Slashdot Mirror


The Greatest Defunct Websites and Dotcom Disasters

NotableCathy writes "CNet has an interesting retrospective write-up documenting the most notable dotcom disasters and now-defunct Websites that were massive in their day, detailing what happened to them and what they led to. Nupedia didn't escape a slating (remember Larry Sanger's memoir?), or indeed Beenz, whose founder and CEO once said 'would become the universal currency, supplanting all others,' according to The Register seven years ago."

192 comments

  1. Thank God by name*censored* · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank God we live in the enlightened days of Web 2.0, in a bubble that will never burst!

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    1. Re:Thank God by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, there will be no more dot-com distasters for us!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:Thank God by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, one of the guys who made millions in the dot com boom is now making sure there are no more 9/11 disasters by writing books on terrorism: Craig Winn of ValueAmerica.

      Read dot.bomb by David Kuo - a very interesting insider look into what all went wrong in a typical dot.com company.

    3. Re:Thank God by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes. But the only thing that really changed is that the web is now funded with venture capital AND ads.

      --
      The game.
    4. Re:Thank God by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There will still be booms and busts, of course, but I do think people are a little wiser these days about how to make money on the web. (And no, I'm not talking about porn; anyone who, um, pokes around a little can find enough free porn to satisfy any appetite.) No amount of collective knowledge can save the truly stupid from themselves, but most folks do seem to realize that "... on the INTERNET!" is not in and of itself a recipe for making tons of cash. The truly successful dot-coms such as Google and Amazon and Ebay provide an example for internet business models that actually do make money, and smart would-be web entrepeneurs will study these few successes and (as well as the many, many failures) carefully.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Thank God by billcopc · · Score: 1

      dot.com summary:

      Geeks got gobs of venture capital to spend on toys. Geeks != business tycoons. Geeks = fail.

      Really, we just got a lot of money in a short amount of time, failed to make it profitable, and the money was pulled. That's what went wrong.

      If people hadn't all gone retarded and ignored the concept of profit during those years, we wouldn't be in this stink.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    6. Re:Thank God by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well there is a difference between "Web 1.0" and "Web 2.0" Web 2.0 wasn't ment to be the ultimate answer, just a tool to make it better. Back durint the .COM there was this strive to break all boundries change the world be the next multi-billionare. Now it is toned down. Making a web-site even a good one wont make you a billionare, you chances are just the same as any other company. (most companies are small under 100 employees) in which 90% of them fail in the first year. Yes we got some Web 2.0 big winners... YouTube/Google, MySpace... However most of them out there are just normal guys making an average living. And that is what is now expected.
      The Web is in a state where the Telephone was in the 1960's where people are comfortable using it for their day to day activites, and is difficult to remember a world without it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Thank God by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Not sure if ValueAmerica had anything geeky in their business other than having a store on teh Internets which did not even function properly.

      It was simply [new buzzword] -> Start up -> IPO -> Get rich -> Profit!! What you read in the book is how they did it.

      About geeks and business, I think its more true vice versa : Business Tycoons != Geeks. They don't know what works and how, while we have many examples of geeks going on to make hugely successful enterprises.

    8. Re:Thank God by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "but most folks do seem to realize that "... on the INTERNET!" is not in and of itself a recipe for making tons of cash. "

      But it IS the recipe for getting a bogus patent, which in turn leads to tons of cash - for lawyers, anyway.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    9. Re:Thank God by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Web 2.0 isn't a tool to make it better. It's just the obvious direction it was going. Anyone who was actually surprised by it, or thinks it's a 'new thing' is the tool.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Thank God by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      True. Patent trolling is perhaps the last replica of the dot-com boom idea that anything with the word "internet" in it is automatically worth a bunch of money. Hopefully it will soon go the way of the sock puppet.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:Thank God by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Aargh. That should have been "remnant" rather than "replica" above, of course.

      I think I will patent "noticing that you just made a dumb error on a /. post because you didn't use the preview button." C'mon, you all know you've done it. Pay up.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    12. Re:Thank God by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      What you're actually pointing out are the rare geeks who also happen to have business acumen. There are plenty of non-geeks who run successful businesses, but there are few shining examples of the geeks who do so. That points towards the OP being correct.

    13. Re:Thank God by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now, being a CEO is (really) different from managerial work, but I have an anecdote.

      My dad works for Proctor & Gamble. They hire almost exclusively engineers for every position. They figure it's easier to teach an engineer sales/managing/whatever than it is to teach a business type how to engineer. Heck, they pay for some people to get their MBAs - if you could handle an engineering degree, you sure as heck can handle business.

      Maybe not many geeks have business acumen - but it seems to be easier to pick up than geekery.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    14. Re:Thank God by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hopefully it will soon go the way of the sock puppet. I sell sock puppets online, you insensitive clod! :(
      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Thank God by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1
      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    16. Re:Thank God by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm more of a tenant

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Thank God by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Well, one of the guys who made millions in the dot com boom is now making sure there are no more 9/11 disasters by writing books on terrorism: Craig Winn of ValueAmerica. Um, ValueAmerica is/was a massive scam a la Amway. Just like Amway, it was run by a right wing nut, Craig Winn. Now that he's no longer conning people, Winn spends his time writing hate books about Islam and promoting conservative Judaism.

    18. Re:Thank God by grantph · · Score: 1

      > we live in the enlightened days of Web 2.0, in a bubble that will never burst!

      Hang on. Web 2.0 isn't just any bubble. It's a titanium shielded exo-bubble with multicore pumps to supercool the bubble as it expands at an exponential rate ensuring its investors make oodles and oodles of virtual cash! That is, until the bubble eventually explodes creating a totally new galaxy full of poor unemployed entrepreneurs who sold their souls to evil bubble ruling overlords.

      Anyone got any good bubble investment tips? How do I grow my bubble without sacrificing my first born child?

  2. Please .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Won't someone post a link that doesn't have 11 pages?

    1. Re:Please .... by conureman · · Score: 5, Funny

      One look & I decided to NRTFA and save time by reading /.comments.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    2. Re:Please .... by DrMaurer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox Repagination Add-On works pretty well.

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2099

      --
      Dan
    3. Re:Please .... by ftobin · · Score: 1

      I just fell in love with the Firefox extension repagination, which allows someone to see all of the pages concatenated together. It uses some heuristics to determine how to find the next page, but it works well, even on the story's site (except the comments are repeated each time). No longer will I have to click click click through broken-up stories.

  3. beopen by gmack · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beopen.com .. Hired a full staff of reporters with the dream of competing with slashdot.

    When it ran out of money a guy I know came back with T-Shirts. Not the cheap ones you get at trade shows but solid fruit of the loom stuff that lasted me 7 years of constant use (I throw shirts out when they get their first hole) as it turns out that was longer than the company lasted in the first place.

    1. Re:beopen by physman_wiu · · Score: 0

      I know many blogs like this...People are just impatient and expect returns quickly. You have to plan ahead at least 5 to 10 years if you are going to start a business.

      --
      Physics is imagination in a straight jacket. ~John Moffat
    2. Re:beopen by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People are just impatient and expect returns quickly. You have to plan ahead at least 5 to 10 years if you are going to start a business.

      Well isn't that great advice. Identify a market need, wait ten years to come to market and learn that someone else already executed nine years earlier?

      I just can't understand the logic behind your advice. Things change quickly in business making it impossible to predict five to ten years ahead of time. You just can't plan for that, especially when you're not even in business yet.

      The reasons new business fail is because they planned poorly (or not at all), couldn't adjust between what they expected and what they got (big revenues to big losses) etc.. It has nothing to do with long-term planning. That comes later.

