I do agree that the "improved" mockup is easier on the eyes than the current Stack Overflow design, but I'm not convinced that Stack Overflow's success is "desp

I do agree that the "improved" mockup is easier on the eyes than the current Stack Overflow design, but I'm not convinced that Stack Overflow's success is "despite its poor design". Maybe Stack Overflows... umm.. how shall I put this.. distinctive design is actually part of whats made it so successful. I mean, let's face it, when you're googling around and land on a Stack Overflow page, you KNOW you've landed on Stack Overflow, even if you weren't paying attention to the URL. It's look is definitely distinctive and unique. Maybe that's more important than being pretty. It does seem there are a lot of famously ugly sites that are also famously successful (CraigsList, PlentyOfFish, etc) I'm also reminded of the recent HN post about those long ugly salesletter sites, and how they convert much better than attractive web 2.0ish sites. Maybe (for web sites), being pretty isn't all it's cracked up to be?