5 ms·

People remember Sourceforge fondly because the service they offered, for the time, was good. Everything internet sucked around 2000. Search engines where eithe

by gutnor 11y ago

People remember Sourceforge fondly because the service they offered, for the time, was good. Everything internet sucked around 2000. Search engines where either semi-curated listing or covered a fraction of what was a much smaller internet. Free hosting was a joke, affordable paid hosting was not much better. Your bandwidth at home was not good and anyway your computer was not the powerhouse it is today - you needed to upgrade just to run the next version of Excel, not to play the next AAA game. A lot of websites had terrible UX. So Sourceforge was not great, but it offered a great package of functionality that basically solved in one shot all the problem of managing a OSS project and gave one roof where to search for new tools and libraries. What happened is that they stagnated and their utility eroded over the time starting by Google removing any reason to have everything in a central place.

hollerith 11y ago
>Everything internet sucked around 2000. Search engines where either semi-curated listing or covered a fraction of what was a much smaller internet. I disagree, and in fact preferred the internet of 2000 to the internet of 2015. Google search worked fine in 2000: although SEO existed in 2000, it was much less refined and extensive than in 2015. The main problem in search results today is that profit-motivated content crowds out and makes it difficult to find not-profit-motivated superior content. Not all the changes are bad, of course. Video in particular (not just bandwidth, but the convenience for consumers and amateur producers provided by Youtube) is much better (but text is more important to me than video). A computer with adequate performance is a lot cheaper in real dollars. >A lot of websites had terrible UX. I preferred the UX of the web of 2000 to the UX of the web of today. Searching a web page for a string, copying from a web page, then pasting, scrolling, use of keyboard shortcuts, bookmarking (some sites today have all content sharing the same URL, making bookmarking virtually impossible) all were simpler and more consistent across web pages, therefore requiring less deliberative thought to use, and IMHO thereby better. In other words, on the web of today, I have to direct my attention to the mechanics of the web page, e.g., how to dismiss the interstitial asking me to follow them on Facebook or whatever so that I can start to see the actual content, which keyboard shortcuts have been overridden by the site, how to scroll and whether scrolling even works. In the web of 2000, I spent more of my time and attention on the actual content (particularly, textual content). For those who remember the web of 2000: what about the UX of the web of today do you prefer? I have a theory that some people are more easily bored than others and that those people appreciate the web of today because the increase in variety, color and motion (of elements on the page) helps keep them from getting bored. Is that it? (I remember the Sourceforge of 2000, but have nothing to say about it.) ADDED. I neglected to consider that Wikipedia did not exist in 2000, which significantly changes the balance. I still disagree with "Everything internet sucked around 2000". In particular, I miss web sites created by individuals not expecting to make money from their writings. Although many (most?) of those web sites still exist, they've become vastly harder to find with a search engine because of content farms and other professionally-produced professionally-SEOed content.
- jamespo 11y ago
  I prefer using wikipedia or stackexchange for information rather than searching for hours
  - romaniv 11y ago
    Wikipedia and Stack Exchange provide only one kind of information. There are several other types of websites that either went extinct or turned to garbage. Dr. Dobbs is a good example. StackOverflow might be the thing that helps you find a workaround for some API stupidity, but you are not going to "read" StackExchange on daily basis.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  https://i.imgur.com/TvSgLr1.png https://i.imgur.com/TvSgLr1.png
- gutnor 11y ago
  You probably mean that you like the good design from 2000 (and well I share your opinion on that). But there was also the bad ones and there was a lot of them. The majority of banking sites required you to use ActiveX, very frequently the shopping websites would use weirdo content plugins or have their content in PDF. Those were the times of multi-frame abuse, webpage with sound and no control, site trying to be clever and disabling right-click. Pop-ups everywhere, site hijacking your browser window and resizing, moving it around. Stupid cursor that make your computer grind to a halt. Site designed for 640x480 and nothing else. Remember the "blog"-like personal website on geocities and the like ? Remember the portals ? What I remember most from the time is how much superior I thought the newsgroups were to find anything.
  - romaniv 11y ago
    Those were the times of multi-frame abuse, webpage with sound and no control, site trying to be clever and disabling right-click. Pop-ups everywhere, site hijacking your browser window and resizing, moving it around. Stupid cursor that make your computer grind to a halt. Site designed for 640x480 and nothing else. A lot of these still happen, except they are using different technologies and look slightly different. We have parallax scrolling, Bootstrap-like modal windows, unlinkable single-page apps, websites that screw up "back" button and above all we have pages that require you to download several megabytes of junk and execute tons of JavaScript just to read several kilobytes of text.