      Long term plans are only valuable if you've got the minerals to get yourself past day one.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    3. Re:beopen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I meant that you have to plan how things are going to work vis-a-vis having minerals between day 1 and day 3652, when you can't expect the business to produce its own minerals (or vespene)

    4. Re:beopen by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's just it the dotcom didn't plan 5 years out. heck they didn't plan 2 years out. Some of them took a billion dollars in venture captial spent it all inside of 6 months, grossed maybe $300 million in revenue, and suddenly realized they owed more money than the would make back in 5 years. They tried to start walmart or Home depot sized business overnight and then couldn't figure out why they failed.

      you want to start a business and even have some start up money to get going that's great. but you had better carefully plan out the next two years of bills that you know about. as if you start coming up short your screwed.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:beopen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, impressive way to misinterpret him, mock the strawman, and then give your own inaccurate assessment.

      GP was in part referring to the fact that businesses often expect revenues and profits to come much more quickly than they actually do and have not planned ahead for the initial stages of a start-up. For traditional small businesses, lack of sufficient capital is the main cause of failure for new businesses. I suspect that remains the case with web businesses, even if it sometimes could be more accurately described as over-valuing the worth of your product.

      The factors you mention are factors in the failure of a business, and it was a nice touch that you mock someone for talking about planning 5 years ahead and then list poor planning as your first idea of why most businesses fail. Five years may seem like a lifetime to you and the world of tech, but a solid business plan will almost always hold up over that long of a period without a huge amount change. (If you need to make huge changes to your business plan every year, you're probably in your death throes - even for tech companies.) Moreover, a business shouldn't expect profits for at least the first two years of its existence. Five years is a pretty short deadline to expect to get out of start-up mode.

      Of course, you can opt to say "It's the web" and then accelerate all of your deadlines by a factor of four. That worked well last time, and I'm sure it'll work well with Web 2.0.

    6. Re:beopen by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about waiting to get to market. What gmack said was to plan 5-10 years instead of expecting returns quickly.

      The problem tech startups have is that they have what they think is a good product and somehow think it will market itself. The real world, especially the business world, doesn't work that way though. You have to plan everything on paper thoroughly to expect success. Otherwise you've just gotten lucky if you make any money at all.

      Essentially you and gmack are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    7. Re:beopen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. Wish I had mod points left.

    8. Re:beopen by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Maybe what he should have said is to plan for growth over the course of 5-10 years instead of trying to force it to happen in 1 year like these stories show. They tried to become on-line Walmarts overnight.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    9. Re:beopen by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1

      The way he worded it could have been interpreted two ways -- he meant one way, I thought the other -- and my reaction was based on a different interpretation.

      As someone below said, both him and I were getting at the same things just in different words. There's nothing inaccurate about what I said. Planning is essential: that was not in dispute.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    10. Re:beopen by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1

      Understood... the way your sentence read, it sounded like you were suggesting planning for five to ten years, then starting a business :)

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    11. Re:beopen by physman_wiu · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I was meaning that after you start the business you have to plan for not getting a size-able return for at least 5 to 10 years. Just a mis-interpretation, no worries.

      --
      Physics is imagination in a straight jacket. ~John Moffat
  4. One Good Thing by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    The chairs were sweet!

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
    1. Re:One Good Thing by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      Yep, and Ballmer was able to stockpile ammo for many years to come!

    2. Re:One Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sitting in a Herman Miller Aeron at work right now. Love it!

    3. Re:One Good Thing by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 3, Funny

      The chairs were sweet!

      No they weren't. Ever try to muffle a fart in an Aeron chair?

    4. Re:One Good Thing by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      Muffle? Don't you mean "ignite?" Why, yes. Yes I have. :o

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
  5. deja vu anyone. by mgblst · · Score: 1

    Ok, it was slightly different, this is the biggest websites, they where the worst IPOs?

    Is it the end of the year already?

  6. I've been missing out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must have been visiting the wrong sites all these years... The only two from that list that I remember are Jennicam and pets.com.

  7. Pets.com by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember the Pets.com sock-puppet.

    Then I remember a commercial for "Bar None" credit, where an astoundingly similar sock-puppet declares "because everyone deserves a second chance".

    I have no idea if that was intentional or not, but it still makes me laugh to this day.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Pets.com by Daver297 · · Score: 5, Informative

      that is the same sock puppet

      --
      -Daver
    2. Re:Pets.com by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I just found the info on wikipedia. Slashdot would not let me reply to my own post for whatever reason. Apparently, I do not deserve a second chance. :)

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:Pets.com by Daver297 · · Score: 1

      Nope, No Second CHANCES!.. besides it gave another user (me) a chance to break the silence.. God I miss the god ole Dot Com days

      --
      -Daver
    4. Re:Pets.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the funny part is that it's been so long since pets.com closed that practically nobody remembers them or the origin of the sock puppet, so the "second chance" statement is lost on most people

    5. Re:Pets.com by ENIGMAwastaken · · Score: 1

      It's good to know he can still find work.

    6. Re:Pets.com by IorDMUX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a similar (Amazon?) super-bowl commercial that showed the company's mascot riding on a donkey through a silicon-valley-esque ghost town of boarded up offices, broken glass, and whitewashed signs where only the ".com" was visible. On his way out of town, the mascot came across the limp Pets.com sock puppet (with X's for eyes) blowing in the wind. The commercial ended with a suggestion to trust the stable, surviving business [or something along those lines].

      ...so yeah. Obviously my memory is a bit faulty; this is one of my all-time favorite commercials, even if I can't remember the sponsoring company. Does anyone remember this commercial? Can someone fill in the blanks, here?

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    7. Re:Pets.com by IorDMUX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Never mind, I found it!

      It was the 2001 eTrade SuperBowl commercial.

      ...hmm. Maybe I didn't remember it so well, after all.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    8. Re:Pets.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember triumph (the insult comic dog) making that puppet his, er...bitch?

    9. Re:Pets.com by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I worked at Pets.com.

      We had a huge number of orders from Alaska. I wondered why this was and checked out the orders. They were all mostly for 50 lb bags of dog food. And we offered free shipping. To Alaska. For 50 lb bags. I mentioned to someone that the shipping costs as much as the dog food. They stopped doing that.

      And then I worked in customer support for a few weeks--that was lovely. People called all the time asking us complicated dietary questions. And pet health questions. Ones that would stump a vet. It baffled me every time. Why would you put your beloved pets health into a guy on the phone from a web page selling dog toys?

      And one woman called from New York. She ordered a 50 lb bag of dog food and she said it was sitting outside in the hallway and what were going to do about that? I asked if she could get a neighbor to pick it up and bring it inside. She said "This is New York, nobody knows their neighbors." Then I said "I can get UPS to pick it up and return it to us." And she said "that would be fine. How long would it take?" I said "4 to 6 weeks." And she screamed at me. Prolonged screaming. I gave her to somebody else.

      A kid from an elementary school asked me how to tell if a rabbit was a boy or a girl. I found a good web page on "sexing rabbits." (Which is what the procedure is called.) I sent the link to the kid and I got called into an office and asked "why am I sending 'sex with rabbits' webpages to kids? I just received an angry call from a parent." I showed her the webpage--it was not 'having sex with rabbits' but 'how to sex rabbits' and showed a bunch of rabbit private part's pictures. I was off the hook.

    10. Re:Pets.com by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


      Y'Know,

      That confession, while honest, makes me sad for your former exployers.

      Here is this colossal internet business, and someone in a Level Four management meeting reports, "Gee, we're getting all these weird medical questions..."
      The correct answer is, "Hire a staff vet."

      Talk about value added. Then you can get a sale of pet vitamins and a bandage for Joey the Cat's foot.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    11. Re:Pets.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      americans truly are weird....

    12. Re:Pets.com by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      and I got called into an office and asked "why am I sending 'sex with rabbits' webpages to kids? I just received an angry call from a parent." I showed her the webpage--it was not 'having sex with rabbits' but 'how to sex rabbits' and showed a bunch of rabbit private part's pictures. I was off the hook.
      Soft - or hard-core, it's still rabbit porn in my book.

