This Salon article on the state of web sites aimed at women asks some interesting questions. Women-centric sites set out in 1997 and 1998 to start a revolution, and instead we have relationship quizzes, diet plans, TV reviews, and horoscopes. What went wrong? Are women
really interested in these things? Did the sites start out edgy and adapt to the audience? Would anyone expect online magazine/lifestyle properties to be much different than their offline counterparts? I also wonder what anyone that has ever seen and/or used
iVilliage,
Oxygen, and
Women.com think of each site's content? Is it enlightening, or pure fluff?
posted by mathowie
on Aug 31, 2000 -
12 comments
Scary calculation of the day: I spend about $750/mo. on rent in LA, and while I was checking the price range on
apartments in San Francisco, what I wanted was about $2500 per month. So in LA, I spend $9,000 per year on rent (actually it's half that, since I split it with my girlfriend), but in SF, it'd be $30,000 (!!!). For that cost, I could pay for a house in just a handful of years in any other state.
Maybe Salon is right, or
maybe they aren't.
posted by mathowie
on Mar 6, 2000 -
18 comments
Salon is running a piece on how the internet has ruined San Francisco. I have to say I agree 100%. I've lived in Southern California all my life and S.F. has historically been a much cooler, mellower place that I looked forward to visiting. But over the past couple of years, I've found myself travelling up there once every couple months, and every time I go it's busier, more crowded, and everyone is in a bigger hurry. For me, the mystique of S.F. is totally gone. The dotcom riches have ruined the place. [found at
Camworld]
posted by mathowie
on Oct 28, 1999 -
0 comments
