andrea wrote:

Doc type and declaration tags are similar to a "handshake". It's like an introduction between your site and the SE's. By declaring the format you were attempting to use (i.e. html 4.01 transitional is an example) the search engines can then know how to read / interpret your code.

Well stated Andrea.  I thought I would add something here, though - the Doctype is primarily for browsers and anything that is going to interpret your code . As mutilated pointed out in another thread, the doctype is a declaration that you are going to follow a certain set of rules that has been put forward by the W3C.  Browsers and any other program that reads code now knows that it is supposed to expect.

Thanks - I think that validation of code is a whole other topic - but on the same thread, it does speak to the pretty vs. ugly topic...

We have two distinct visitor channels: [a] our customers/visitors and [b] the search engines. Where one channel is clearly open to human, emotional interpretation, the other is not. So that's where we have to decide how closely we should be following the rules and best practices.

Let me know when that thread goes up ! This one is great and I'm so glad I found this site

Well, this whole topic is inspiring me to do some research for an article.  Don't know if there will be one, but if there is, I'll be sure to start a thread.

Ok, lets analyse this. We all realise that these ugly websites are simple and to the point. Secondly, they make money from google, not from their own products. Third they offer their services free of charge.

Comes down to what has been spoken on this forum sometime ago, content. These sites have very popular and needed content. I mean, they server the desperate, the lonely, the good, the bad, the players, the serious, men, women I mean, their content is so diverse they manage to attract a very huge audience.

Have you seen the adsense topics on the sites, all men's dreams e.g 'delivering the best punch (start) lines', e.t.c. Who doesn't want to know those?

Conclusion: If you start a  site with very popular mysterious topic that everybody needs, you instantly get traffic.

I disagree that it's the ugliness of a web site that makes it attractive. There is however a lesson here that as ever, content is king (or functionality is king depending on what the site is supposed to do). A slick looking web site is useless unless it performs its task and there are as many over-designed sites as there are usless sites.

I think that point is, and was probably made in the article, that designers shouldn't take their eye off the ball - to make the web site work. Conversion is what it's all about.

As far as ugly web sites are concerned - in most cases how much better these sites would perform is they just looked a little better. With my customer (rather than web designer hat on), I've often steared away from sites that are ugly when issues of trust are involved. I don't like handing over my credit card number to a site that looks like it was built in a back bedroom using FrontPage.

PS: New to this site. Hello.

it seems also that Google likes ugliness

see results for site:plentyoffish.com   search :

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … gle+Search

4,180,000

and for site:meetic.com (Meetic is the first dating site in Europe)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … tnG=Search

18,600


Pierre

Couldn't it just be the less code the spider has to crawl through the better the site gets indexed? You can make a lovely site with all kinds of bells and whistles, but I think it slows the spider down (which can't make heads or tails out of it anyway). On the other hand if you feed the spider what it likes (content) from a fast loading page -  it's gonna gobble it up and come back for more. Search spiders don't care and can't see how pretty your site is. They're not impressed with java scripts, flash, colors, pictures, embedded sounds and animated images. So far this test confirms that less is more.

I think there are two main website features that show through in this article:
1 - Content is King. If you have the specific content people want, they will come. If your site is pretty but no content, so what? You may get some visitors, but they won't come back because you don't have the content that they were looking for. I say specific content because you can have the content, but if it is the exact same thing that can be found on hundreds of other websites, you need to have something additional that users will want to come to your site instead. For example, you can have a game review website that just has a paragraph or two of each game reviewed; or you could have categories and do a detailed review of the games performance in those categories, a way for users to comment on those reviews, links to buy the game, etc.
2- Simplicity Rules. What good is having content if no one can find it because your site is too difficult to navigate?  A lot of fancy graphics and animation may make your site look better, but if it inhibits the functionality of your site then it isn't being effective. I'm all for constructive critisism, but I was on a website review site once, and someone gave me a negative comment that my site was "too simple." Personally, that's a compliment--especially if your target audience is an older demographic.

What good is having content if no one can find it because your site is too difficult to navigate?  A lot of fancy graphics and animation may make your site look better, but if it inhibits the functionality of your site then it isn't being effective.

Hi - I hear what you're saying - but do you agree that a "good" design doesn't mean that it's full of non-functional animation, graphics etc.?