      PS, you forgot the link.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:Pets.com by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      We had a huge number of orders from Alaska. I wondered why this was and checked out the orders. They were all mostly for 50 lb bags of dog food. And we offered free shipping. To Alaska. For 50 lb bags. I mentioned to someone that the shipping costs as much as the dog food. They stopped doing that.

      That... right there... is how I used to figure out whether various internet only companies who were delivering products via UPS / FedEx / DHL / USPS were clued in. Did they offer free shipping? What was the size / weight / value of their product?

      Hint: Large, heavy, low-value objects are not cheap to ship.

      Delivery of things like $500 jewelry? Easy and you can probably make a profit in your S&H fees. Bigger, bulkier items, that consumers prefer to buy the cheap stuff? There was no way that pets.com was going to survive unless they drastically raised their S&H fees.

      It makes me suspect that the people who came up with the idea probably lived in Manhattan or some other dense urban area. With no clue as to how rural and spread out much of the USA is. While I didn't live out in the middle of nowhere, I did at least work for UPS in a non-metro district where drivers had to travel 60-70 minutes just to get to the START of their delivery route.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    14. Re:Pets.com by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      Damn.

      That's the kind of kooky idea that would have got me promoted.

      And the vet would have made unbelievable money (and worthless stock options) for writing an article once a week.

  8. Where are the Macarena-Dancing Chipmunks? n/t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  9. I miss Dejanews by tmark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know that Google took it over and still makes Usenet content searchable, but a part of me pines for the simple days when it was Usenet that contained the useful technical information we needed, and when Dejanews was the best way to get to it.

    1. Re:I miss Dejanews by dwye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > part of me pines for the simple days when it
      > was Usenet that contained the useful technical
      > information we needed, and when Dejanews was
      > the best way to get to it.

      Noob. Getting a feed from someone was the best way, and second best was getting a login on a small machine that had the feed. Dejanews was the Harbinger of Death for Usenet.

    2. Re:I miss Dejanews by ucblockhead · · Score: 1, Informative

      I pine for the days when Usenet contained useful technical information and you needed a Unix shell account and "rn" to get to it.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    3. Re:I miss Dejanews by Undead+NDR · · Score: 2, Funny

      I pine for the days when Usenet contained useful technical information

      I slrn for those days.

    4. Re:I miss Dejanews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pine for the days when Usenet contained useful technical information

      I slrn for those days.

      And then there was Robert T. Morris, as the worm trns.

    5. Re:I miss Dejanews by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I pine for the days when I used a mail reader called pine...

    6. Re:I miss Dejanews by Mikkeles · · Score: 1
      'I slrn for those days.'

      I tin relate to that!

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    7. Re:I miss Dejanews by devotedlhasa · · Score: 1

      I pine for pine

    8. Re:I miss Dejanews by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Usenet died. Netcraft confirmed it.

    9. Re:I miss Dejanews by residieu · · Score: 1

      "This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing."

    10. Re:I miss Dejanews by assertation · · Score: 1

      I still use usenet for asking technical questions. I don't understand your preference.

      Back in the dejanews days there was still a lot of spam and a lot of RTFM types. The Deja interface was slow and clunky.

      These days many companies block direct usenet access, so it is nice to have google groups with a convenient web interface around. Searching the archives is much quicker and easier.

    11. Re:I miss Dejanews by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Heh. That message kept me from posting for nearly a year.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    12. Re:I miss Dejanews by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Call me lazy, but trn > rn..

    13. Re:I miss Dejanews by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pfft. Insightful my ass.

      AOL was the both the Harbinger AND Vector of Death for Usenet, long before Dejanews even appeared.

      Wiki "Eternal september"

      (And yes, I know that AOL cut off Usenet access, but google is now filling those shoes, so September drags on...)

    14. Re:I miss Dejanews by Fyzzler · · Score: 1

      If you had a woodie for mail, elm was better than pine.

      --
      I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
    15. Re:I miss Dejanews by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I know that Google took it over and still makes Usenet content searchable, but a part of me pines for the simple days when it was Usenet that contained the useful technical information we needed, and when Dejanews was the best way to get to it.

      Mmmm... I still miss CompuServe from the mid-late 80s. Prior to the mass adoption of the internet via dial-up in the early-90s.

      Back then, nearly every hardware / software maker had a forum or at least a section of a forum on CIS. It was a moderated environment, with excellent message threading, and with TapCIS / Recon you could pull down the messages to read at your leisure. I spent a lot of $$$ pulling down software and messages from CIS.

      USENET, by comparision, was spammy and noise-filled. Even in the early 90s.

      Nowadays, USENET is nowhere near as spam filled, because most people have gone elsewhere. So there are a few useful groups out there. But there's still no good newsreaders (MicroPlanet's Gravity was the tops - Thunderbird is a poor replacement).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    16. Re:I miss Dejanews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google ruined dejanews. Dejanews had an INFINITELY superior user interface. I remember asking them to just re-use the dejanews setup and they poo-pooed on me citing how wonderful their version was(NOT EVAR!).

  10. Coincidentally... by Otter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    GMail just served me up an ad for the book by a founder of theglobe.com. For the youngsters, previous dot-com IPO hysteria had centered on companies like Netscape, which had products, if not necessarily a reasonable business plan. theglobe.com, a useless website that no one could explain exactly what it did, was worth $600 million at the end of its first day, breaking the first-day runup record previously held by the Broadcast.com IPO that left Mark Cuban as a permanent pain in the ass of our society. Henceforth, any idiot with a domain name and a copy of PageMill thought he should be a billionaire.

    Anyway, the founder wrote a book.

    1. Re:Coincidentally... by kotj.mf · · Score: 1
      From that article:

      Lead underwriter for the offering was Bear Stearns & Co...
      Heh.
      --
      hang brain.
  11. AllTheWeb.com by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Informative

    bit for bit the best and most relevant search of the time. We went head to head with Google and we *HAD* better results with fewer duplicates.

    FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.

    Alas, no matter how smart the engineers, or how good the technology, stupid management can screw up a free lunch. Unfortunately, win or lose, they *ALWAYS* get the pay off.

    1. Re:AllTheWeb.com by quarrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      alltheweb was good, agreed.

      However, the while google's search results were/are good, the key thing they twigged to earlier than most was how HUGE web advertising was, and how to monetise it. That could have happened in Norway with alltheweb, but it didn't.

      When google filed IPO documents people finally understood how HUGE web advertising was.

      --Q

    2. Re:AllTheWeb.com by 14erCleaner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For me, the greatest appeal of google was the lack of ad images (and it still is). Most of the web world still hasn't quite learned this lesson: don't annoy people.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    3. Re:AllTheWeb.com by quarrel · · Score: 1

      As a search user, I agree. The simple design has been good.

      However, we're talking about business models - they got the search business model right, where so many others missed the boat.

      --Q

    4. Re:AllTheWeb.com by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      When google filed IPO documents people finally understood how HUGE web advertising was.

      Agreed, but FAST gave up WAY before then.

    5. Re:AllTheWeb.com by Hankapobe · · Score: 2, Informative
      FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.

      Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't, but tell that to the investors. The free market said that Google's original business model wasn't good enough - the tech wasn't good enough apparently.

      Unless you have the money and you don't care about any sort of return, when you go into business, you must make a return on investment. And when you have investors, if you squander their money, they fire you and possibly you go to jail for fraud. At the very least, if you do not meet their requirements for a return, they will also fire you. The free market works the same way for technology.

      Technology isn't the end all and be all for a successful enterprise. Their management made the right decision as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure Google's stock holders would agree. After the "customers" their opinion matters the most.

