5 ms·

I'm sure this conversation has been had on news.yc, but how do you account for ugly ass sites like myspace, plenty of fish, and craigslist?

sdurkin 18y ago
Tradeoffs. Pretty has costs, in one form or another, and each of these firms takes these costs into account. The original walkman was ugly as sin, but it was cheap and reliable. Had it been beautiful, it would have been even better, but it couldn't, without costing more.
brlewis 18y ago
Aesthetics speak. Craigslist says "cheap". MySpace says "My parents wouldn't like this place and I can decorate it how I want". I don't know what plentyoffish says.
- dissenter 18y ago
  rationalization / post-hoc. If you were setting out to make the next MySpace or Craigslist, would you consciously decide to make it ugly as a competitive advantage? Ugly designs happen by accident [re: neglect] and in spite of the underlying site's success. By the time the site is successful it's too late/unnecessary to change it.
  - brlewis 18y ago
    I would test different designs to see what gives the best results.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    If you were setting out to make the next MySpace or Craigslist, would you consciously decide to make it ugly as a competitive advantage? Sure. But the word you're looking for is functional, not ugly. The ugliness is just a side effect. Craigslist was criticized for being too plain from the moment it was built. But it's buried a lot of better-Photoshopped competitors.
  - nonrecursive 18y ago
    I disagree. As other's are pointing out, a site's design says a message, and having an ugly design might send the right message. Dove is using this idea in their "Campaign for Natural Beauty" (http://www.dove.us/#/cfrb/ http://www.dove.us/#/cfrb/) . The models aren't ugly, but they also aren't the usual perfect-looking models. When I was in grade school, I remember there were anti-smoking and tobacco posters on the wall of severely aged, sick looking people along with some text about how "chewing cost me my mandible". Those were examples of actual human ugliness, and they worked. So that's all to say, ugly could be part of your message. Which isn't really a novel idea. What's more interesting, in my opinion, is when something seems bad from a usability standpoint and still succeeds. plentyoffish.com fits under this category.
omouse 18y ago
MySpace allows people to customize their profiles and while it may be ugly, it's only because the people who design them don't really know any better. They're still learning how to design.
Herring 18y ago
Myspace actually looks a lot better these days. Almost normal. http://www.myspace.com/ http://www.myspace.com/
mattmaroon 18y ago
All three of those are about the network effect. People will choose the site that most people are at. Facebook has made serious inroads largely due to better design (in terms of aesthetics and usability) than myspace. Plentyoffish, craigslist, and Wikipedia are ugly ass sites that seem pretty much unassailable though.

sdurkin 18y ago

Tradeoffs. Pretty has costs, in one form or another, and each of these firms takes these costs into account. The original walkman was ugly as sin, but it was cheap and reliable. Had it been beautiful, it would have been even better, but it couldn't, without costing more.

brlewis 18y ago

Aesthetics speak. Craigslist says "cheap". MySpace says "My parents wouldn't like this place and I can decorate it how I want". I don't know what plentyoffish says.

dissenter 18y ago
rationalization / post-hoc. If you were setting out to make the next MySpace or Craigslist, would you consciously decide to make it ugly as a competitive advantage? Ugly designs happen by accident [re: neglect] and in spite of the underlying site's success. By the time the site is successful it's too late/unnecessary to change it.
- brlewis 18y ago
  I would test different designs to see what gives the best results.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  If you were setting out to make the next MySpace or Craigslist, would you consciously decide to make it ugly as a competitive advantage? Sure. But the word you're looking for is functional, not ugly. The ugliness is just a side effect. Craigslist was criticized for being too plain from the moment it was built. But it's buried a lot of better-Photoshopped competitors.
- nonrecursive 18y ago
  I disagree. As other's are pointing out, a site's design says a message, and having an ugly design might send the right message. Dove is using this idea in their "Campaign for Natural Beauty" (http://www.dove.us/#/cfrb/ http://www.dove.us/#/cfrb/) . The models aren't ugly, but they also aren't the usual perfect-looking models. When I was in grade school, I remember there were anti-smoking and tobacco posters on the wall of severely aged, sick looking people along with some text about how "chewing cost me my mandible". Those were examples of actual human ugliness, and they worked. So that's all to say, ugly could be part of your message. Which isn't really a novel idea. What's more interesting, in my opinion, is when something seems bad from a usability standpoint and still succeeds. plentyoffish.com fits under this category.

omouse 18y ago

MySpace allows people to customize their profiles and while it may be ugly, it's only because the people who design them don't really know any better. They're still learning how to design.

Herring 18y ago

Myspace actually looks a lot better these days. Almost normal. http://www.myspace.com/ http://www.myspace.com/

mattmaroon 18y ago

All three of those are about the network effect. People will choose the site that most people are at. Facebook has made serious inroads largely due to better design (in terms of aesthetics and usability) than myspace. Plentyoffish, craigslist, and Wikipedia are ugly ass sites that seem pretty much unassailable though.