April 13, 2003 1:22 AM   Subscribe

No Webby for Meta. 2003 Webby Awards Announced. Does anyone still care?
posted by The Jesse Helms (22 comments total)
The Jesse Helms: the thing is fixed, clearly. Still, it's fun to check the nominees and go "Bah!". Instant reconfirmation of all one's worst prejudices available within a click!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:31 AM on April 13, 2003

In response to your query: I'm not sure anyone ever did.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:36 AM on April 13, 2003

If you care about who won a Webby, I guess it's okay for the blue; but if you mainly want to talk about MeFi winning or not winning, or not caring, (which seems to be the subject of your post) perhaps this would be better posted in MetaTalk.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:47 AM on April 13, 2003

what the hell is up with using javascript popup windows for the links! Havn't these people ever heard of base_target="_new" or whatever? ARG! It's really irritating, because java popups lock up my browser untill they open.

also, why is australia the epitome of low bandwidth on this page?
posted by delmoi at 1:50 AM on April 13, 2003

Also, that means you can only view the nominees one at a time (at least, that's all I can), which is equally frustrating!
posted by Andrea at 2:10 AM on April 13, 2003

Java != JavaScript, you philistine.
posted by spazzm at 2:20 AM on April 13, 2003

I dunno, I thought this site was pretty badass...
posted by cohappy at 2:54 AM on April 13, 2003

joel veitch for webby!
posted by arf at 3:36 AM on April 13, 2003

I'd say get your war on deserves whatever recognition it can get.
posted by john m at 7:58 AM on April 13, 2003

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with
the World Wide Web Beauty Pageant.
Oh wait. They already did.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:43 AM on April 13, 2003

Not that it matters much, but those were the nominees. The winners haven't been announced yet.

If anyone does care, you can always nominate MeFi in the People's Ch--er, the People's Voice category.
posted by O9scar at 10:19 AM on April 13, 2003

Aw yeah. Get Your War On rocks.
posted by squirrel at 10:36 AM on April 13, 2003

When I saw that cockeyed.com was nominated I thought for a brief instant that it might have been jonmc's blog. But then, disappointment.

I don't know that metafilter should even get a nomination. I assume it would be in the "best community" category, but we're not a new site, and no unusual strides have been made in the last year that made us more of a community. Some would argue the community suffered during at least most of last year, but that's beside the point. Certainly sites like geocaching.com deserve it more than we do anyway.

And anyway, it's absurd to give awards for web sites, since the internet is really too big to be carefully considered like that. For every site that gets nominated there are probably 100 others that equally deserve to be, but that the set of people who do the nominating don't happen to know about -- and who could blame them for it?
posted by Hildago at 12:58 PM on April 13, 2003

Does anyone still care?


Hey, he did ask! :-)
posted by rusty at 1:30 PM on April 13, 2003

I was one of the nominating judges for the Webbys last year, and I did nominate MeFi, for the record. It's not "fixed."
posted by digaman at 2:04 PM on April 13, 2003

ok, it's not fixed. it's a wankfest.
posted by quonsar at 2:55 PM on April 13, 2003

The whole idea seems daft.
the five best Web sites in 30 categories

How can anyone suppose they can determine, with any meaningful accuracy, so few best sites from the millions on the web. Do they look at them all? A quick glance down the list suggests a very US-centric selection, for a start.

How is this anything but an excuse for a self-congratulatory party thrown by a particular media clique? (not suggesting that's a bad thing necessarily, just that it seems remarkably self-important).

...erm... I'm stating the obvious, huh?
posted by normy at 3:54 PM on April 13, 2003

a self-congratulatory party thrown by a particular media clique?

The same could be said of any peer-reviewed awards ceremony. The Webby people have put a tremendous amount of effort into promoting excellence in the medium, and boosting mainstream interest in the expressive, artistic, community-oriented, change-the-world potentials of the medium, and they were doing it when a lot of people thought the Web was a dorky nothing.

They deserve props in my opinion, not those so easy-to-take potshots.
posted by digaman at 5:00 PM on April 13, 2003

By the way, while I agree with normy's critique that "the best five" websites in some category is apt to be a very inadequate reflection of the diversity of sites out there, the same could be said of every "ten best records of the year" list -- "So, Mr. Music Pundit, you heard every record released in India and Africa last year, and this White Stripes shit is really better than all of those records?"

Like, well, no, it probably isn't. But I still enjoy reading such lists, because I get turned on to good things I wouldn't have known about otherwise. The same thing happens whenever I look at the Webby lists.
posted by digaman at 5:05 PM on April 13, 2003

The same could be said of any peer-reviewed awards ceremony.

Sure, I agree, it could, up to a point, but beyond a basic quality barrier for entry, these things always reflect fashion, connections and who or whatever has been particularly well promoted, rather than some absolute measure of worth. But most awards bodies and ceremonies seem to have a little more focus than "the Web"; book awards pick a genre; film festivals feature independants, new talent or the box-office mainstream; similarly, music awards generally have some kind of readily understandable angle.

The Webby people have put a tremendous amount of effort into promoting excellence in the medium

Maybe, I wouldn't know, but are you suggesting that in some way a portion of the excellent sites out there wouldn't have happened without the Webbys? That they really have that level of importance? That great web content and development is partly inspired by ambition to win a Webby, rather than the personal and collective vision of individuals and organisations who see the web as an opportunity to share their information and perspective? I find that hard to believe.

easy-to-take potshots

Of course. But at least in part the Webbys do appear to ask for it through their own promotional pomp. Why not just say its a fun party and a chance for an arbitrary bunch of folks to give their friends and idols a slap on the back. As most awards ceremonies appear to be. Nothing wrong with that.
posted by normy at 8:26 PM on April 13, 2003

a chance for an arbitrary bunch of folks to give their friends and idols a slap on the back

I guess they're "arbitrary." In 2000 alone, David Bowie was a final judge of music sites, Nadine Strossen -- the president of the ACLU -- was a final judge of politics and law sites, and Matt Groening and Scott Adams were final judges of humor sites; it's not just a bunch of south-of-Market scenesters sitting around giving awards to their friends.

The stylishness of the event is part of the joke.
posted by digaman at 8:48 PM on April 13, 2003

posted by atbash at 7:10 AM on April 14, 2003

« Older Can You Feel The Lurve In This Room?   |   Barefoot Gen Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments