February 17, 2004 | View Comments (38) | Category: Our Thoughts
Summary: My opinion about Web Pages That Suck.
There are some who claim they are experts in their chosen fields. Either they have a ridiculous amount of hubris or maybe they pioneered the field, but why should they even consider themselves experts? Of course Nielsen considers himself an expert because he wouldn't get paid as much for speaking if he didn't. Then there people who do not directly claim that they are experts, but do write/speak/act like they are. They even go as far as to say that their goal is to "help people design effective and aesthetically pleasing web pages". Now if I told you that is what I did, but I did so outside the context of this website then maybe you would believe me. If I did so within the context of this website and you thought it was effective and aesthetically pleasing then you would more than likely believe that is what I am capable of. However, if I said it within the context of this site and you didn't think the site was either effective or aesthetically pleasing, why should you believe me?
Do you ever wish sometimes you could challenge an expert to a competition just to see if they really are an expert? What if one day you checked your referrer logs and saw that you had a lot of people coming from an expert's site? In most cases you would probably think that it was great. However, if you find a lot of people coming from Vincent Flanders' site, Web Pages That Suck, then it is not a good thing. About a month ago Mike Pick was linked to from Vincent's site, but was unable to go back and check what was wrong with his site because Vincent only keeps links up for 24 hours. That sucks. Mike is a damn good designer who just happened to win the ReUSEIT competition (a redesign of another expert's site).
The title of Vincent's site is officially "Web Pages That Suck - learn usability and good Web design by looking at bad web design". Am I the only one seeing the irony here? This may not be proper etiquette or whatnot by openly criticizing someone of this stature, but I mean everything about this guy and his site has rubbed me the wrong way. Nielsen I can almost live with because he does not claim to make things "aesthetically pleasing" and freely admits to not being a designer. Vincent however openly tells people what he will help them do and I am guessing he gets paid a nice amount of change to critique their sites. Just makes me wonder what kind of credentials do you need in this industry to really make it big?
I doubt Vincent will read this, but I would like for him to critique this site. I have let everyone else on the web do it, but nobody in this audience is an expert like Vincent. To truly make this site great, I need his opinion I think. In turn I will write a critique on his site if he so requests.
To me there is no such thing as a design expert. There is no one who can critique a site and be 100% right about what they say. I did not critique Zeldman's or Dunstan's site because I thought I could make them look aesthetically better. I would never go as far as to put a site in my Web Pages That Suck category unless the person really just pissed me off. I know a lot of designers who put a lot of effort into their work only to find someone come along and bash what they have done. If I looked at Vincent's site and felt that he had put 100% effort into designing it, then I probably wouldn't even be writing this. However, that is not the case and to me it just seems Vincent is going after the money by simply being a loud voice. I'm done.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/151
I absolutely agree with the sentiments expressed here. Critiques only available for 24-hours, that's ridiculous.
Not only does Flanders deny the web-author a chance to defend him/herself but, if links truly do expire, he is guilty of that most heinous of crimes - linkrot.
Shame on the so-called expert.
DarkBlue (http://urbanmainframe.com/)
Perhaps he should read the FAQs on the WPTS site...
"Unless your site is receiving hundreds or thousands of visitors (not hits) from WPTS, I don't know exactly why WPTS shows up in your log files. One guy wrote in and said he got 89 hits from us. Well, his home page has 88 graphics on it (plus the page). There was only one visitor. If you don't understand this concept, you won't understand anything else I'm going to say."
From Mike's site:
"Talking about web pages that suck, I was riffling through my referrers logs yesterday (as we all do) and came across 34 or so refers from Web Pages That Suck."
34 hits is probably either someone screwing with him, or his log analysis software screwing up an IP lookup (happens all the time).
There's nothing I can see on his site that is particularly in line with the usual sites featured there. Now if that graphic of whatever-it-is was the navigation and you had to mouse over T97 to know that clicking it would take you to his resume (which of course it doesn't, I'm just making a point), that would be the sort of website that WPTS would link to.
As for the WPTS website, it's tongue in cheek, Paul. He's kidding while making a point. I've never seen a page linked from there that wasn't blatantly bad. The best (ie funniest bad design) was a bank that had decided to design its website to look like a cartoon grade school. You had to click your way through it as if it were some 2 bit version of Myst and try to figure out what 'room' corresponded to what service... I think the science lab was business banking....
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
"he is guilty of that most heinous of crimes - linkrot."
Linkrot == linking to pages that no longer exist.
linkrot != removing links to pages that exist.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Tongue in cheek is one thing when it is done for fun, but I am seeing this guy make money from consulting, lectures, and books.
