×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Websites That Don't Need to Be Made Anymore

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the do-not-want dept.

The Internet 161

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

#1 On That list (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32282344)

Slashdot should be #1 on that list.

Re:#1 On That list (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282454)

Slashdot should be #1 on that list.

Not necessarily. As usual our intrepid editorial staff did a total horseshit job of summarizing, describing, and likely reading, the article. The article is about webpages that don't need to be remade anymore in truth. It largely talks about all the craptacular new social networking sites that are all trying to copy each other for no good reason. So while slashdot doesn't have much of a reason to exist anymore, it isn't a new site either so it doesn't really apply.

On the other hand the list does describe some of the "new" crap that has been added here recently...

Re:#1 On That list (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32282564)

"slashdot doesn't have much of a reason to exist anymore"

So it follows that you don't either, correct?

Re:#1 On That list (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282624)

Damn straight. Slashdot relegated to the "Digg and Reddit clones"? Me and my six-digit ID say "No way."

Re:#1 On That list (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282834)

Me and my 5-digit ID say "I'm pretty sure we were here first..." does anyone use digg but xbox junkies and script kiddies (usually the same people)?

Re:#1 On That list (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283248)

Truthfully, the same could be said of Slashdot.

I actually like reading comments from people who really are lawyers, but how many "IANAL" comments spouting their truth - because they're modded up as such - do we need to wade through to get to them?

Feel free to mod me down because "IANASA" (I Am Not A Site Administrator), so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Re:#1 On That list (2, Funny)

narcc (412956) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283606)

The people with six-digit id's are greater in number. Someday, we will rise up and toss-off the shackles of oppression and servitude!

You'll be the first with your back against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:#1 On That list (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283810)

I meant we as in Slashdot as a whole, as opposed to Digg. But, yeah, whatever else is good, too.

Re:#1 On That list (0)

notbob (73229) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283938)

And my even lower 5 digit id says "I totally agree with killing off all the clone websites... so I can
1. build all my own clones
2. ???
3. PROFIT!"

Good thing the editors don't read the stories (5, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282358)

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 (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283092)

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

Re:Good thing the editors don't read the stories (0)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283152)

Oh for a pound of mod points. I quite agree with you. Democratisation of media is viewed as a Very Bad Thing by those who make their livelihoods as a funnel for creative output. The same mind-set is what drives the persecution of religions in China - a popular voice you don't control is very intimidating to those in power. I think what we'll see is the rise of media corporations acting as labels and agents for 'indie' blogs, whereby certain protections are afforded bloggers and online content producers in exchange for a cut of the profits and mindshare.

Re:Good thing the editors don't read the stories (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284130)

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

Re:Good thing the editors don't read the stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32283666)

When Will Netflix quit using POP-Up Ads.
They have a decent market share there is no need for this intrusive marketing behavior.

Re:Good thing the editors don't read the stories (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284084)

When advertisers stop paying them or users tell them they are cancelling their subscriptions due to the pop up ads, in sufficient numbers to wipe out the profits the advertisers bring in.

"the cloud" (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282410)

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

Re:"the cloud" (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282456)

Are you kidding? Cloud computing can synergize your enterprise assets!

Re:"the cloud" (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282508)

Are you kidding? Cloud computing can synergize your enterprise assets!

Bah! I guess it's not even object oriented!

Re:"the cloud" (3, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282842)

but can it utilize revolutionary interfaces to productize cross-media e-services to mesh extensible niches which helps to incubate end-to-end communities and to drive sticky functionalities while scaling collaborative systems in an effort to monetize open-source convergence?

We are all about transitioning value-added web-readiness here.

that's (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283274)

thinking outside the box!

Re:that's (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283320)

we just shrink the box, until our current thinking overcomes the natural physical boundaries of it.

Re:that's (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283748)

CRAP, that's my proprietary BUSINESS MODEL! Damn you, /., for revealing all that stands between our Intellectual Property value and the abyss of impossible to implement DRM scheme!

Re:"the cloud" (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283268)

Really? In the 1980s I could call up any number of virtual servers on the fly for a few dollars per month?

