A call to ignore/kill it because there is nothing mystical about it. Most webmaster and SEO forums will ooh and aahhh over a toolbar pagerank update - the article is saying that there's no reason to do so.
And why would you think that, given the fact that the site where you saw the article was designed by myself? Did you read the article, or are you just responding based on the comments you read?
There are other points, such as the success of Craigslist or IMDB. What resonates with people, though, is revenue numbers, and the main example provided gives us that concrete example of success.
There are two aspects to the reason that ugly sells. The first is the simplicity of many ugly sites (the function over form). This can be achieved with good design.
The second, however, is that some niche sites are better if designed with the feel of being amateur as their users want to deal with a small website. This is why I did not go so far as to say that ugly never sells, but that ugly is not necessarily what sells.
See the difference?
I would agree with you on this - there is a difference between ugly and simple, but beautiful simple is hard to do. The article does focus a lot on simplicity, which is the real point of the article.
Plenty of Fish was an example on Threadwatch and Webmasterworld, so it was an easy example - nothing more. I could have used one of my ugly sites, but then again, that would have to be admitting that it was an ugly site.:)
Slashdot Mirror
A call to ignore/kill it because there is nothing mystical about it. Most webmaster and SEO forums will ooh and aahhh over a toolbar pagerank update - the article is saying that there's no reason to do so.
And why would you think that, given the fact that the site where you saw the article was designed by myself? Did you read the article, or are you just responding based on the comments you read?
No worries. It takes A LOT to offend me. Heck, just read through some of the comments here and know that I haven't been offended yet. :)
I wouldn't disagree with you. The site needs a redesign, and will be getting it. :)
There are other points, such as the success of Craigslist or IMDB. What resonates with people, though, is revenue numbers, and the main example provided gives us that concrete example of success.
There are two aspects to the reason that ugly sells. The first is the simplicity of many ugly sites (the function over form). This can be achieved with good design. The second, however, is that some niche sites are better if designed with the feel of being amateur as their users want to deal with a small website. This is why I did not go so far as to say that ugly never sells, but that ugly is not necessarily what sells. See the difference?
I would agree with you on this - there is a difference between ugly and simple, but beautiful simple is hard to do. The article does focus a lot on simplicity, which is the real point of the article.
It was the mysql user connecting as root - which will be changed. It is not a good idea.
Its been reviewed at Webmasterworld and Threadwatch as well as Scobeilizer (sp?). Pretty well documented.
nywanna is daoustmark. I am the same person...I submitted to both Slashdot and Digg. Hope that's not a problem.
There are several very successful 'ugly' websites. Ebay, Google, even Amazon. What about Slashdot? Not very attractive, but obviously successful
I would agree that Simplicity is the more important factor - however, there is the point that ugliness can send a unique message of 'trust'...
Plenty of Fish was an example on Threadwatch and Webmasterworld, so it was an easy example - nothing more. I could have used one of my ugly sites, but then again, that would have to be admitting that it was an ugly site. :)
Sorry for the site going down - working on increasing max connections...