I am not convinced that he could create a site that would pass all of his own requirements.
A major problem I am seeing here is that if he links to someone's site who does web design, like Mike, and people see that Vincent says that his site sucks, that may take away from potential clients for Mike. I know that example is stretching it a bit, but I do think it would be "professional" of him to keep the link up there where he does critique the person's site.
His FAQ: People mistake hits and visitors all the time, so who really knows who is right or wrong in this situation.
Hell, I am probably just envious that people like this have found a way to make money.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
I have never really like Vincent either. I have the WPTS book (got it as a package deal with an HTML book long ago) and I have never really put much effort into reading it. I do remember picking it up, thumbing through it, and thinking that it was a stupid book.
to JC:
Hits and referrers are two totally different things. 34 "refers" mean that there were 34 visits to his site from a link on the WPTS site.
I think it is definitely possible that Mike's site was on there. They had the BMW site on there yesterday.
Jeremy Flint (http://www.jeremyflint.com)
Just remember: One man's junk is another man's treasure.
As for your comment, "I am not convinced that he could create a site that would pass all of his own requirements."
You're right.
I'm sure he couldn't create a site that would pass his strict requirements...but he could pay someone to do it for him!
kartooner (http://www.kartooner.com)
I guess I just have more respect for people who actually do something creative rather than just critique everyone else. But I have to admit that with all the bad web design around, there is a definite need for someone like this to deliver a clue to the ignorant 'designers'. It doesn't mean I have to like the guy, just acknowledge him as a necessary evil like lawyers, politicians and CEOs. Actually scratch the CEOs, we don't need them.
Gabe (http://www.websaviour.com/)
Read the link I posted for more depth. I didn't feel like clogging your comments with 8 paragraphs of explanations he posts. But the likelihood that Mike's site was actually linked is pretty close to zero.
And as for his website looking bad... that's kinda the point. I don't have any problem with his method. It's been of too much benefit to me in staving off 'sucky' ideas. And he's funny. He doesn't get hired for lectures and presentations because he says he's an expert, he gets hired because he has a good reputation.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Jeremy... I'm quite thoroughly aware of that. But 34 is not hundreds or thousands. My vote's on someone screwing with him to get him bent out of shape, which worked,and even managed to draw Paul into gathering the torches and pitchforks and storming the monster's castle.
And the BMW site deserves to be linked. The navigation on the homepage is a slight step below 'mystery meat' -- you have to mouse over something to get the real navigation. Not exactly a big usability plus, is it? You can instantly see where it fits with the other 'daily suckers'... while Mike's obviously does not.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Okay, I read through is FAQs and now he has totally lost me on this one. He claims that he made the site sucky so that everyone else would not feel bad and to also emphasize the title of the domain. Obviously JC we are in two different mindsets here.
There is a search box, that doesn't work because there are no archives. So why have a search box? I give up. Obviously I am taking this guy more seriously than I should.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Gotta love this quote, straight from the FAQ:
"While I personally adore sites like CSS Zen Garden and other sites that use and promote beautiful design, most people don't realize their hidden agenda: they want you to feel bad about your design skills so you'll hire them to fix your site."
kartooner (http://www.kartooner.com)
It's his idea of a joke. The entire site is meant to be taken with a laugh. If you don't get the humor, well, he is an engineer type after all.
I don't understand why you're lost on it though, Paul. The possibilities he lists for probable reasons are quite clear. Web log tools do bad IP lookups all the time (run the same logs twice and the results will almost always be slightly different). One time ours somehow managed to think AOL's IPs were ... shoot, I don't remember. Some government agency or other that is particularly disturbing to find a large number of visits from if one happens to be a bank. But because it was AOL, after a few minutes of "oh man, are we in deep trouble or something?" it was pretty clear that the numbers were close to what AOL usually was. Ran the report again, and it was AOL.
But if that's not the case, some putz probably thought it'd be fun to send WPTS as a referer to his site. Or someone visits both sites on occasion and has that IE6 corrupt index.dat bug that screws up your browser's concept of DNS (basically, you click on a link and it takes you to some other site you've been to before... so if I try going from 9rules.com to cssvault.com, it might take me to CNN or something... and my referer at CNN would show up as 9rules).
Or someone did a drag-and-drop link... I'm not 100% sure if that gives a referer now or not, but I think it used to in older versions of IE, anyway (basically you have two IE windows open. You drag a link from one into the other and it opens, possibly sending that window's URL as the referer instead of the window the link actually came from)
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Paul, regarding your last comment, you should take a look at the bottom of the daily sucker home: "No personal pages (...) or Web site designers (it would look like a conflict of interest)."