Good design doesn't equal a "more is more" approach. My favourite sites are those which take a "less is more" approach. The design should be like a a picture frame: only to "hold" and present your content. It shouldn't detract from the content (i.e. the non-functional animation, heavy graphics, etc).

my 2 cents from a designer/webmaster who doesn't believe in "over design"

andrea wrote:

Good design doesn't equal a "more is more" approach. My favourite sites are those which take a "less is more" approach. The design should be like a a picture frame: only to "hold" and present your content. It shouldn't detract from the content (i.e. the non-functional animation, heavy graphics, etc).

I agree completely. But unfortunately how many sites exist with an over use of flash animation--so much so that the site becomes an advertisement for Macromedia/Adobe instead of the content the site is supposed to represent.

Too many

To be fair, I think a lot of people get seduced by the flash (literally) and feel that it will make them look more professional to have a lot of bells and whistles. Alas, personal taste... isnt' that what this post is all about? Who is the arbiter of good taste?

I'm not trying to knock flash-I just feel (my personal taste) that it has its place in site design and can be a worthwhile tool to making a good-looking site, but unfortunately can easily be overused. I give my thanks to the fine developers of Flash and how they made it real easy to do some cool things.
Ron

As an owner of an "ugly" site, I have to interject here. While I hold valid both arguements of "eye-appeal" as well as "content-rich" design, I feel too many sites forget precisely what they are targeting for, with the result that the message is lost in the media. As an example, I own a driving school in California. People do not WANT to spend money with me, but they are forced to spend money with SOMEONE, due to the laws governing minors and driver licenses. I am, therefore, a "necessary evil". Each day, I have to ask myself: "Why should they spend money with ME, instead of the 20-odd competitor schools in my city?" My website is designed for just that purpose; to simplify the understanding of the convoluted laws, make navigation easy, keep the information at a 9th-grade educational level, and try to pre-answer, on the site, questions that might be asked over a phone. The "ugly" truth is that, quite often, the KISS (Keep It Simple and Short) philosophy is much better than eye-popping SWF files, animated menus, and distractive elements (Man, I hate those mouse-trails on some sites!...sorry...had to gripe about that!). And may I add, that is one thing I would like to see, when it comes to advice columns; many of us are fighting for localized (within a 60-mile radius) attention, and not national recognition. This is an even harder battle to fight, since there are fewer "targets", and more "enemies" right outside my gates!

Glenard A. Munson

Glenard-
It sounds like you know what your target audience is and give them what they need--which is what you're supposed to do with website design.

Agree with RKStevens - you seem to be delivering what is needed.

Side note... I'm not advocating the use of Flash. It can have a functional use where needed.
But I wouldn't add it "just because" I can. As for those annoying gimmicks like mouse trails and other blinking stuff... you'll never find it on any of my sites

By coincidence, last week I added an article to my "marketing tips" web site that deals with this same topic. It's not so much "ugliness" per se that I dislike. It's lack of functionality of the type that distracts visitors. A site should be simple to navigate and should guide or even tell the visitor what path to follow. If you confuse him/her with too much choice, he may go away without clicking on anything! See my thoughts here:

http://www.marketingtips.uk.com/hate_sidebars.html
(I'm not selling anything and I don't want a review. It's just an Adsense site).

Oh, and my introduction is here:
http://forums.site-reference.com/topic/ … ngland-UK/
This is only my second post here but I'm no spring chicken (age 55)

Martin

I run a site that on its two main key phrases has a #2 or #3 slot on Google. I am beaten to #1 consistently by a site that to me is my worst nightmare of design.  Lesson; Google (or any other SE) is blind to design.

The best analogy to the "ugly site" question is the bargain shop.  Universally, without fail, there is a link in the mind between appearance and cost.  It applies to both premises and goods - fundementally people expect goods in minimal, tacky packaging sold in a shop with decor mainly in primary colours and with no concession to customer comfort to be cheap.  Vice Versa goods sold in a shop with polished wood and chrome, thick silent carpets, discreet staff etc is expected to be expensive.  This is almost always true - first impressions count.

Why do people in the UK buy The Sun newspaper?  Compared to The Times, Guardian etc it is severely lacking in style and content, but it is very popular among people who find large font, short words, tabloid style (and the half naked bird on page 3) to their liking.  If The Sun covered world news in more depth than the latest soap gossip and had long editorials on weighty subjects it would (arguably) be a "better" newspaper, but it would also be a lot less popular.

The bottom line I feel is that it is easy to think in web design that cutting edge graphics, slick code and the latest multi-media is the "must have".  In truth a successful web site must offer what its customers expect.  If the customers "expect" cheap and tacky and you provide slick and flash, expect them to go elsewhere.

Beauty, as it ever was, is in the eyes of the beholder....