    6. Re:AllTheWeb.com by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      AllTheWeb in its prime produced the best results, but HotBot had a feature I appreciated: I could set a date range, and as long as a site was honest about the date of its page I could eliminate many inappropriate results.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:AllTheWeb.com by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.

      If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to enumerate it.
       
      Google made it's IPO and it's billions on advertising, not on search.
    8. Re:AllTheWeb.com by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to enumerate it.

      Google was making money with ads on their search before their "AdSense" system.

    9. Re:AllTheWeb.com by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless - it was AdSense that powered 'em to the top. Without AdSense, you wouldn't ever have been Google.

    10. Re:AllTheWeb.com by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless - it was AdSense that powered 'em to the top. Without AdSense, you wouldn't ever have been Google.

      My point was that FAST stopped even before that point. Who can say FAST would not have build on the better functionality of the web search, and built more revenue from ads, which would have necessitated their own add engine, which they would have sold public access.

      FAST failed because it didn't see the future. And that goes back to my original assertion, management screwed up.

    11. Re:AllTheWeb.com by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Who can say FAST would not have build on the better functionality of the web search, and built more revenue from ads, which would have necessitated their own add engine, which they would have sold public access.

      And if pigs had wings, we'd all wear hats to avoid getting pigshit in our eyes. Or, in other words, you not only have no understanding of the situation, you violently avoid enlightenment so that you can blame the management for not doing something that wouldn't have made them the next Google anyhow.
  12. ClubCastLive by SIGBUS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I miss clubcastlive.com - it had live webcasts of bands at various clubs in Austin, TX. Shortly after they appeared on one of the morning TV news programs, they vanished from the web - and the domain eventually got snagged by a squatter.

    I think bandwidth costs ate them alive - they streamed in 112 kbps MP3. I managed to snag a few shows before they went Tango Uniform.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  13. CNet by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm surprised CNet't not defunct. So many parts of their sites are very hard to look at, including this one. It's a shame because I always felt they had such potential, but I really can't browse their sites. It's still hard to understand why CBS valued them so high with their purchase.

    1. Re:CNet by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's still hard to understand why CBS valued them so high with their purchase. The news.com domain was what CBS spent a metric pantload of money on. If it were attached to a dog groomer rather than an Internet company from the 1990s, CBS would now probably be grooming dogs while their management figures out how to best exploit the coveted domain.
    2. Re:CNet by thermian · · Score: 1

      one word, userbase.

      CNET has had a large userbase for years, and a lot of those users stick around. Loyalty in users is hard to come by.
      I used CNET sites almost exclusively for several years, only stopping when I started to rely more on open source products. I still go back there for some things, and even use it as a mirror for my own product.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    3. Re:CNet by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      news.com domain name is why.

    4. Re:CNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      cnet got lotsa good domain names, such as news/tv/radio/search.com and more...

    5. Re:CNet by Bourbonium · · Score: 1

      Deep in the comments on this article, one poster asks why CNET's own dead subsidiary Snap!com wasn't on the list. At last visit, CNET has not responded.

  14. I miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    wbs.net. It was a pretty lively community.
    I have yet to find another web based chatting site which was as well laid out and provided the right balance of services.

    ABC/Go network can DIAF.

    What sites do you miss?

    1. Re:I miss... by notorious+ninja · · Score: 1

      I miss wbs.net, too. It was so disappointing when Go shut it down, I'm sure they could have made it profitable with such a large user base.

    2. Re:I miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny timing for a mention of WBS.net... I met my wife in singles.soc and today's our 10th anniversary!

      Cheers;
      Sparhawk

  15. Distasters! by Ai+Olor-Wile · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where does one submit resumes for becoming a Dot-com distaster? I find dot-coms to be extremely distasteful and I would like to share my experiences on the matter.

  16. Not "slating" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Slagging"

  17. mp3.com by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where the heck is mp3.com, the bright, shining, and defunct future of music distribution? I still have probably a thousand of free MP3s of cool bands I found through that site.

    1. Re:mp3.com by 68030 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've found last.fm to be a suitable replacement at least for finding interesting new music. That's where I've got tons of my own music: http://www.last.fm/music/Children+of+the+Monkey+Machine

    2. Re:mp3.com by rubah · · Score: 1

      but they don't have a handy weekly newsletter categorized by genres :(

    3. Re:mp3.com by jnnnnn · · Score: 1

      Rhapsody (Ubuntu's default iTunes clone) has two free music services: Jamendo and Magnatune.

  18. Remember... by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AdCritic.com it was one of the best internet sites for getting all the lastest (and funniest) commericals from around the world. I remember when they closed down their site, they just got to big too fast and couldn't support themselves anymore... too bad, it was definatly one of the best.

    --

    ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
    1. Re:Remember... by spuke4000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you liked adcritic, you should check out adhaiku.com. Every year there is a commerical fesitval France, with ~5000 submissions. A friend of mine watches them all, picks the 100 best, and writes a haiku about them. There's some very funny stuff there.

      --
      This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
    2. Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AdCritic is now Creativity Online

  19. Don't forget Pixelon by futuresheep · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.theindustrystandard.com/article/0,1902,14183,00.html $35 million from investors, and a $10 million launch party featuring acts like The Who, The Dixie Chicks, Kiss, and Brian Setzer. All this for a streaming video service that never worked so at demos they used a custom front end for Windows Media Services.

    1. Re:Don't forget Pixelon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and, where is boo.com ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/aug/26/internetnews.theobserver

    2. Re:Don't forget Pixelon by jfruhlinger · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Pixelon was an actual, out-and-out con job. They never intended to deliver the product they advertised (which would have been impossible with the current technology anyway). In some ways that makes more sense than most of the sites on this list, which were elaborate exercizes in mutual self-delusion.

  20. All of those collapse and goatse.cx still lives on by multi-flavor-geek · · Score: 5, Funny

    How, for the love of God, how....

    --
    Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
  21. Re:All of those collapse and goatse.cx still lives by Daver297 · · Score: 1

    haha I almost forgot about that.. Almost

    --
    -Daver
  22. @home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the number of people who were screwed in terms of their own homepages and emails yourname@home.com AND internet service has to go down as the wooooorst dotcom/internet related fiasco evar. thanks at&T

  23. And the winner is... by rezalas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone but these guys! It might seem a little crass, but when you think about it all the businesses that succeeded did so in part from the lessons learned during the "great crash". Which in many ways helped to bring the good idea makers and engineers together through the rubble to form meaningful companies and worthwhile investments from what could have been a severe slowdown for our overall progress in internet spread.

  24. Jenni Archives by bikeidaho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So where are the Jenni archive videos, especially bow-chicka-bow-wow? I know someone has them... come on, fess up.

  25. Re:All of those collapse and goatse.cx still lives by multi-flavor-geek · · Score: 5, Funny

    I still wake up in a cold sweat sometimes screaming "I think I can see his kidneys, my eyes, my eyes!"

    --
    Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
  26. Jenni-cam? by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How was that a disaster? The woman made a shit-load of money and got a shit-load of attention for no work.

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:Jenni-cam? by Daver297 · · Score: 1

      and she wasn't all that.. no offense to Jenni, but.. come on

      --
      -Daver
    2. Re:Jenni-cam? by thermian · · Score: 1

      that was mentioned as a defunct, rather then failed, venture

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  27. APBNews.com by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A daily fix of news about crime and criminal justice delivered with a sense of humor. You can look through the old ones using the wayback machine. It's a little like what thesmokinggun would have been with real editors and reporters. They went under around 2002 but it used to be one of my daily browsing spots.

    That and our own nofuncharlie, which went under not because of lack of funding (there never was any in the first place), but because we let some domain-snatchers grab the domain out from under us....

