Comments on: Bestest best of the web?

Bestest best of the web?

feelinglistless — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:07:58 -0800

This Observer piece lists fifteen websites that aught to be considered the best of the web. It's a bold claim and although the potted histories are excellent, I'm wondering the extent to which it mostly includes website that have broken the public recognition barrier in the uk rather than changing the world. How many are simply pioneers in their field? Where for example is flickr?

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:10:39 -0800

I guess listing both flickr AND youtube would be a little redundant.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:13:30 -0800

I've never even heard of friendsreunited.com and easyjet.com.

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:15:36 -0800

Let me say it just once for all of us, and we'll have this part of the discussion out of the way. "Why isn't (fill in the blank) listed? This list sucks!"

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:25:34 -0800

"aught"?

By: justkevin

justkevin — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:31:28 -0800

I haven't heard of friendsreunited either. Easyjet is a European thing, which makes sense given the list's origin. I'm surprised mapquest didn't make the list. I no longer know how to get from point A to B without using the web.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:31:51 -0800

jonson : "'aught'?" It seems like a fair list, but I agree that they ought not write about things that haven't aught to do with changing the world.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:32:24 -0800

Faint of Butt - It's a British newspaper, hence the list leans towards British sites. That said Easyjet pretty much invented the low-cost internet-mediated air travel business.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:37:35 -0800

This is a silly fluff piece just like all the other silly bits of fluff that mainstream media cranks out by the barge-load, and it makes the mistakes typical of such pieces. I mean, listing Napster as a website? C'mon.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:39:30 -0800

www.linux.org www.microsoft.com most of us wouldn't even be ON the web without those two ...

By: euphorb

euphorb — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:48:10 -0800

Napster wasn't a website.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:48:23 -0800

Jonson: "Aught"

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:49:21 -0800

Oh ought ...

By: homodigitalis

homodigitalis — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:50:32 -0800

Project Gutenberg? One of the first collective efforts to start knowledge repository. As well as Archive.org?!?!

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:58:41 -0800

I love how they use wikipedia.com instead of wikipedia.org. And I'll rephrase pyramid termite's comment as "napster is software, not a site." Might be best to arrange by "site types" with a first major & best now, i.e. yahooo & google.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:03:05 -0800

Not a bad list really, some sites I'd never heard of but that's to be expected. And, of course, there are a bunch of sites that I think could have been added in place of others. But I think they hit it decently well, I'll give them a B, maybe a B- for having Drudge in there.

By: Mocata

Mocata — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:10:31 -0800

I've never even heard of friendsreunited.com !!!

By: jsavimbi

jsavimbi — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:14:25 -0800

The easiest way to right this article would've been to post the top fifteen overall: Alexa's Top 500 Plus, this list sucks because it disn't inlude Keith & The Girl

By: scheptech

scheptech — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:14:39 -0800

The reason the Guardian/Observer fails to include modern conveniences such as screenshots or "hyperlinks" is what?

By: Orange Goblin

Orange Goblin — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:20:17 -0800

Because it is a reprint of a newspaper article?

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:20:22 -0800

Because it's print content repurposed via an automated process?

By: wfc123

wfc123 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:28:19 -0800

Huh? Where's Live Score? An definate essential.

By: Kickstart70

Kickstart70 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:35:51 -0800

Slashdot, with its limited-genre audience, does not deserve to be listed there. Realistically, its world-changing effects are really limited. linkedin.com, as the first major networking site? alibaba.com?

By: scheptech

scheptech — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:37:10 -0800

Because it's print content repurposed via an automated process? Well, good call but I find it grumpifiying to read a web article about the web highlighting the most important web sites on the web that doesn't utilize the fundamental element of the web to help navigate the web and see what web sites the web article is referring to.

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:40:02 -0800

The easiest way to right this article right?? Okay, I'm done.

By: davehat

davehat — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:55:08 -0800

The reason the Guardian/Observer fails to include modern conveniences such as screenshots or "hyperlinks" is what? Because its made out of newspaper?

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:58:49 -0800

Irregardless, it has the rite to right they're list about sites whom aught to have changed the werld, but instead effected ought. Am I rite?

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:00:16 -0800

It seemed skewed to me when Google wasn't at the top of the list and YouTube was #4. and I never look at DrudgeReport. But it was interesting to see what was considered tops in Britain or in a Brit newspaper. Friends Reunited is an awesome site for the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa & neighbouring states, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. We really ought to have something comparable to this in the USA. Classmates.com doesn't come close. KidsCamp.com reunion page is fun, found some ancient friends again. For example on FriendsReunited one can look up the street where one lived, old jobs one worked at, teams or clubs one was in, any level of school or the armed forces. It's nicely organised.

