Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Image

Websites That Don't Need to Be Made Anymore 161

Posted by samzenpus from the do-not-want dept.
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.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Websites That Don't Need to Be Made Anymore More

Websites That Don't Need to Be Made Anymore

Comments Filter:
  • If the editors read the stories before posting them, they would have realized that the last item on the list describes the most recent slashdot initiatives...

    • Re:Good thing the editors don't read the stories (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:42PM (#32283092) Journal

      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

      • soon the president will initiate a good old fashioned blog burning.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by syousef ( 465911 )

        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

        That's easily countered. You just come back with 8 articles that don't need to be written anymore.

      • You nailed it, the individual and the individual's opinion, perspective, is the real gold always has been, always will be. The fact that corporations will NEVER be able to totally control individuals is their problem.

        Of course the "standard" web tools are limited for selfish, proprietary and wasted attempts at controlling the individual thus they fail, continue to fail, will always fail.

        .Net, Flash, excessive html markup, overblown cascading style sheets, huge libraries (which try to do everything rath

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by laddiebuck ( 868690 )
        They've already taken down geocities, lycos, angelfire, whatever. People used to make sites and put their own content up. Today they don't seem to anymore, and I think the web is poorer for it. Luckily, I had recursively downloaded a couple of sites that had valuable info for myself, and archive.org has some, but the shift on all fronts (ditto usenet or forums) is towards fewer and bigger sites run by corporations instead of more, smaller sites run by individuals.

  • if i hear one more asshole talk about cloud computing, a renamed concept from the 1980s, i'll punch the douchebag in the face

  • I know one more (Score:3, Informative)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @12:57PM (#32282440) Homepage Journal

    Does anyone else have this problem with /., when you push the 'reply' it shows the page with the text area that is one quarter of the width of the page? I am too lazy to check the CSS, but is this happening for everyone here right now, or is it settings dependent and on case by case basis? /. - we don't really need more /. One is enough for everyone.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by maxume ( 22995 )

      It is a feature of idle.

      Idle seems to be a marketing initiative that the editors resent, but they seem to be required to post to it.

    • Re:I know one more (Score:5, Informative)

      by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:16PM (#32282728) Journal

      I think it's just a problem with the CSS on Idle. If you remove "idle." from the URL it uses the default CSS, and everything looks normal again. Almost annoying enough to see if there's a Greasemonkey script to replace the Idle CSS with normal CSS on the fly.

      • I wish I could mod you +6. Your comment was one of the most informative comments I've seen. I can now click on low score comments without having to go to a separate page, then hitting the back button to be put at the top of the page wondering where I was at. I just figured it was the /. way to further discourage reading idle topics.

      • I think it's just a problem with the CSS on Idle.

        Well, it's working as designed... the editors hated being told to make what became idle.

    • Comments that don't need to be made any more

      Does anyone else have this problem with /.

      Just assume the answer is yes

  • Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @12:59PM (#32282468)

    but I think that would eliminate half the web.

    You say that like that's a bad thing.

  • Let me add #9 (Score:4, Funny)

    by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:00PM (#32282484) Journal

    Web sites which consist of a list of the top n things the author thinks are good, bad, useful, useless or whatever.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mmkkbb ( 816035 )

      Hey now, The Oatmeal is generally a lot funnier.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quirkz ( 1206400 )
      Awww. And I was going to add you to my list as the #8 most insightful thing I'd read today.

      Wait, did I say insightful? I meant "inciteful."

  • 2 articles that don't need to be posted anymore (Score:4, Informative)

    by Rotten ( 8785 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:01PM (#32282486) Journal

    1) "top 8 things" style articles
    2) articles about apple loosing stuff

  • I started reading it before noticing it was a webcomic.

  • #4 Registering for an account (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:07PM (#32282586)

    #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!

    • I partially agree.

      While half the sites that require registration, don't actually have much of a valid reason for people to register, save for the owner hoping to get your email address for their mailing list, I would still rather create a unique logon than use facebook.

      I don't like facebook, myspace, aol, etc. I have accounts, technically, but they leave a bad taste in my mouth.

      For me:

      No login > Unique login > Facebook

      • While half the sites that require registration, don't actually have much of a valid reason for people to register

        Any online store has four reasons to let users create an account:

        1. put items on a wishlist in order to save them for buying later,
        2. put out-of-stock items on a wishlist in order to get e-mail when the product comes back in stock,
        3. see a list of orders that the user has placed while logged in, along with their tracking numbers, and
        4. see a list of orders that the user has placed using PayPal Express Checkout with an address that matches the user's verified e-mail address.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by EricWright ( 16803 )

      You ever try to use a forum that didn't require registration? Within 24 hours, 95% of the posts are spam. While I don't LIKE keeping up with lots of logins for various forums, at this point they're a necessary evil.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • OpenID (Score:4, Interesting)

          by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:52PM (#32283228) Homepage Journal
          I have a Launchpad account, which I use as my identifier on a few sites that take OpenID. But one problem in practice with OpenID is that a lot of web sites are OpenID providers (sites that issue identifiers to users) but not as many are relying parties (sites that accept other providers' identifiers). And what prevents a spammer from setting up an OpenID provider and generating an unbounded number of plausible identities?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 6Yankee ( 597075 )
          On the other hand, I had to sign up for a damned OpenID so I could register for StackOverflow...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by toastar ( 573882 )

        You ever try to use a forum that didn't require registration? Within 24 hours, 95% of the posts are spam. While I don't LIKE keeping up with lots of logins for various forums, at this point they're a necessary evil.

