Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A website to destroy all websites

henry.codes

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 420 posts

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#371

Post by cosmicgadget »

econ wrote: post #231
eleventen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME, this is just about the opposite of true. I recently did a deep dive of an (allegedly) human-curated selection of 40K blogs containing 600K posts. I got the list from Kagi’s Small Web Index [1]. I haven’t published anything about it yet, but the takeaway is that nostalgia for the IndieWeb is largely misplaced. The overwhelming majority of was 2010s era “content marketing” SEO slop. The next largest slice was esot…

I once spend half a day or so gathering RSS feeds from fortune 500 companies press releases. I expected it to be mostly bullshit but was pleasantly surprised. Apparently if one spends enough millions on doing something there is no room for bullshit in the publication.

Pleasantly surprised? I would think that these feeds would consist of product and company announcements and this would be the expected/appropriate content. Did you find something less sterile?

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#372

Post by ghssds »

ludicrousdispla wrote: post #317
youoy wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I finished reading this comment wondering what should I take away from it. Is it better to include alarming titles and be read? Or the other way around? Or what would be the sweet middle point?

I'm really curious how a blogpost titled “Millennials are killing ham sandwiches” would fare, in comparison.

Don't get me started on how delicious Subway was 30 years ago compared to the pale version we have now.

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#373

Post by cosmicgadget »

fabianholzer wrote: post #289
eleventen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME, this is just about the opposite of true. I recently did a deep dive of an (allegedly) human-curated selection of 40K blogs containing 600K posts. I got the list from Kagi’s Small Web Index [1]. I haven’t published anything about it yet, but the takeaway is that nostalgia for the IndieWeb is largely misplaced. The overwhelming majority of was 2010s era “content marketing” SEO slop. The next largest slice was esot…

Do you intend to write it up? It would be interesting to get your take on how the classification works. And personally, as I know my feed is on the index as well, into which category my writing would be sorted.

Wasn't their workflow just that anyone can modify their feed list on github? Or was there a postprocessed list?

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#374

Post by mightybyte »

IvanK_net wrote: post #79
mightybyte wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also could happen because tech companies have optimized their products to maximize the amount of time that people spend on them, often in ways that directly result in a worse user experience (by showing ads instead of the most relevant search results, for example).

It makes no sense what you say. If the experience with A was really worse than with B, people would stay with B.

No, this is not at all a given. There could be switching costs that cause people to stay on a product that is actually worse. Users also simply might be unaware of alternatives or that they are better. It's not hard to imagine any number of other reasons why in our imperfect world there is not perfectly elastic competition.

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#375

Post by markdown »

elestor wrote: post #296
pavlus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read your comment before visiting the site, and it got me wondering -- how bad can it be? Can it be worse than those acid green on red sites of the 90s-00s? Imagine my surprise, when I opened the site and it looked and felt just like a museum or art exhibit. This was the literal feeling I had -- being at an art gallery, but online. I guess, these comments tell more about the commenters, than TFA. We should remin…

I did the opposite, I opened the website before looking at the comments and thought it was like a beautiful art gallery too. Then I read the top comment, and thought 'What are they talking about??'. Had a complete opposite feeling.

I too thought it was a beautiful art gallery, and not an article. Mainly because all I could see was art. Apparently there was an article too but I couldn't read it. I assume it was made for 21 yr olds with perfect vision and not intended for people over 40yrs old.

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#376

Post by GTP »

rdiddly wrote: post #362
GTP wrote: post #359

This isn't the first post I read on HN about this topic. While the content differs, the core ideas tend to be similar. The problem isn't about knowing that we can do it, the problem is actually getting around doing it. I have two blogs, one with a specific topic [1], another I created to share everything else that I feel like writing about [2]. Plus a personal "profile" page [3]. Both blogs only have one post, the fi…

Yeah, a blog isn't just a place to quickly jot things down, it's actually work. And because it's work, and it's optional, you sort of have to feel like it's "the work you should be doing," or at least part of or ancillary to, "the work you should be doing," or else it will just feel like busywork, and/or get postponed indefinitely. Posting on an existing platform is lower-stakes. But then again, if you end up putting…

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have or have had a blog?

Also, I think part of the problem for me is that I think no-one would would read it anyway, which, depending on how you look at it, can both be an incentive or a disincentive. But sometimes I also think about it as some sort of conversation starter or tool to help me foster conversations. The idea would be to write about some things I happen to talk about with different people every now and then, so that when I happen to talk about it again, I can point them to what I wrote as a summary of my opinions as some sort of starting point for the discussion.

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#377

Post by strobe »

nicbou wrote: post #283
pavlus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read your comment before visiting the site, and it got me wondering -- how bad can it be? Can it be worse than those acid green on red sites of the 90s-00s? Imagine my surprise, when I opened the site and it looked and felt just like a museum or art exhibit. This was the literal feeling I had -- being at an art gallery, but online. I guess, these comments tell more about the commenters, than TFA. We should remin…

I read the post first. The website is gorgeous, but not pleasant to use on an iPad Mini. I couldn’t keep reading without reader mode. But damn, it is absolutely beautiful. The fonts and paintings, wow.

is one of the issues of modern web as it's optimized for quick most efficient reading, but something like this website is more optimized for slow thoughtful experience. Like some of the books about art history where you not only trying to get extract meaning of words but trying imagine how that time felt and try look on things from different perspective or different values.

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#378

Post by mtVessel »

markdown wrote: post #375
elestor wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the opposite, I opened the website before looking at the comments and thought it was like a beautiful art gallery too. Then I read the top comment, and thought 'What are they talking about??'. Had a complete opposite feeling.

I too thought it was a beautiful art gallery, and not an article. Mainly because all I could see was art. Apparently there was an article too but I couldn't read it. I assume it was made for 21 yr olds with perfect vision and not intended for people over 40yrs old.

When I saw the article (which, for some reason, I had no trouble finding) I felt the same way, but then remembered I could adjust the font size myself with a few keystrokes.

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#379

Post by nofunsir »

MattRix wrote: post #322
nofunsir wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me guess, you want a site that is just a singular column of text, plenty of space for ad breaks, and 3/4 of your monitor is just whitespace on the left and right?

I read the article on mobile and I thought it was great. Then I looked at it on my desktop (in Chrome) and found it much harder to read. There are even images literally blocking off whole portions of certain paragraphs. It's not good.

I just re-read the entire thing. It is good. You're misrepresenting or you need to check your browser settings.

No image blocks any paragraph, which even if it had, would be far more forgivable than modern web design. Do you consider any of Apple's modern product pages -- which "block off whole portions of" the page itself by scrolljacking and Clockwork-Oranging you to force you to watch their hypnotic marketing animations -- bad?

Re: A website to destroy all websites

#380

Post by nicbou »

strobe wrote: post #377
nicbou wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the post first. The website is gorgeous, but not pleasant to use on an iPad Mini. I couldn’t keep reading without reader mode. But damn, it is absolutely beautiful. The fonts and paintings, wow.

is one of the issues of modern web as it's optimized for quick most efficient reading, but something like this website is more optimized for slow thoughtful experience. Like some of the books about art history where you not only trying to get extract meaning of words but trying imagine how that time felt and try look on things from different perspective or different values.

Ideally it should be both. I could not read the text because it was too small. The message was more important than its shape.
Post reply on HN