I think Mike's site fits both criteria to *not* be listed, so...
Caio Chassot (http://v2studio.com/k)
I personally find it funny by his statements on this page
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/dailysucker/
Read this quote
"The suckers are based on user input. You see a site that you think sucks and then e-mail the URL to me. No personal pages (personal pages are supposed to reflect the individual's personality, artistic freedom, and lack of taste -- a commercial site is about making money) or Web site designers (it would look like a conflict of interest)."
Now, I believe that Mike is a website designer :)
Bryan (http://www.gamecubecheats.info)
holy cow, what irony. I can't believe we posted the same thing :)
Bryan (http://www.gamecubecheats.info)
Not to mention, straight from the FAQ...
"No personal pages (personal pages are supposed to reflect the individual's personality, artistic freedom, and lack of taste -- a commercial site is about making money) or Web site designers (it would look like a conflict of interest). "
It's simply his policy not to link to that kind of site. Case closed. Put away the barbie play & lynch dreamset. :-)
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Haha, that might be the greatest 5 comment stretch I have ever read. Cattle :-P
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Telling people they suck, while sucking yourself, seems to be an odd way to make a point.
I know there have been a couple of studies, but this is the one I remember (otherwise I will have to do some digging.)
Abstract
We conducted an online survey about Web credibility, which included over 1400 participants. People reported that Web site credibility increases when the site conveys a real-world presence, is easy to use, and is updated often. People reported that a Web site loses credibility when it has errors, technical problems, or distracting advertisements. Our study is an early effort to identify Web credibility elements and empirically investigate the effect of each.
You have to have ACM Portal access to view the PDF, but the access page is at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=633460&dl=ACM&coll=portal and research continues at http://www.webcredibility.org/
On a related note, I noticed (and I am sure you have too) a lot of churning of late about "the problem with gurus." Something is in the wind, but I am not exactly sure what it is yet.
Matthew Oliphant (http://usabilityworks.typepad.com)
it's called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd" and is a time honored tradition.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
I think it has to stem from the fact that most gurus developed a name for themselves in the early days of the web and still focus a lot on those old ideas. The problem is that they web changes fast so you have to adapt. A lot of gurus forget that.
Sidenote: Jeremy Flint posted the 2000th comment so he wins Norman's book.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
I can see the "absurity by being absurd", but should that technique or tradition be used on websites that are trying to preach usability. Especially one that depends on showing real-world examples of bad design? If it's hard to navigate through the person's site just to find examples, then I think the use of this technique is useless.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
The great thing about making your posts/thoughts disappear after 24 hours is that you will never have to defend yourself.
Seems awful cowardly to not stand behind what you say for more than 24 hours. I have said many things that, due to information presented after I have said them, I wish I hadn't said. But I am willing to own up to them when I am wrong.
But hey, why not just deny that you ever said such things altogether.
Jason
I found webpagesthatsuck.com in my referral logs a while back. And I was a tad miffed. I thought my site was ok...
I managed to catch the link on the site before it disappeared though and it was actually mentioned in a positive light. So Mike's site may not necessarily have been referred to as a 'Web Page that Sucks'.
Patrick Griffiths (http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/)
"Seems awful cowardly"
Sorry, have to laugh a little. You're posting anonymously. I'm sure it's spam avoidance and not cowardice, though, despite what /. would call it. But it engages my sense of irony.
At any rate, he gives an excellent reason for the 24 hour thing on his site... avoiding unscrupulous "ambulance chasing" web designers. And harassment. I remember when the personal website of a friend of mine was posted to a somewhat less professional list of 'bad websites' -- losers.org (her site was 'too girly, and eww, she writes poetry'), and she got a ridiculous number of insulting emails and posts in her guestbook. Fortunately, the audience of WPTS is a little more mature than that, but there's always a troll or two waiting to pounce, even here.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
I am not posting anonymously, Scrivs just doesn't display a posters e-mail addresses (thank you). I do not have my personal site up yet so I put no URL in the field.(don't even have a domain yet) because there is nothing for me to link to.
I do suppose his reasoning for keeping them up for 24 hours is sound. I could not read this from work as his site is blocked by some wonderful software (as I type this I can't even get to the ColdFusion forums on Macromedia's website). So I based that comment soley on what I read here.
Jason
Hope you didn't take that poorly. It wasn't intended as a slight, simply a hint of perceived irony.