    1. Re:APBNews.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did some consulting for APB in what turned out to be their last 6 months of operation. 65 Broadway, the old Amex building. They most certainly burned through the cash like a Hummer on white gas. Staffed with 'professional' journalists, set up much like a newspaper newsroom. Helped them set up a audio news service. God, wish I had that job now. Anyone wanna loan me a grand or two?!

  28. List of the 30 websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reminisces Sanger in an article on Slashdot.
    A /. reference on an article talking about defunct or disastrous websites....a subtle insult?
  29. What about Wireplay? by thermian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No-one ever mentions Wireplay.

    When that first started it was, in my opinion, the best online gaming service available. For those who don't know you paid for a connection direct to their servers, not the internet, which made it the fastest gaming experience available in the pre broadband era.
    There were gaming leagues, prizes, admins/judges for all games,and the chatroom system was excellent. I don't think their chatroom system has ever been bettered in fact.

    All my best gaming memories come from my time as a Wireplay member. I even made skins for lots of clans who played in the leagues.

    There was sort of informal feel to the place too, The staff had a webcam in their office that let you watch them work, and they had a log that they wrote whatever came to mind in, who was off sick, what they'd got up to at the weekend, anything.

    I don't recall who bought them out, but sometime during the boom they got taken over, and everything turned to shit, somost of the people I knew quit and moved over to barrysworld leagues. I left shortly after the new owner assraped the chatroom system and wrecked its charm.

    Now I find that it exists as some sort of free affair, but it's not the same.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:What about Wireplay? by oahazmatt · · Score: 3, Funny

      No-one ever mentions Wireplay. I'm still waiting for a mention of Chips & Dips. Whatever happened to that place?
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    2. Re:What about Wireplay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the place you are talking about was bought by Telstra (in australia)... and eventually become Gamearena.com.au , or cogs/the arena.

  30. LNUX (parent company of Slashdot) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    VA Software is notable because of its IPO on December 9, 1999. The shares for the IPO were offered at $30, but the traders held back the opening trade until the offers hit $299. LNUX later popped up to $320, and closed their first day of trading at $239.25, a 698% return. However, this high-flying success was short-lived, and within a year the stock was selling at well below the initial offer price. As of 2005, this is still the most "successful" IPO of all time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNUX

    Stock currently trades at a buck forty

  31. Category Missed by darkrowan · · Score: 1

    Any 'pay to surf' bar or widget. My brain remember UtopiAD and All ADvantage. Paid you to surf and, like all good pyramid schemes, you got even more if those below you in the food chain surfed.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Category Missed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember AllAdvantage - I think the compensation checks equaled something like $12 a month, but hell, they were paying me for a passive activity that I was already doing anyways. At some point, I drank the conspiracy theorist Kool-Aid and decided this was some kind of sinister plot by The Man to compile my personal information to use it for nefarious purposes, and I took the AllAdvantage software off my computer.

    2. Re:Category Missed by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I think that those still pop up from time to time, but they fall to the feds as classic Ponzi schemes. 12dailypro was the latest and greatest to die.

  32. MPlayer.com! by Gigiya · · Score: 1

    I started using the internet when I was 12 from playing Rogue Spear on mplayer.com - they didn't go under, though, they were sold to Gamespy in 2001. I miss it!

    1. Re:MPlayer.com! by DarkMorph · · Score: 1

      It took me a moment to remember this, but now I remember it much more clearly. MPlayer offered listings of online matches to join with lobbies (chat rooms) that had voice (microphone) support, and they supported many games. I used to play Red Alert frequently via MPlayer since Westwood Online was so lousy and WO didn't have such a concept as a lobby where you can find players who are looking for games. The old MPlayer reminds me of what Xbox Live allows me to do today in some ways. After Gamespot bought out MPlayer it was pretty much all over. I haven't had a decent 3v3 match on the hjk6 map in so many years, now I miss it. Of all the C&C games I've seen, Red Alert was the best and MPlayer really made the multiplayer shine.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - Wouldn't have it any other way. And fuck beta.
  33. what about everything2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    During the last slashdot IRC interview (wow, that was a long time ago... how about another one?), someone mentioned wikis. Cmdr "No wireless, less space than a nomad, lame" Taco responded that wikis were a passing fad and not scalable to slashdot's load. The next week, Wikipedia surpassed slashdot in page views and has seen their traffic steadily increase while slashdot has floundered and been hit with database problems and excessive downtime.

    But before wikipedia, there was everything2. Everything2 could have been what wikipedia is now, but CmdrTaco's poor programming and database skills left it unscalable and slow as fuck (much like slashdot, but without Anover.net/VA Linux/SourceForge cash to throw hardware at the problem).

  34. what no Efront? by Harlockjds · · Score: 1

    i'm amazed eFront wasn't on the list but i guess that was more felt by internet geeks than anyone.

  35. Kozmo.com by superdude72 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I still miss Kozmo.com. With a few clicks you could have a sandwich, a pint of Ben & Jerry's, a Razor scooter, and some porn delivered to you in 30 minutes. Everything you need for the perfect evening! And no delivery charge.

    I kind of knew at the time that they'd never turn a profit, but it was nice while it lasted.

    1. Re:Kozmo.com by JerRocks · · Score: 1

      I have fond memories of ordering 2 pints of Ben and Jerry's in a Chicago snow storm and waiting for the guy to ride his bike to my apartment.

  36. what a bunch of has beenz by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Redundant

    thank you, i'll be here all week

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:what a bunch of has beenz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beenz!!!!!!!!!! The web's currency
      Everything I touch turns into Beenz
      Time to kick it and stream these Beenz broadband style
      Beenz.com purchases Macromedia for record ten million beenz

      http://www.jerkcity.com/jerkcity554.html

  37. i'm confused by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    so the company went belly up, but no one lost the shirts off their backs

    somewhere, a cliche has just died...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i'm confused by acecamaro666 · · Score: 1

      and the investors were taken to the cleaners!

  38. 19100 by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    19100 was the year the tech bubble burst as the Y2K Bug caused the Internet to overflow and crash, and web browsers stopped working and people had to return to their Etch-a-Sketches. (This is why websites popular after 19100, such as My Space, appear to have been designed on an etch-a sketch.)

    In 19100, the King of the Internet first started to suspect he would never in fact become a millionaire from the Initial Public Offering of a tech company.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  39. Historical search engines by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recall the early lycos search business model -- you'd get 40 or free searches, then a subscription was 'required' (not really, but it was supposed to be required). I can specifically recall goofing off in my IT hardware support role searching and downloading DOOM *.wad files for late night fraggage. There was no /. then, sadly, there was only DOOM and Efnet.

    Altavista seemed to get replaced by google, in rather short order. I can't recall a specific reason I stopped using it, unless it was related to the repeated sale/reorg of DEC -> Compaq -> HP. I remember the news spreading about altavista hacked in '97 and '01 (the pr0n).

    Maybe I'll use that webcrawler search thingy to look this stuff up. Maybe I should go back to work instead.

    1. Re:Historical search engines by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'll use that webcrawler search thingy to look this stuff up.

      Score one for the good guys. Back when Webcrawler was the bee's knees of search engines, I remember accidentally typing in "webcralwer" once -- we didn't have a bookmark for it on the school computers that I recall -- and accidentally went to a pr0n site instead. I just checked, and it turns out that not only is Webcrawler still around, but they managed to get their hands on "webcralwer.com" and redirect it to the right site.

      p

  40. I don't get it by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, I don't quite get it. I've seen bigger arseholes in upper management or on the cover of some management magazines, and noone gets a shock at seeing those ;)

    Well, now seriously, it was just an arse. Admittedly a rather stretched one, but I gather there must be _some_ demand for seeing that on a woman, judging by the whole category of porn and whole sites dedicated to it. I haven't heard of people reeling in shock after being exposed to almost seeing a <insert female pornstar>'s kidneys up her rear end after an anal scene. Or sometimes in the middle of it.

