Websites That Don't Need to Be Made Anymore

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but there is a finite number of social networking or selling websites that the world needs. Here is a collection of the eight kinds of websites that absolutely don't need to be made anymore. I'd add dating sites and anybody who uses pop-up ads myself, but I think that would eliminate half the Web.

Wait a minute

[$RANDOMLUSER]

but I think that would eliminate half the web.

You say that like that's a bad thing.

#4 Registering for an account

[Stiletto]

#4 hits it out of the park. STOP making me register for your site! I already have hundreds of passwords--I don't need to remember another one from your crappy web site!

Re:Regarding #4

[Farmer Tim]

I don't know about you, but the more "sticky" a web site is the less inclined I am to give them my email address...

Facebook instead ???

[hey]

So there is no need to make signup because Facebook connect can do it.
No need for a another status update side because Facebook can do it.
No need for a "next facebook" because Facebook can do it.
Wrong!

Facebook is far from perfect. We should totally work on replacements.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Good thing the editors don't read the stories

[PopeRatzo]

There's more to this, though, I think. We're going to be hearing a lot more about how "websites don't need to be made any more" and how it's not the presence of individuals on the web that really adds value.

There are very rich and very powerful forces that would like the Internet to become nothing but a commercial vehicle for the largest corporations. We're going to hear about how there's really no value in somebody making "another blog" and we're going to hear a lot of aspersions cast upon people who put up content without it being connected to business. Oh, certain big blogs are OK, because they drive eyeballs, carry advertisement and push opinions. Gizmodo: good. - Wired.com: good - Wikileaks: very bad

Dating?

[ktappe]

I'd add dating sites

Let me guess...you're married? Funny how as soon as one person's needs are met, they no longer see a need for anyone else to have access to services that would supply them similarly.

"Article" writer is an Idiot

[vlueboy]

1. Update sites
2. Sharing sites
3. Digg / Reddit clones
4. Forced Registration sites
5. Social Media sites
6. Facebook clones
7. Flash sites
8. Web 2.0 sites

1,2,3, 5, 6 and 8 are almost the same, and sadly, all here to stay. Business processes ($$$) that weren't moving the web 20 years ago will guarantee it. Pandora's box, people.

I really expected a historical article about sites that are no longer, um, "socially vital" and have silently and mysteriously disappeared from the public eye.

Here's better candidates: "Shrine" sites with old midi's and gifs (we have blogs now). Ring sites linking each other so you don't need to search to find related interests. Sites with downloads of quirky icon sets and mouse pointers.

Sites that *should* also die because they're less usefull than those the TFA discusses: Perpetual domain parkers and typo squatters. Fake sites fishing for webcrawlers to point to thousands of other links, having no content themselves and adding noise to my searches. And I say to myself... "Good luck with THAT."

Re:Dating?

[ChefInnocent]

I think you missed the point. He's saying there is not a need for more dating sites. I was reading the other day that there is one for Apple fans. Why do we need a dating site that caters to Apple fans? Couldn't one just list it in the "looking for" box of plentyofish, Yahoo! Singles, Craigs List, or any one of the many other dating sites that already exist? When I was looking through the dating sites, I would have preferred fewer sites so I know where to look rather than having to register for 20 sites.

Same thing with social networks. If I want to join one to keep up with someone, I don't want to have to register with 20 different flavors of social network sites. With regards to the news sites, it would be awesome if they all used the same login; didn't requirement to use different password rules or pick a new id because I can't remember my old password or someone else has my id.

The point of the article wasn't to say these sites shouldn't exist, but there are just simply too many doing the same thing, and we don't need any more of X type.

Re:Wait a minute

[Minwee]

but I think that would eliminate half the web.

You say that like that's a bad thing.

I think the correct phrase is "but that would eliminate _only_ half the web".

Re:2 articles that don't need to be posted anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Ten Words You Need To Stop Misspelling [theoatmeal.com]?

Re:Cloudy since the mainframe days

[Sir_Lewk]

No, his answer is "Yes". Read his post again, but this time remember to turn on your brain and interpret the words he says.

The only thing that has changed is the cost and payment method, something that has always changed and does not warrant a new buzzword.