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:05:53 -0800

Because its made out of newspaper? I sure hope it's not enormous amounts of paper, enormous amounts of paper. Might clog something.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:05:58 -0800

davehat writes "Because its made out of newspaper?" What I just read was most definitely not made of newspaper: it was made of HTML. Poorly made, at that.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:09:39 -0800

jonson : "right?? Okay, I'm done." No, "right" may be correct there. "To correct, to fix". Like "we must right our wrongs". Hence, "The easiest way to right this article" possibly meaning "The easiest way to correct what is wrong with this article" (though, I will admit, posting the top Alexa hits seems less like "righting" the article than "completely changing it", so maybe he really did mean "write"). I've never even heard of friendsreunited.com Mocata : "!!!" I hadn't either. And I knew easyjet.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:18:59 -0800

Woah! SlashDot's on the list but MetaFilter isn't? WHAT. THE. FUCK. MATT????

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:24:00 -0800

www.linux.org www.microsoft.com most of us wouldn't even be ON the web without those two ... posted by pyramid termite at 9:39 AM PST If neither existed, no biggy. So long as www.freebsd.org exists, the internet will continue.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:29:28 -0800

Where for example is flickr? Apart from for a few hipsters, flickr hasn't really changed anything. It made it marginally easier to put photos online, and it's a cool site, but it's had none of the impact of YouTube.

By: chasing

chasing — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:33:29 -0800

Technically speaking, hasn't every site that's gone up changed the world in some small way?

By: zouhair

zouhair — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:34:32 -0800

pirates

By: macdara

macdara — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:43:05 -0800

What I just read was most definitely not made of newspaper: it was made of HTML. Poorly made, at that. In their defence, they're using an ancient CMS and are tied to a shovelwear approach to the content because that's how the press (and the media in general) first approached the web back the day when most people didn't 'get' it. I'm sure they wouldn't be averse to change, but change costs time and money (new CMS, new standards and practices, etc). On the other hand, they do owe it to their web audience (which is very substantial) to improve the experience -- inline links and semantic URLs, for instance, would be a great start -- so criticism is fair enough.

By: Tube

Tube — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:43:25 -0800

Friendsreunited.com? No. Goatse.cx? Yes.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:43:34 -0800

Where for example is flickr? Er, it's mentioned in the piece you link to. And what cillit bang said. (Not that I don't think Flickr is great - it's the only website I've ever payed to use.)

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:01:31 -0800

Flickr is the Apple Mac of the Web 2.0 world: Anyone who's used it becomes so obnoxiously obsessed with it that everyone else just wants to throw rocks at them.

By: jkafka

jkafka — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:14:52 -0800

I believe del.icio.us should be on this list. That site has certainly changed my world much more than genre sites like the Drudge Report and SlashDot.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:17:26 -0800

6. friendsreunited.com I've never even heard of this site. Must be a British thing. 11. salon.com These guys are still around? 14. yahoo.com Why do people still care about Yahoo? Oh yeah, they bought a bunch of companies, didn't they? 15. easyjet.com Again, must be a British thing.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:19:20 -0800

Artw : "Flickr is the Apple Mac of the Web 2.0 world: Anyone who's used it becomes so obnoxiously obsessed with it that everyone else just wants to throw rocks at them." As a non-Flickr user, I can totally agree with that. I have nothing against Flickr, but will the rest of you please stop going on and on about it!!

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:27:10 -0800

(Not that I don't think Flickr is great - it's the only website I've ever payed to use.) How'd you post, then?

By: mkultra

mkultra — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:33:35 -0800

By: mkultra

mkultra — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:36:08 -0800

owhydididoit- Registration here used to be free, before Matt's bills got too high.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:39:21 -0800

friendsreunited.com: Yes, because it's a popular British site. drudgereport.com: Yes, because it's a popular site, period. But wait a minute, is Drudge really all that popular in the UK? Who exactly is this article written for?

By: mojohand

mojohand — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:01:58 -0800

Salon? Check, please!

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:02:00 -0800

Addendum to mkultra's comment: Paid registration started in November 2004. Anyone who has been a member since before that has paid no money.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:02:57 -0800

Er, well, they may well have voluntarily donated money. So I should probably say "has not necessarily paid any money" instead of "has paid no money".

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:03:44 -0800

To be honest I don't think Drudge is that popular in the UK. Sometimes it'll warrant a mention in The Guardian but I think only time anyone has heard it 'over here' is referenced on The West Wing.

By: First Post

First Post — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:21:07 -0800

We really ought to have something comparable to this in the USA It's one of the things people use Myspace for, since you can list your schools. This list sucks, however, because it does not list Zombo.com. I mean c'mon, you can do anything at Zombo.com! The only limit is yourself.

By: criticalbill

criticalbill — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:30:21 -0800

I think Drudge is only mentioned because of Monicagate.