    Seriously, it wasn't the most appealing or aesthetically pleasing picture out there, I'll grant that, but I just can't figure out the _horror_ some people claim to have experienced seeing it. It seems a rather disproportionate response. You'd figure that a simple, "hmm, how's this relevant to the topic at hand?" and hitting the back button would be enough for all practical purposes. Horror or shock? Erm, why?

    Or was it just the implicit hint of homosexuality that gives the average male in some parts of the world the idea that he must seem properly outraged and horrified by it, lest someone might get the idea that he's gay too? Not trolling, just genuinely trying to figure it out.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you are jaded to seeing a guy with both hands buried with all 10 fingers deep in his ass, cranking it open directly in front of the camera like he was wrestling with an alligator's mouth, then you, my friend, really need to take a break from internet porn. Maybe stick to scat and dog fuckers before moving back on to Japanese enima sex and two girls with one cup.

      Could it be, that maybe YOU are the goaste man and are miffed at the negative response you've gotten from your skillfull anal theatrics?

    2. Re:I don't get it by snoggeramus · · Score: 1

      It's more likely to be our inability to "unsee" something.

    3. Re:I don't get it by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't quite get it. I've seen bigger arseholes in upper management or on the cover of some management magazines, and noone gets a shock at seeing those ;)

      Well, now seriously, it was just an arse. Admittedly a rather stretched one, but I gather there must be _some_ demand for seeing that on a woman, judging by the whole category of porn and whole sites dedicated to it. I haven't heard of people reeling in shock after being exposed to almost seeing a <insert female pornstar>'s kidneys up her rear end after an anal scene. Or sometimes in the middle of it.

      Seriously, it wasn't the most appealing or aesthetically pleasing picture out there, I'll grant that, but I just can't figure out the _horror_ some people claim to have experienced seeing it. It seems a rather disproportionate response. You'd figure that a simple, "hmm, how's this relevant to the topic at hand?" and hitting the back button would be enough for all practical purposes. Horror or shock? Erm, why?

      Or was it just the implicit hint of homosexuality that gives the average male in some parts of the world the idea that he must seem properly outraged and horrified by it, lest someone might get the idea that he's gay too? Not trolling, just genuinely trying to figure it out. FWIW, I'm not a fan of hard core porn and I find images of a stretched anus or vagina to be... unattractive. That said, I think it's mostly about context. With said pornography, the image is placed in the context of some number of people fucking or masturbating, with some lead up to the image in question (such as searching for said image, or other images in a set getting more and more graphic, or the very fact that the viewer is visiting a website dedicated to such imagery).

      To add the requisite bad analogy, a stealth link to goatse is a bit like a slap in the face when you thought you were all alone. Quite unexpected and not pleasant (to most people, at least).

      Then again, perhaps it's a bit like finger nails on a chalk board (if such an experience is still common knowledge). Sure the noise is unpleasant, but for the most part reacting to it with such vehemence is a crowd response. It helps you feel like you fit in.
    4. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I gather there must be _some_ demand for seeing that on a woman, judging by the whole category of porn and whole sites dedicated to it. I haven't heard of people reeling in shock after being exposed to almost seeing a 's kidneys up her rear end after an anal scene. Niche porn tastes that cater to a small minority of porn watchers can be profitable. Many heterosexual internet users, especially those not seeking it out, find gaping female arseholes gross.

      Goatse.cx, which featured a male (most males are hetero) and an extrememly stretched arsehole, was meant to gross out the vast majority of internet users. Is it really surprising to you that it succeeded? You must have some sick tastes (to most internet users) in porn.

    5. Re:I don't get it by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Niche porn tastes that cater to a small minority of porn watchers can be profitable. Many heterosexual internet users, especially those not seeking it out, find gaping female arseholes gross.

      Goatse.cx, which featured a male (most males are hetero) and an extrememly stretched arsehole, was meant to gross out the vast majority of internet users. Is it really surprising to you that it succeeded? You must have some sick tastes (to most internet users) in porn.


      Gross, that's pretty obvious. What I can't understand is the disproportionate reactions of people proclaiming their _horror_ or _shock_ at it. You know, people proclaiming their wanting to claw their eyes out, or whatnot.

      Basically all I'm saying is that there are normally quite a few shades between "gross" and "horror". (And there's an even bigger gap between horror and matching one's tastes, so feel free to stop being OCPD about it any time you wish;)
      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would feel the same way seeing someones abdomen open in surgery.

    7. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the "reaction" is hyperbole for dramatic or humourous effect. Sure it's a pretty nasty image, and I do wish I hadn't seen it, but I'd rather not have my eyes clawed out, regardless, even if I may say so to emphasize my point.

    8. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you ain't the only one.

      I am a straight male, even have a GF (taboo here, I know), and although I find the goatse image NSFW and somewhat stupid, I am not offended or shocked or horrified by it.

      Am guessing this is one of the internet memes whereby everyone reacts like it's the end of the world (just for the hell of it).

    9. Re:I don't get it by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I just loved shocking the hell out of some co-workers, especially the more prudish ones :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    10. Re:I don't get it by gpuk · · Score: 1

      That f***ing cracked me up - well done! :)

  41. ithell.com by ThinkingGuy · · Score: 1

    For a while, about 7 years ago, IThell.com was one of my favorite sites. It had a nice forum for IT professionals to gather and vent about technical, managerial, and other problems. Then it suddenly seems to have been abandoned. The last time I checked, the main page of the site was still there, frozen in time.

  42. Well... I guess I was out of touch... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    All of these were big back in there day, huh? Out of all the sites and tools that were mentioned in that article, the only one I had ever even heard of before was Archie (used for finding files available via anonftp, iirc).

  43. List of sites from the link by mcguyver · · Score: 1

    The list:
    JenniCam (1996-2004; precursor to Justin.tv)
    Boo.com (1998-2000; precursor to: Next.co.uk, et al)
    Heat.net (1997-2000; precursor to Xbox Live, PSN)
    Nupedia (2000-2003; precursor to Wikipedia)
    Webvan (1999-2001, precursor to Tesco.com, et al)
    Beenz (1998-2001)
    Pets.com (1998-2000; precursor to: PetPlanet, et al)
    AudioGalaxy (circa 1998-2002; precursor to: BitTorrent and torrent sites)
    Stage6 (2006-2008; precursor to: Veoh.com)
    Historical search engines

  44. minus the pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    At the turn of the Millenium the Internet burst out of academia and hobbyism in a volcano of money, sex and possibility. It barged its way into our lives, our economy and our global culture. For many people the dotcom boom meant oodles of boodle, and the promise of even more. But most of these Web pioneers were shown how dangerous it can be to run before you can walk -- for as night follows day, bust followed boom.

    Collected here are history's most important failed dotcom businesses, and Web sites that were massive in their day, but now lie dormant in the graveyard of binary has-beens. We'll see people broadcasting themselves over a decade before YouTube existed, new global currencies that tried to leverage the booming global-local economy, and the best ways to let overexcited entrepreneurs burn through tens of millions of pounds and dollars in mere months.

    Welcome to the dotcom bubble: the black hole of Web history. -Nate Lanxon

    JenniCam (1996-2004; precursor to Justin.tv)

    JenniCam, beginning in 1996, was the first really successful 'lifecasting' attempt. We're more familiar these days with lifecasters Justin Kan and oh-God-look-at-how-hot-I-think-I-am Justine Ezarik. But these modern exhibitionists are doing a decade later what Jennifer Ringley started back when we were all using dial-up connections.

    Jenni started out broadcasting her often mundane life from a single webcam, but eventually quadrupled her cam count and didn't shy away from broadcasting anything, including any bow-chicka-wow-wow with blokes, or even when bored on her own. She was 19 when she began doing this (lifecasting, not bow-chicka-wow-wow), and continued the hobby for seven years (lifecasting, not... you get the idea).

