PC World's 25 Worst Web Sites

Cilibrin writes "PC World has posted a story on the 25 dumbest dot-coms and silliest sites. Among those to make the list are the pet-related Neuticles — a site for testicular implants for pets — and every child's favorite, Rabies for Kids." From the article: "As venture capitalists scramble to throw money at anything labeled Ajax or Web 2.0, and Web publishing becomes so simple that anyone with a working mouse hand can put up a site, we offer our list of the 25 worst Web sites of all time. Many of our bottom 25 date from the dot-com boom, when no bad idea went unfunded. Some sites were outright scams — at least two of our featured Net entrepreneurs spent some time in the pokey. Others are just examples of bad design, or sites that got a little too careless with users' information, or tried to demand far too much personal data for too little benefit. And to prove we're not afraid to pick on somebody much bigger than us, our pick for the worst Web site may be the hottest cyberspot on the planet right now. "

Worst website according to Digg...

[AtariDatacenter]

In a story with 1500+ votes, Digg users acknowledged THIS to be the worst web site ever:
http://www.kwota.net/cdc/default.htm [kwota.net]

A quote: "I feel like I lost a part of my web design soul just by viewing this site."

Not that bad...

[mrcolj]

Of the 60 million active websites out there, they're trying to tell me that I've even heard of any of the worst 25? I was expecting 25 on par with "neuticles" or "rabies for kids," not another baseless rant against Windows Update. And don't nobody mention Dancing Baby, which is so good that 7 years later I just showed it to my wife a week ago (who's too young to have seen it--25.) Moral of the story: no major magazine has ever put out a legit list (besides the Fortune 500.) PC World's list of the worst websites was as much of a letdown as every time you get suckered into reading those "PC World's 25 ways to speed up your computer!"

Re:Badger Badger / All Your Base

[Jekler]

I agree. I think Hamsterdance, badger, all your base, etc. Are all a matter of "How funny did you find it?". They obviously weren't meant to be seriously attracting someone to use the site with some kind of purpose. I think the entire list should be redone minus joke (or "one hit wonder") web sites.

I think a list of "worst web sites" should be done using only serious material. If you had a "dumbest quote" contest, you wouldn't include intentional jokes.

Truth in Domain Names Act?

[Perseid]

FTA: "In 2003 Zuccarini pleaded guilty to violating the Truth in Domain Names Act and was sentenced to 2.5 years in the federal pen."

What? Truth in Domain Names Act? So if I create a site about rocket launchers and register it to fuzzybunnies.com I can go to jail? Can fuzzybunnies be a porn site?

Sigh

[mqduck]

Like perhaps most people, I skipped first to #1.

The ease with which anyone of any age can create a page, upload photos, share deeply personal details of their lives, and make new "friends" quickly turned MySpace into a one-stop shopping mall for online predators.

I lost interest in the article right about here. thinkofthechildren, etc.
(Come to think of it, aren't shopping malls one-stop shopping malls for "predators"? Oh, teh irony!)

Re:The full list

[euri.ca]

The University of Waterloo (in Canada) uses a similar system. They can only keep the system up for 16 hours a day (I asked why, they won't tell me) and you have to click through 3 or 4 screens sometimes with only one option Transcript>view transcript>Still want to view your transcript>Hey you want a transcript>click here for a transcript

But think about it, their customers only pay a few thousands of dollars a year.... who can afford to build a webapp for just $10 000/ seat?

Elitism Foiled.

[twitter]

The best part is PCWorld's site sucks.

Yes, and that goes a long way to foil the author's baseless elitism. A recurrent theme of the article is snobbery. MySpace looks bad because people are stupid and evil is their central message:

... a one-stop shopping mall for online predators. ... In an era when the basic tenets of the Net are under attack by both Ma Bell and Uncle Sam, MySpace is a headache we don't need. But let's put all that aside for a moment. Graphically, many MySpace pages look like a teenager's bedroom after a tornado--a swirl of clashing backgrounds, ... in a place where "U are soooooooo hot!!!" passes for wit, MySpace isn't doing much to elevate the level of social discourse.

Let's take out the cluebat.

1. The web is supposed to be two way, for everyone. MySpace is not a special gateway for predators anymore than google or your local city park.
2. My space, like PCWorld, looks like crap because the authors have been given crappy editing tools and greedy site owners.

Blaming the users is stupid. Other sites look better because users have been given better tools. Facebook, YouTube, Blogger and others all look good and work well. Do those sites raise the "level of discourse"? Yes, better than this flamebait article from PCWorld.