3
    Most of those sites are flashy, ugly and slow loading. The notable exceptions are, as michael says, the ones that don't exist any more.

    Let's not forget the other notable exception. Their "best practices" winner is (deservedly so, IMO) Google. Among other things, the front page of Google is only 1918 bytes (lynx -dump -source http://google.com/ | wc --bytes), contains a single 305x118 GIF (with the appropriate height and width tags so that the page renders even before its started loading), and advanced search features are immediately on-hand when necessary but not required to get meaningful results.

  5. Napster? by daniel_isaacs · · Score: 4
    Why does Napster deserve a nomination? Thier website was merely a place to download thier client, which was decidingly NOT Web-based. What gives?

    --
    - Dan I.
  6. Strange Taste by Proud+Geek · · Score: 3
    Most of those sites are flashy, ugly and slow loading. The notable exceptions are, as michael says, the ones that don't exist any more. Instead of being flashy, ugly and slow loading, they were flashy, ugly and slow loading.

    It gives me a bit of insight into why ecommerce is such a bust. To get exposure, a sight has to be almost unusable. Then it hurts in the pocketbook to maintain it, and customers won't touch it.

    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things