    No subscription, no sex for you
    Money rolled in from $15-a-year subscriptions and Jenni ended up featured on massive US talk shows and on the cover of popular magazines. It's reported that her site was receiving over 100 million visitors a week -- remember this is 1996 and the Web as we know it now had barely lost its virginity, let alone given birth to the God-child we know as the modern Internet.

    In 2008, when reality TV shows such as Big Brother deliberately exploit chumps for the entertainment of idiots, Ringley's unapologetic self-opened window gave the world its first taste of what was to eventually dominate our tubes: user-generated video, interactive Web sites, paid-for Net subscriptions, video on-demand and self-exploitation.

    But it seems almost eight years of such revelation was enough for the 20-something Jenni, who apparently now leads a quieter life as a computer programmer.

    Boo.com (1998-2000; precursor to: Next.co.uk, et al)

    If you were cool and wanted clothes, you were part of Boo.com's target audience. Boo.com was one of the first to demonstrate the calamity that was to be the typical scenario for dotcom businesses at the turn of the Millenium -- overhype, overfund and overexpand. It was an online consumer fashion Web store, founded by Ernst Malmsten and ex-model Kajsa Leander in 1998, and launched the following year -- after eating £80m before selling a single item of clothing.

    To guide you around the bandwidth-heavy site was Ms Boo, an animated little shop assistant. The problem was that in 1999, the limited numbers of people on the Net were using the also-limited bandwidth of dial-up modems, and browsing the site was a slow affair.

    Overstaffed, overpaid, over here
    Perhaps that's why eight weeks before its demise in mid-2000, Boo.com had only managed to generate £200,000 in turnover from 300,000 customers. For a company that employed 400 people when it only estimated it needed 30, such a disappointing revenue was hardly enough to keep it afloat. Worse still, the company needed countless millions in additional funding, and as the tech stocks were plummeting like a pigeon shot mid-flight, the doors of banks were slammed, locked and welded shut.

    In retrospect, Boo.com simply tried to do too much, to

  45. Circadence by Rowanyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Likely a company name you have never heard of, but another sunken testement to the Dot com bubble burst.

    Circadence started as a small online games developer (VR-1) with well under a hundred employee and in a very short time grew to just under 500 people, millions of dollars of deployed hardware at 20+ network backbone nodes, a 24 hour NOC, 4 full time customer service people (each making 40k+) all without having a single customer. During this growth, the only money making arm of the company (the games development section) was sold off for additional capital.

    Circadence was going to revolutionize e-commerce by speeding up vender to backbone node communication through packet manipulation. (Thus all the deployed hardware). No more static image caching for them, they could deliver dynamic shopping pages to the customer as much as.... 5-10% faster.... Wait. (To give some credit, the speed improvements would have been better if the projected e-commerce boom started to congest the internet, unfortunately that also never happened)

    The first layoff went from 400+ employees down to 130 or so and was couched in terms of a company wide meeting in both an upper and lower conference rooms. The lower conference room got the talk and were walked out the door en masse and then escorted back one by one to get personal possessions. The upper conference room was told to go home for the day and to come in tomorrow for business as usual.

    A couple months later was the next round of layoffs, which took the company down to 11.

    All those millions of dollars of network gear and servers showed up on trucks to be auctioned off at pennies on the dollar. An entire building worth of computers, office furniture, desk detritus, everything either went into dumpsters or boxes (which later went into dumpsters), or was also auctioned off.

    Millions and millions of investor capital spent all for nothing. I wanted to cry as I watch everything being thrown out, boxed up and disassembled. The beautiful NOC where I watched the events of 9-11 for half a day in shock was cold, dark, and in pieces... as was the hopes and dreams of the rest of the company.

  46. E-Meringue Pie Top Company by Visual+Echo · · Score: 1

    http://www.emeringue.com/ One of the greatest takes of all time.

    --
    "I stomp in clown shoes where daemons fear to tread."
  47. Meta-disaster by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    Anybody know what fuckedcompany.com is doing these days?

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Meta-disaster by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      He's running Adbrite nowadays.

  48. OMM by putch · · Score: 1

    www.oldmanmurray.com genius.

    --
    just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
  49. Google by heroine · · Score: 1

    It's sin, but face it. We all know it's going to end one day & we'll be sent to hell for not pumping out our sweep funds for the next greatest corporation in the world.

  50. Speaking of online newsgroups. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Has anyone noticed how crappy Google Groups is? Lots of missing posts due to technical problems. :( Google still hasn't fixed them since this problem is months old.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  51. Alpine by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    I pine for the days when I used a mail reader called pine...

    The new version is under the Apache License V2 and is called Alpine. It was easier to start the new project with the new license with a name change. If you can get past any prejudices about text-based, menu-driven applications, it kicks butt.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  52. Like most, they misunderstand Webvan by garyrich · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's that the UK is too far away or that the writer doesn't get it personally. "Web site that sold groceries " was never the business model. They did that, but to paraphrase JFK "not because it's easy, but because it's hard". Once you can perfect getting fresh peaches delivered via an Internet order, everything else is easy.

    They were a tiered distribution company. They would have become a combination of Wal-Mart without the storefronts and UPS. Their two edges were

    1) dis intermediate all the retail outlets that all sell the same things. The profit margin in groceries is razor thin (again, they did the hard thing first). Eliminate the stores and employees, replace them with largely automated warehouses and drivers and you change the entire profit dynamic. Walmart.com and vons.com don't get this benefit since they still have to support physical storefronts. Amazon gets this benefit and does pretty well. People have figured out by now that Amazon isn't just an internet bookstore, Webvan died before it could get there.

    2)Use the internet as the front end of the business. That's pretty obvious.

    "Webvan -- none of whose senior executives or investors had any experience in the supermarket trade". Umm... yeah, that experience would have been useless since they didn't run supermarkets. They did have one of the main architects of Walmarts inventory and distribution system. They were damn good at what they did. If they had an unhappy customer I never met him.

    They died from dried up funding more than overspending (though they did that too). They were just about at the point of doing the "since we have a truck coming by your house anyway, why don't we also drop off your Netflix movie, next semester's textbooks and that creepy Rei Ayanami doll you ordered from Japan?". Without that Netflix has had to spend huge effort to get a (kick ass frankly) distribution system done via USPS. Amazon has their affiliate program where you can get all sorts of odd stuff from Amazon, but they don't have that "last mile" solved. If you order stuff in one order from 7 different affiliates you have to pay 7 different shipping fees and deal with 7 different shipments from different shipping companies. At least one of those shipments will get screwed up and one other will come from some shipper that won't leave it without a signature. Webvan was coming by your house anyway to drop off your groceries.

    And, yes, I did indeed ride a small position in WBVN all the way to $0.00. They could have been saved at any point and I still think they would be a huge company today.

    --
    -- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:Like most, they misunderstand Webvan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you have just said is summed up by "Web site that sold groceries".

    2. Re:Like most, they misunderstand Webvan by Bourbonium · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was a very happy WebVan customer and really thought the company would succeed. I hate shopping for groceries, but WebVan made it easy and painless. They had a great business model that could have been highly profitable, but I think they tried to expand too fast. They should have stayed localized in the SF Bay Area until they became profitable, and then expanded to Los Angeles, Sacramento, Portland and Seattle. A West Coast base of operations would have permitted a sustainable growth curve.