Sorry, but the computing trend being called "cloud computing" is real. It's not just a buzzword.

Cloudy since the mainframe days (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283340)

Really? In the 1980s I could call up any number of virtual servers on the fly for a few dollars per month?

Cloud computing in the sense of buying time on a time-sharing computer system has been around since the mainframe days. Cloud computing in the sense of relying on an application service provider has also been around since the mainframe days.

I know one more (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282440)

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:I know one more (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282618)

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 (5, Informative)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282728)

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.

Re:I know one more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32283118)

A thousand Thank Yous are not enough. Idle's broken css has annoyed me to no end for quite some time now.

Next article from theoatmeal.com (1)

a2wflc (705508) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282824)

Comments that don't need to be made any more

Does anyone else have this problem with /.

Just assume the answer is yes

Re:I know one more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32283110)

Slashdot itself is filled with so many bugs i can't even count them anymore.
Each sub-domain has its own funny little quirks, whether it is broken browser bars, eternal loading, half-missing title bars on comment boxes, some random little icons that nobody knows what the hell they are for, some sort of strange "invisible" unclickable area over comment textareas on right sides, previews not being previews, etc

I can't figure out for the life of me why this place has so many bugs like this still present. They have been here for a good while now.

Re:I know one more (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283700)

Are you using IE6 or something? /. always renders fine for me in chrome, firefox and safari

Wait a minute (4, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282468)

but I think that would eliminate half the web.

You say that like that's a bad thing.

Re:Wait a minute (3, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284052)

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".

2 articles that don't need to be posted anymore (3, Informative)

Rotten (8785) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282486)

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

Re:2 articles that don't need to be posted anymore (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282628)

2) articles about apple loosing stuff

Bah, just as I was going to submit my article about Apple untying its shoes....

Re:2 articles that don't need to be posted anymore (1)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 2 years ago | (#32282968)

What about an article about the top 8 things apple looses?

Is slashdot becoming digg? (0, Flamebait)

dawilcox (1409483) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282562)

I thought that slashdot was about "news that matters." Seriously.

Re:Is slashdot becoming digg? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282658)

Yep, it's about $ and Digg-envy.

I go to both.
If I want a laugh and kids that cant speel => digg
If I want interesting comment with people with a brain => Slashdot

Idle on /. should be removed as it is redundant.

Re:Is slashdot becoming digg? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282708)

This is "Idle", which you can easily filter out of your news page if you don't like useless stories (which pretty much describes "idle").

How subtly insightful! (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283348)

Yes, you nailed the premise of this item exactly, directly relating the linked article to how seeing tired old cliches like posting, "Isn't this supposed to be a news site?" in every Idle post is so tedious.

Good job, man, I hope others catch your ironic agreement with the post!

#4 Registering for an account (3, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#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!

Re:#4 Registering for an account (1)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282744)

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

Four reasons to register on an online store (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283134)

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.

Indeed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32282768)

I refuse to purchase from any online vendor that requires I "sign up" before giving them money. How absurd.

Same goes for discussion boards, including slashdot. I refuse to sign up on principle. What's in it for me? The ability to "moderate", aka work for free? Take a fucking hike.

Re:#4 Registering for an account (1, Redundant)

EricWright (16803) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282776)

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:#4 Registering for an account (2, Insightful)

vbraga (228124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282886)

Isn't OpenID a viable solutions? It seems to work for StackOverflow.

OpenID (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283228)

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:#4 Registering for an account (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284456)

On the other hand, I had to sign up for a damned OpenID so I could register for StackOverflow...

Re:#4 Registering for an account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32282958)

That doesn't have anything to do with the lack of registration. It has to do with the lack of a captcha. Registering is for harvesting your personal information to be sold. Captcha is what prevents bots from spamming you. Totally different things. Lots of sites have captchas but no registration process. I even heard of this one called slosh-dot, or was it slush-mot, or slash-got, something like that, that did this very thing.

Too many CAPTCHAs are inaccessible (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283158)

Captcha is what prevents bots from spamming you.