By: metaxa

metaxa — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:31:24 -0800

I'm British, and have been using them thar intarweb since 1997 and I can honestly say that I'd never even heard of drudgereport.com until recently. I've never visited it. It's an odd list, this - far from UK-centric. Craigslist, for example, has a single 'London' site. And Salon.com is hardly a site that most UK users will have ever heard of. Easyjet deserve to be on there. They did kinda invent low-cost, no-frills online air travel. Just because you didn't know about it in Hicksville, Nebraska doesn't mean it didn't happen. Ask again in 2 years - I very much doubt that YouTube and MySpace will be on this list...

By: Zinger

Zinger — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:43:59 -0800

6. friendsreunited.com I've never even heard of this site. Must be a British thing. Think classmates.com for Brits only much better execution, and far less annoying advertising.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:17:34 -0800

NAPSTER WASN'T A WEBSITE God damnit.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:01:27 -0800

linux.com www.microsoft.com most of us wouldn't even be ON the web without those two ... I owe my internet access to Adam C. Engst's Internet Starter Kit for Macintosh. (1st Edition.) The TCP/IP stack direct from Apple cost $100 or something but you could get it free with this $30 book. Of course, the web barely existed back then, (pre-Mosaic) and linux wasn't much more than a mere kernel.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:01:24 -0800

Yeah. Napster certainly changed the world, but if you're going to put dwn the website you might as well list Mozilla as well. Whatever. It's a fluff piece. Still, I'd like to see an article on 15 popular websites which have done nothing at all to change the world, from hamsterdance to kittenwar. That would be entertaining journalism.

By: bobo123

bobo123 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:07:26 -0800

I believe del.icio.us should be on this list. That site has certainly changed my world much more than genre sites like the Drudge Report and SlashDot. One of the great things about del.icio.us, flickr and gmail, is how they've done a great job of promoting tags as a way of organizing data. I think they're impact would be greater felt once aspects of how they work are incorporated into more software applications. I'd much rather Firefox would ask or suggest what tags I wanted to use for a bookmark rather than the current file/folder method. It's funny how so many web applications are easier use and have better interfaces than commercial software. Ask again in 2 years - I very much doubt that YouTube and MySpace will be on this list... Probable, remember how broadcast.com and friendster used to be huge?

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:13:53 -0800

I give easyJet four and half thumbs up.

By: Artw

Artw — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:49:15 -0800

One of the great things about del.icio.us, flickr and gmail, is how they've done a great job of promoting tags as a way of organizing data. Oh, you mean keywords?

By: thedailygrowl

thedailygrowl — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:47:19 -0800

And they missed the most "worldchanging" of them all www.worldchanging.com and how could they overlook www.mytrailerpark.com

By: bobo123

bobo123 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:49:33 -0800

Oh, you mean keywords? Well tag is the teminology used by del.icio.us and flickr (gmail uses the term labels), I think the word tag is used because the word keyword sometimes implies a 1:1 relationship between the keyword and data (AOL keywords) or a type of metadata that is embedded within a file, even though I often see terms used interchangably (even on flickr). Tag seems to be used when something is being categorized (although the term catergory implies a hierarchy) rather than something that is of the file or data itself.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:29:57 -0800

Irregardless,Irregardless is not a word! What a bad non-word OF A word it is (not). !

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:30:45 -0800

Disregard the title link.

By: rob511

rob511 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:02:42 -0800

I see that, as usual, avoiding mention is the one site destined to rule them all — at once insidious, powerful, and well-nigh impossible to resist. What is this veritable black hole of bits 'n' bytes, mere mention of which reduces stalwart adults to drooling blobs of gibberish? Click ... if you dare.

By: missbossy

missbossy — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:38:36 -0800

Geocities, Hotmail ...? or are we only talking the last five years of "Sites that renewed your faith after you lost your shirt in the dotcom bust."

By: simra

simra — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:29:13 -0800

I'd drop blogger and youtube and replace them with jennicam. She started it all. (on second thought, maybe alt.binaries.pictures.*) My personal claim to fame is a slashot uid less than 5000.

By: simra

simra — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:30:02 -0800

umm... I mean slashdot, no offense to slashot.

By: TimTypeZed

TimTypeZed — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:38:14 -0800

Was Blogger that influential in a way besides the term "blogger" gaining currency five years later? And was that because of the site "Blogger" or because some (usually right-wing) influential political commentators began referring to themselves as bloggers, whether they used Blogger or not, thus encouraging CNN to start using the word in every third story? Blogger had been a company that let go of all of its employees, whose founder was bitterly busying himself writing a blog called "The End of Free", when Google purchased it and turned it into a free hosting site with well-designed templates. Does that right-click functionality that allowed you to post commentary with links to the sites you were viewing, to actually web log, exist with blogger anymore? Does Blogger as it exists now differ that much from Diaryland?