        Not true my forum lasted almost 6 months before getting it's first spam, also it's 10,000th spam, both on the same day.

        So much for security through obscurity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jandrese ( 485 )
        If you're posting, I can see forcing a person to make an account. But a lot of forums these days want you to register to even view the posts. It's obnoxious, especially when you're only going there because someone linked to a post on it that solves some problem you have. Some tech support sites require you to set up an account before you can search their FAQ too, which is super obnoxious.

    • Well there's this little problem, see. I am all for the concept of a cross-site single sign on solution that works everywhere. The problem is I'm not okay with "Facebook Connect", which is run by an abusive privacy intruding company with no respect for its users.

      Until you find another alternative, we're stuck with the current system.

  • I agree with most of them, but #4 (requiring users to register) is pretty much absolutely essential for a web site to have "stickiness": keeping the user coming back for more. How is a website supposed to customize itself to a specific user's tastes without having users first register?
    • How? Make registration optional. I notice that a lot of websites these days do just that: you can register login and customise the site to your taste, or you can post as a guest (not anonymously).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Farmer Tim ( 530755 )

      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...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      your stickyness only makes me give you a fake info and post it to bugmenot. Sticky websites are failures. I typically will find needed info in a "sticky" site and will copy and paste it onto another forum that is not sticky. Yes I steal your content and put it elsewhere BECAUSE of your slimeball login required.

      • Well, I don't really see where your aggressive-sounding post is coming from, since I don't personally run any websites, it was just a casual observation. Just to point out though, you would post a website's content on another website's forum, a forum that would probably require registration anyway?

    • There is a difference between requiring registration and having optional registration.

  • OK, this story was in idle. Well done for pegging it right there. And I like the Oatmeal, so always happy to see it getting more exposure.

    But this strip was posted weeks ago. So not only should this not have been on the front page, but it should have not been on the front page a long time ago.

    What's next? Reposting every xkcd strip?

    Thanks for giving me another reason to drop /. from my RSS reader.

  • Facebook instead ??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:22PM (#32282822) Journal

    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.

    • How about no? Just stop with this facebook madness. Screw them.
      I'm sick and tired of facebook this and facebook that. Facebook login here and facebook widget of people liking the stupid page i'm on. GRRRRRRRR.
      I've put facebook.com^ in my damn adblock filter because of those people!

  • My favorites... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:33PM (#32282950) Homepage

    Website that make you log in to even view things.. WTF is that? A members only club that anyone can be a part of? You know how many of those sites have bugmenot logins? your site is a failure, stop being a power freak, You wont get my real email address anyways...

    A Website with those damned popups when you roll over a word... OMFG! I want to physically harm the guy that runs that site that has those.

    Sound of ANY KIND.. a pop up of your ugly face talking to me in flash? I dont think so. It's not neat, its not cool. It's dumb and makes me want to never go to your site again.

    • Website that make you log in to even view things.. WTF is that? A members only club that anyone can be a part of?

      Some of these sites even charge 10 USD for a 10-year subscription, such as Something Awful.

      Sound of ANY KIND

      Even sound that doesn't start until you activate the Play control?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by COMON$ ( 806135 )
      Amen, loading up a story or a blog, listening to music and all of the sudden some damn advert screaming at me, the worst ones are the ones in a little corner of the screen. If they pop up at least I know where they are...

      As for the damn popups on the words...I have invented countless methods of torture for sites that propegate that...

      Word of advice to advertizers, if you are advertizing using any of the above methods...you are LOSING BUSINESS! Never have I heard someone go...man I would never have heard

  • Funny site... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arkham ( 10779 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:35PM (#32282984)

    I'm sure I've been living in a hole, but that site has some seriously funny stuff on it. Examples that made me actually laugh out loud:

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/facebook_suck [theoatmeal.com]

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell [theoatmeal.com]

  • It'd be great if there was a way to "purge" useless sites from the web...of course that's a pretty broad description there, perhaps purge "sites that dot he same thing as other sites but not as well" hmm...

    Can we just start the internet over?

    • What if some people like the other site that you, and perhaps even a majority of people, don't like/think it doesn't do as good a job?

      For example: Facebook. A lot of people like Facebook. What if a newcomer came along that was better but "didn't do it as well" (read: it doesn't have FarmVille!!!!) ... it comes up for a purge vote and 70% (those that use Farmville) vote that it's useless, 25% don't care, and 5% (Slashdot users) think it's better because of privacy reasons and because it is opensource.

      I don

  • The reason we have too many of these websites is quite simple - the existing versions suck. For example Facebook steals information/privacy (even info they previously contracted as never being given out). Dating web sites work great - for model types. But for the rest of us they suck.

  • Dating? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ktappe ( 747125 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @01:51PM (#32283208)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ChefInnocent ( 667809 )
      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 site

  • 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:

    • The article writer said that we don't need any /more/ of those sites, he didn't say that the ones that already exist should die.

  • The OP might believe that 'we got all we need', but it turns out we don't know what we need until someone comes up with it.

    Of course most startups are absolute trash, but so long as they do it with their money, we get all the benefit and none of the risk. :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

Close