On a lot of sites, it's also what prevents legitimate users from contacting you if they happen to be using a speech browser.

Re:#4 Registering for an account (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283932)

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:#4 Registering for an account (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284262)

You ever try to use a forum that didn't require registration? Within 24 hours, 95% of the posts are spam.

Which is why the gods made reCAPTCHA [recaptcha.net].

Re:#4 Registering for an account (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282780)

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.

Re:#4 Registering for an account (3, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283038)

There is another alternative. It's called OpenID, and it works great. Sites just need to implement it.

Re:#4 Registering for an account (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283466)

Right, I don't have a problem with OpenID. But I see tons of sites pimping the idea that I should log in with my Facebook credentials and relatively few saying "Log in here with OpenID!". A standard that very few people use yet isn't relevant.

Re:#4 Registering for an account (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283244)

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.

I imagine that by "Facebook Connect" the author was implying federated identity systems [wikipedia.org] in general, such as OpenID.

Regarding #4 (1)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282590)

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?

Re:Regarding #4 (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282662)

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:Regarding #4 (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#32282986)

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.

Re:Regarding #4 (1)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283198)

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?

Re:Regarding #4 (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283290)

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

Compromise for anonymous comments (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283376)

Would an appropriate compromise be a blog or forum that allows unregistered users to post comments but delays such comments by at least one business day?

Late _and_ Irrelevant! Win! (1)

Dunx (23729) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282674)

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 ??? (4, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282822)

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.

The Oatmeal are hypocrites (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 3 years ago | (#32282858)

One of the annoying sites they mentioned was having to create an account to do something once, then they linked to a stress relief spiel that made you do just that!

My favorites... (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#32282950)

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.

Subscription sites too (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283292)

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:Subscription sites too (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284196)

Any sound that doesnt come from an explicit play/start/engage/makeitso button. Thou shalt not play audio unbidden!

Autoplay on YouTube video pages (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284430)

Any sound that doesnt come from an explicit play/start/engage/makeitso button.

Say someone copies the play button's URL and pastes it into a link in an HTML document. Does it count as "clicking the play button" if you follow such a link [youtube.com]?

Re:My favorites... (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283846)

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 of your company if you didnt shout it at me or cover up the story I was reading....

Funny site... (4, Interesting)

Arkham (10779) | more than 2 years ago | (#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]

if only we could purge sites (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 2 years ago | (#32282998)

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?

Re:if only we could purge sites (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#32284126)

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't like that idea. :)

Personally, things like Yelp seem to offer a better alternative... sort of allowing [buzzword] crowd-sourcing [/buzzword] to "fix" certain aspects of the Internet while not at all hampering individual people from starting their own thing.

Bad web sites (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283138)

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? (4, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Dating? (2, Insightful)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283996)

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.

Nerdrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32283298)

Incoming nerd rage...

I can think of a ninth (1)

Subm (79417) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283380)

Reading that snarky page, I can think of a ninth type of page that doesn't have to be made.

I guess they disagree, though, because they still made it

Sucky sites (1)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283622)

I totally agree with the TFA poster. Especially all the social networking clones. I got a Myspace account a few years ago because a family member wanted me to see their page, and I could not until I created an account. Have not done anything to it since then. I finally broke down recently and created a Facebook account because all my friends have one. Now it is getting a bit crowded. And I am finding out a lot of stuff I did not want to know. So all the other clones of the social networking sites are completely unnecessary. I liked type #4, the sites where they force you get an account to post a comment on some story you came across, even though you probably will never visit the site again. That is why I have to have a Google document online of my 100 ID's and passwords, because I couldn't remember them without it. Also liked #7. Absolutely HATE sites with flash opening. Some sites are build entirely in Flash. So if you don't have it installed, like on the iPad, you're s**t out of luck.

and no more search engines! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32283672)

Google says we don't need any more search engines either. They've already got our privacy covered.

"Article" writer is an Idiot (2, Insightful)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 2 years ago | (#32283900)

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:"Article" writer is an Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32284016)

For my list of extinct sites, I forgot "live webcam control" and "VRML sites."
--vlueboy

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...