by gutnor 11y ago

hollerith 11y ago

>Everything internet sucked around 2000. Search engines where either semi-curated listing or covered a fraction of what was a much smaller internet. I disagree, and in fact preferred the internet of 2000 to the internet of 2015. Google search worked fine in 2000: although SEO existed in 2000, it was much less refined and extensive than in 2015. The main problem in search results today is that profit-motivated content crowds out and makes it difficult to find not-profit-motivated superior content. Not all the changes are bad, of course. Video in particular (not just bandwidth, but the convenience for consumers and amateur producers provided by Youtube) is much better (but text is more important to me than video). A computer with adequate performance is a lot cheaper in real dollars. >A lot of websites had terrible UX. I preferred the UX of the web of 2000 to the UX of the web of today. Searching a web page for a string, copying from a web page, then pasting, scrolling, use of keyboard shortcuts, bookmarking (some sites today have all content sharing the same URL, making bookmarking virtually impossible) all were simpler and more consistent across web pages, therefore requiring less deliberative thought to use, and IMHO thereby better. In other words, on the web of today, I have to direct my attention to the mechanics of the web page, e.g., how to dismiss the interstitial asking me to follow them on Facebook or whatever so that I can start to see the actual content, which keyboard shortcuts have been overridden by the site, how to scroll and whether scrolling even works. In the web of 2000, I spent more of my time and attention on the actual content (particularly, textual content). For those who remember the web of 2000: what about the UX of the web of today do you prefer? I have a theory that some people are more easily bored than others and that those people appreciate the web of today because the increase in variety, color and motion (of elements on the page) helps keep them from getting bored. Is that it? (I remember the Sourceforge of 2000, but have nothing to say about it.) ADDED. I neglected to consider that Wikipedia did not exist in 2000, which significantly changes the balance. I still disagree with "Everything internet sucked around 2000". In particular, I miss web sites created by individuals not expecting to make money from their writings. Although many (most?) of those web sites still exist, they've become vastly harder to find with a search engine because of content farms and other professionally-produced professionally-SEOed content.

jamespo 11y ago
I prefer using wikipedia or stackexchange for information rather than searching for hours
- romaniv 11y ago
  Wikipedia and Stack Exchange provide only one kind of information. There are several other types of websites that either went extinct or turned to garbage. Dr. Dobbs is a good example. StackOverflow might be the thing that helps you find a workaround for some API stupidity, but you are not going to "read" StackExchange on daily basis.
stephengillie 11y ago
https://i.imgur.com/TvSgLr1.png https://i.imgur.com/TvSgLr1.png
gutnor 11y ago
You probably mean that you like the good design from 2000 (and well I share your opinion on that). But there was also the bad ones and there was a lot of them. The majority of banking sites required you to use ActiveX, very frequently the shopping websites would use weirdo content plugins or have their content in PDF. Those were the times of multi-frame abuse, webpage with sound and no control, site trying to be clever and disabling right-click. Pop-ups everywhere, site hijacking your browser window and resizing, moving it around. Stupid cursor that make your computer grind to a halt. Site designed for 640x480 and nothing else. Remember the "blog"-like personal website on geocities and the like ? Remember the portals ? What I remember most from the time is how much superior I thought the newsgroups were to find anything.
- romaniv 11y ago
  Those were the times of multi-frame abuse, webpage with sound and no control, site trying to be clever and disabling right-click. Pop-ups everywhere, site hijacking your browser window and resizing, moving it around. Stupid cursor that make your computer grind to a halt. Site designed for 640x480 and nothing else. A lot of these still happen, except they are using different technologies and look slightly different. We have parallax scrolling, Bootstrap-like modal windows, unlinkable single-page apps, websites that screw up "back" button and above all we have pages that require you to download several megabytes of junk and execute tons of JavaScript just to read several kilobytes of text.