      But they decided to go nation-wide and spend a fortune building more automated warehouses in Dallas/Fort Worth, Atlanta, GA and Washington DC before they ever began to recoup the start-up costs of their west coast operation. I suspect that was their fatal mistake. Their smaller competitors, like http://www.peapod.com/ (a subsidiary of the Andronico's Market chain) are still in business and doing fine. I seem to recall that my wife was impressed by how much cheaper the products were priced on WebVan when compared to the brick and mortar supermarket chains like Lucky and Safeway (she actually pulled out grocery receipts to compare the prices of items we purchased regularly). For the convenience of their service, WebVan could have charged more for their products and still been successful, but they chose to undercut the big chains to develop a loyal customer base. We were loyal customers, and many of our friends were as well. That's why we mourn the loss of WebVan, because it really was a new, exciting and groundbreaking business model.

      I seem to recall that lots of their infrastructure was sold off in the bankruptcy process, and Safeway re-painted most of their delivery vans and they are still in use today.

    3. Re:Like most, they misunderstand Webvan by garyrich · · Score: 1

      yup, and these guys
      http://www.geologistics.com/
      are just a company that sells groceries to cruise lines

      --
      -- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
    4. Re:Like most, they misunderstand Webvan by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      "Webvan -- none of whose senior executives or investors had any experience in the supermarket trade". Umm... yeah, that experience would have been useless since they didn't run supermarkets.

      Um, yeah. They were running a supermarket, or at least the faced many of the same problems a supermarket faces - most importantly in inventory management. If Amazon orders too many copies of a book, they can sell them over time or return them to the publisher. Much the same for Netflix. A truckload of tomatoes or milk can't be returned and will go bad. (I've heard from several reputable sources that they did have problems with this.) This is why the infant mortality rate of food businesses is over an order of magnitude higher than the already frightening rate for non food businesses.
       
       

      They were just about at the point of doing the "since we have a truck coming by your house anyway, why don't we also drop off your Netflix movie, next semester's textbooks and that creepy Rei Ayanami doll you ordered from Japan?". Without that Netflix has had to spend huge effort to get a (kick ass frankly) distribution system done via USPS. Amazon has their affiliate program where you can get all sorts of odd stuff from Amazon, but they don't have that "last mile" solved. If you order stuff in one order from 7 different affiliates you have to pay 7 different shipping fees and deal with 7 different shipments from different shipping companies. At least one of those shipments will get screwed up and one other will come from some shipper that won't leave it without a signature. Webvan was coming by your house anyway to drop off your groceries.

      They may have been coming by your house to deliver groceries, but maybe not mine. Not to mention the problem at the other end - getting all those shippers to give up UPS/USPS/FedEx/etc. in favor of Webvan.
       
      But what you missed is what really killed Webvan - the massive upfront investment in warehouse and transport infrastructure. There's practically nothing they could have sold that would provide volume and profit margins sufficient to cover that. Amazon, and Netflix, survived and prospered because they could (and did) build out their infrastructure 'just in time' and leverage existing systems (UPS, USPS) rather than reinventing the wheel. Building up sufficient transport business in the face of the Big Boys would have been extremely tough.
  53. N64HQ.com - Unofficial Nintendo 64 Headquarters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was not exactly a "dot com" site, but it was the best N64 fan site out there, hands down. They even rivaled N64.com (which later became IGN64.com, which later just became another cess pool on the 'net.) Later on, Nintendo bought (or perhaps took) both N64HQ.com and N64.com for themselves. I miss the good old days. *sigh*

  54. The real pets.com problem by snoggeramus · · Score: 1

    The real pets.com problem was despite 'everyone' needing pet food and the ability to sell cheaper from a bulk warehouse, pet food is heavy and thus the individual freight costs became the killer.

  55. has to be the names by ya+really · · Score: 1

    I think viacomm (cbs parent) was mostly interested in the domain names cnet owns, such as tv.com and news.com. I would think cbs would have some sort of interest in those. Article on other domains they own and how much they paid for them: http://www.igoldrush.com/feat2.htm

  56. flooz? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Maybe beenz was bigger in the UK, or they had loftier "ambitions".. But I bet more folks know about flooz.com than beenz, and it's a stupider name.

  57. quokka.com? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Maybe not as high profile, but IIRC Intel used them heavily for advertising their Pentiums, which "make the internet go faster"...

    Plus, I like the word as an expletive.. "Quokkkkkkkaaaa!!!!" It sounds almost Klingon...

    1. Re:quokka.com? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      FYI A Quokka (pronounced "kwokah") is a small Australian marsupial that is quiet useful for playing soccer with.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  58. killerapp.com by YodaYid · · Score: 1

    I miss that one - it would monitor specific hardware prices and alert you when there was a price drop. I think Cnet bought and killed it.
    It looks like it's a blog or something now...

  59. vertical scroll with clicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i predict the next in line are sites that use power-point navigation. i like to scroll my pages vertically, not clicking right arrows on the page.

  60. heat.net by Toridas · · Score: 1
    I think the only one of the sites listed I actually ever used was heat.net. I could play the original DOS version of Warcraft 2 with other people online! For free! This was 2 or 3 years before online multiplayer was officially made available from Blizzard, via the "Battle.net edition" which you had to buy a whole new copy of the game for.

    And I got a free heat.net t-shirt from the site too. Sweet!

  61. Re:minus the pictures by soliptic · · Score: 1

    We're more familiar these days with lifecasters Justin Kan and oh-God-look-at-how-hot-I-think-I-am Justine Ezarik. Never heard of either of them *confused*
  62. Illegal currency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing I don't understand from this article is where it mentions Beenz's troubles with the law in several countries -- did those countries include the US? I do know that making your own currency and passing it off as legal tender is illegal, but several organizations and localities have their own local currencies that are honored by participating businesses... I'm thinking here of things like the "Bevo Bucks" that are used here in Austin, sponsored by the University of Texas. What did Beenz do that was so different?

  63. Not to nitpick, but.. by Ken+V.B.+Liar · · Score: 1

    Viacom and CBS are now separate corporations

    --
    "If sorry were enough, we wouldn't need seppuku"
  64. Re: Lack of Images by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    Does this include the feature story site?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  65. Informative Goatse post FTW! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    Sorry sir. You posted a meme, without actually looking.

    http://goatse.cx/ is a LinkFarm, without the goats.

    The "Successor to Nupedia" has more:
    On January 14, 2004, the domain goatse.cx was suspended by Christmas Island Internet Administration for AUP[1] violations in response to a complaint, but many mirrors of the site are still available,[2] and the image is displayed on many websites.

    (See more about complex bidding wars, etc.)

    See this page for tributes.

    http://sam.zoy.org/goatse/

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  66. We still need e-money. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    A decent secure, easy to use, fee free, Internet-friendly currency is still needed. We saw a lot of flops in the 90's which seems to have given a cold fusion like slant to the concept but PayPal, e-checks, and credit cards all kind of suck.

    The government SHOULD issue an e-currency but since they decline to do so I think it's appropriate for someone else to do so. I've thought of offering such an option where the only profit center for the company is in any interest earned while the money is in it's procession. As a retailer I know I'd make a lot more bank from my online sales if I didn't have to pay credit card fees and it'd be easier for small businesses to start if there was no start-up or monthly fees for using the system. I used to use PayPal but their fees aren't much better and they've proven to not be trustworthy or reliable.

    In the 90's lots of digital money concepts got floated around and I never heard of them being illegal in the US.

    I think the two great fortunes to be made, in the near future, from e-commerce are a better online currency and a better method of distribution and shipping of products. We have kind of crappy adaptions of pre-net technologies filling these needs right now but there is a lot of room for improvement. Unfortunately it'll take a fortune to make a fortune in these cases.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  67. AudioGalaxy was awesome by default+luser · · Score: 1

    Before Kazaa (temporarily) filled the shoes left empty by Napster, AudioGalaxy stepped up to the plate.

    The web-based search system was great - you could check out songs, and queue them up for downloading. Of course, in a last-ditch effort to avoid being shut-down, they started filtering copyright content, which made finding said content harder. By that time, there were other services, so people left for greener pastures, and AudioGalaxy died.

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.