And re: the software... ugh. You don't have "Border Manager: Enhancing Your Internet Experience," do you?
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Oh no, I didn't take it poorly, just figured I would explain myself anyway.
Re: the software, I honestly don't know what they are using here, it just tells me when I can't access something.
Jason
ah, well, be glad. At least it doesn't rub your nose in it by telling you it's 'enhancing your internet experience' every time it doesn't work.
And congratulations, Jeremy!
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
How's this, from Vincent's page:
"If you want to see the current suckiness that's infesting the Web (along with some current examples of the bad old days), go to The Daily Sucker."
That's a plain text paragraph; no links. If you want to follow his advice (presumably most people do) you then have to scan the entire page looking for a link called "The Daily Sucker". It's there -- "Daily Sucker -- Current Examples of Bad Design" in grey on white with a blue-grey border -- and it's at the top of the left-hand sidebar, which would be fine if you hadn't already scrolled down to the bottom of the page to find the paragraph that mentions it!
It's a minor but irritating sin -- Vincent is too familiar with his own site -- that would be fixed with a hypertext link. That's what the "ht" in "html" means, after all.
Meanwhile, I've just redesigned flurf.net. (It validates! It validates! Yay!) It looks very much unlike every other blog/text-content-focused site I've seen, which is part of why I did it that way. Feel free to look it over and critique all you like. I don't extend that privilege to Vincent!
Eric TF Bat (http://flurf.net)
Hey Eric... site looks nice. Not fond of the click multiple times to find real links navigation scheme, but it does compress things a bit. But speaking of too familiar with one's own work... you have the poetry software page but no description of what it actually is or does. At first I assumed it was some sort of tool to assist in creative writing, but from the comments on the news page, it seems to be some sort of accounting software, perhaps? I'm curious, what's it for?
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Just one more rant about Vincent.
www.geezersthatsuck.com. That would be the perfect brother site for him and his WPTS. That guy and his site just drives me mad. Arghh.
Hugz ppl.
ruisealman
Despite the name of his site, Vincent sometimes links to sites that don't suck: http://www.wannabegirl.org/archives/007158.php
I'd bet that's what happened in this case.
David (http://individed.topcities.com)
JC - thanks for the comments. I think you're right about the two-click navigation: it's still klunky. One of the things I'm planning is some kind of tweak on that; for a start, it should pre-expand the more useful ones. It's still a work in progress. And Poetry Software is, indeed, accounting software. Given that it's the only side of the page that I make any money out of, it'll need a LOT more work. What's there now is another placeholder, but I will fix it, in my copious free time...
ObWhitespace: sure, the comments are getting vitriolic, but not terribly so. Vincent seems to be your typical socially-maladroit geek, spitting in your eye one moment, asking "can't you take a joke" the next. Hey ho; the world isn't ending.
(Totally off topic: I'm yet to see a blog commenting system I don't hate. Maybe I should write one and take the world by storm. Needs a different UI and something new in threading and quoting...)
Eric TF Bat (http://flurf.net)
The WSTS website is and has always been a parody. All you have to do is visit the site and look at the "original 96 - 98" link or the "stupid versions of the home page" to see that.
All you really have to do to understand WSTS, is look at its history. Flanders started that back in '96 - the heyday of all things web. Dotcoms blooming everywhere and everybody and their family were seemingly web designers making money. Quite a few were making bad sites for good money. The madness was everywhere, and Flander's stepped in to point out that it was not all good.
His critiques turned into a money making brand for him. In '96, he was relevent - today, probably not as much.
Today tables are gone, minimalism and CMS are in. In 2012, who knows. (Paul, you should pay attention to this), if one establishes themself as a critic of what's the trend at the time, builds a brand based on that, makes money and sells books, then one should be prepared to be able to equally critique the next trend - or be prepared to face the "who does that so and so think he / she is?"
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
"web designers making money"
ahh, the good old days. Makes me nostalgiac. I suddenly want people to throw lots of money at me because my wild and essentially useless idea has something vaguely internet related. Any takers?
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
I always thought that that was the wrong way of going about things — picking out examples of sites which people have obviously put a lot of time into. I like mikepick.com. It looks cool. It isn't the easiest site to navigate, but it isn't the hardest either. It doesn't have too many images, and still loads fast enough. It could improve, but not too much.
Vincent's site isn't the prettiest I've come across, nor the most functional. I have to scroll halfway down the page to find the articles, surely the thing most people visit the site for. The turquoise in the banner doesn't match the purple, and I remember once that banner image being nearly 30kb in size before I emailed and complained.
David House