4 ms·

Nice article about webrings, which I had forgotten about. Thank you. One quibble: “Websites were difficult to build” — I have to disagree. Websites were far far

Nice article about webrings, which I had forgotten about. Thank you. One quibble: “Websites were difficult to build” — I have to disagree. Websites were far far easier to build then.

Waterluvian 4y ago
Indeed. If it wasn’t impossible, it was probably easy. Because there was just so little to it back then. The good news is that it’s just as easy today to make those simple websites.
brigandish 4y ago
If anything, the tools that were built to deal with problems extant at the time only allowed the building of more complicated websites - or, all too often, not more complicated websites but built in more complicated ways.
- jxf 4y ago
  See: Microsoft Frontpage, Dreamweaver, etc.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    The heap of spaghetti these apps would pump out to create a webpage is similar to the endless layers of divs I see when I look at React generated source. Plus ça change.
gog 4y ago
They are still easy to build if you want to build the same site you would be building back then.
- blooalien 4y ago
  In some ways they're even easier to build than they were back then if you use the right tools. Some static website generators these days are ridiculously simple to get started with and can get you rolling pretty darn fast with a quite professional looking and easy to self-host web site (or VPS host, or other site hosting method). The hard part of it all is writing content folks will want to read. Best if folks do what they did back then and write content about things you're passionate about. If it excites you to write about it, that excitement will often be "contagious" to others of similar mindset and interests.
notatoad 4y ago
Eh, i guess if you had a basic level of ability and knowledge of not just HTML, but also the ability to upload files over FTP, register a domain, set up the DNS records to point your domain to your host. but most of the people building wix or squarespace (or whatever all the youtuber and podcasters are promoting this week), they don't have that knowledge and don't necessarily want to learn it. easier for you doesn't mean easier for everybody.
- Zak 4y ago
  Geocities and the like had ways to put up a website without much expertise by the late 1990s. Many ISPs included personal web hosting with their internet access service at the time as well, which usually did require a slightly higher level of knowledge, but not that high. Netscape had a point and click page editor by 1997.
pm24601 4y ago
true! in part the expectation for what was a quality webpage was lower. remember how crude the yahoo home page was!
jxf 4y ago
Websites were simpler to build. They were not necessarily easier to build or maintain.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  The static aspect of most page and the low expectation / forgiving users made it easier for hobby site.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  How were they simpler?
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    $EDITOR index.html
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      What's stopping you doing that in 2022? That's how I wrote my homepage https://lewiscampbell.tech https://lewiscampbell.tech
      - arealaccount 4y ago
        Seriously? Your home page clearly uses CSS and judging by how it jerks around when I scroll there is plenty of JS too.
        detaro 4y ago
        > Your home page clearly uses CSS where did they claim they didnt use CSS? CSS can be handwritten too. > and judging by how it jerks around when I scroll there is plenty of JS too. Maybe be less judgemental and more looking at facts then, because there isn't.
        arealaccount 4y ago
ReactiveJelly 4y ago
I have to disagree. Using the dev tools in Firefox and Chromium is way easier than fiddling in Notepad and constantly reloading.
bnralt 4y ago
Yeah, I remember ~2000 or so it seemed like a lot of non-techie people were creating their own personal site on Geocities/Angelfire/etc. In high schools lots of teenagers (again, including non-techie folk) had their own web pages. What was nice is that more thought went into it, since it was basically a blank canvas. There also was a focus on quality over quantity - your website was something you continually grew and improved. Modern content is something you churn out and forget about immediately after. But as easier options became available, those sites disappeared. First blogs came along, which were more structured. And modern social media is even more structured as well. We went from a single blank canvas you could spend hours tinkering with to a coloring book page you're given for sixty seconds before it gets thrown away and you're given the next one.

Nice article about webrings, which I had forgotten about. Thank you. One quibble: “Websites were difficult to build” — I have to disagree. Websites were far far easier to build then.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Indeed. If it wasn’t impossible, it was probably easy. Because there was just so little to it back then. The good news is that it’s just as easy today to make those simple websites.

brigandish 4y ago

If anything, the tools that were built to deal with problems extant at the time only allowed the building of more complicated websites - or, all too often, not more complicated websites but built in more complicated ways.

jxf 4y ago
See: Microsoft Frontpage, Dreamweaver, etc.
- brigandish 4y ago
  The heap of spaghetti these apps would pump out to create a webpage is similar to the endless layers of divs I see when I look at React generated source. Plus ça change.

gog 4y ago

They are still easy to build if you want to build the same site you would be building back then.

blooalien 4y ago
In some ways they're even easier to build than they were back then if you use the right tools. Some static website generators these days are ridiculously simple to get started with and can get you rolling pretty darn fast with a quite professional looking and easy to self-host web site (or VPS host, or other site hosting method). The hard part of it all is writing content folks will want to read. Best if folks do what they did back then and write content about things you're passionate about. If it excites you to write about it, that excitement will often be "contagious" to others of similar mindset and interests.

notatoad 4y ago

Eh, i guess if you had a basic level of ability and knowledge of not just HTML, but also the ability to upload files over FTP, register a domain, set up the DNS records to point your domain to your host. but most of the people building wix or squarespace (or whatever all the youtuber and podcasters are promoting this week), they don't have that knowledge and don't necessarily want to learn it. easier for you doesn't mean easier for everybody.

Zak 4y ago
Geocities and the like had ways to put up a website without much expertise by the late 1990s. Many ISPs included personal web hosting with their internet access service at the time as well, which usually did require a slightly higher level of knowledge, but not that high. Netscape had a point and click page editor by 1997.

pm24601 4y ago

true! in part the expectation for what was a quality webpage was lower. remember how crude the yahoo home page was!

jxf 4y ago

Websites were simpler to build. They were not necessarily easier to build or maintain.

dopidopHN 4y ago
The static aspect of most page and the low expectation / forgiving users made it easier for hobby site.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
How were they simpler?
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  $EDITOR index.html
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    What's stopping you doing that in 2022? That's how I wrote my homepage https://lewiscampbell.tech https://lewiscampbell.tech
    - arealaccount 4y ago
      Seriously? Your home page clearly uses CSS and judging by how it jerks around when I scroll there is plenty of JS too.
      - detaro 4y ago
        > Your home page clearly uses CSS where did they claim they didnt use CSS? CSS can be handwritten too. > and judging by how it jerks around when I scroll there is plenty of JS too. Maybe be less judgemental and more looking at facts then, because there isn't.
        arealaccount 4y ago

ReactiveJelly 4y ago

I have to disagree. Using the dev tools in Firefox and Chromium is way easier than fiddling in Notepad and constantly reloading.

bnralt 4y ago

Yeah, I remember ~2000 or so it seemed like a lot of non-techie people were creating their own personal site on Geocities/Angelfire/etc. In high schools lots of teenagers (again, including non-techie folk) had their own web pages. What was nice is that more thought went into it, since it was basically a blank canvas. There also was a focus on quality over quantity - your website was something you continually grew and improved. Modern content is something you churn out and forget about immediately after. But as easier options became available, those sites disappeared. First blogs came along, which were more structured. And modern social media is even more structured as well. We went from a single blank canvas you could spend hours tinkering with to a coloring book page you're given for sixty seconds before it gets thrown away and you're given the next one.