Thread: “Ugly” Sites that Make Millions (and What We Can Learn from Them)

Ha, I got 3 of the 4 right! (I thought of a few before I read the article).

Thanks for the post.

Originally Posted by PhxMJ

Ha, I got 3 of the 4 right! (I thought of a few before I read the article).

Thanks for the post.

Sometimes i feel people put too much effort in designing the sites. I personally like clear minimalist sites that can deliver the service straightforward and i will try to implement this in every site i do...

Totally agree here - and in addition, when it comes to other items like naming, branding, etc. it is really hard for new entrepreneurs not to get stuck with trying to find the perfect name. I am sure that most people told Sergey Bren to name is company "super awesome search" or something else lame. I would love to ask him now many people said "Google? What the heck is a Google? Don't you want something with 'search' or 'web' in the name?"

It just goes to show you that the quality of the product/service, above ALL ELSE, is paramount (not to say the other stuff isn't important, it just isn't the most important thing about a business).

I think of Drudge Report. No tables, just a list of headlines and BAM millions visit daily.

I knew craiglist and plentyoffish would be on there.
Don't really see why google is though, I think their page looks very clean.

People do not care what your page looks like as long as it has valuable content/service and is easy to navigate.

so the article ends with a comment about worrying about the functionality instead of how pretty it looks. But then, the most important technology company in the world today is Apple, and they focus intensely on the beauty of their design. Isn't this a contradiction?

Originally Posted by andviv

so the article ends with a comment about worrying about the functionality instead of how pretty it looks. But then, the most important technology company in the world today is Apple, and they focus intensely on the beauty of their design. Isn't this a contradiction?

Apple products are more so then not hardware based.
Websites are software based.

You made a good point though Andviv, this is something we may need to consider.
Perhaps it is okay to have ugly software as long as the hardware aspect of it looks very aesthetically pleasing.

Apple is selling you a lifestyle, which tells people "Hey if you buy our stuff, you'll be as cool, trendy, artsy, and creative as us!"

I agree that most web sites spend too much time and money on design. It's all about the product or service. If you have a shitty product / service -- nobody is going to buy it regardless of what your web site looks like.

If you are selling something people want, then a simple order form will do it!

- Hakrjak

The “Ugly” Truth. *|* Mr Green

I think there's a lot of truth behind the basic trust issue. I think people prefer to trust a more human element vs. a corporate machine that has the resources to generate pretty pages.

Good thread Something to certainly keep in mind.

most of alexa's top 500 websites are "ugly". On the web, these simple websites are usually the most functional.

Apple is minimalistic.

I have found that if clients appreciate the FUNCTIONALITY over the LOOK of the site that they are far more appreciative than if it were flashy, pretty, and served little purpose.

Now obviously I can't call any of the sites 'Lacking purpose' but what i mean is that a lot web designers spend a lot of time keeping "up to date with changes" - but keep in mind, your client may not care about that. neither will the user. if it suits their needs and makes sense, then it is essentially efficient.

nothing wrong with IMPROVING on such a thing. But also keep in mind, if improving it must cater to the growing demands of that client database. If it does not then WHY is it being changed?

When was the last time google or craigslist MAJORLY changed aside from what we are familiar with?