digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at webware.com

10 great Web site designs/redesigns of 2007

webware.com — We pick 10 of our favorite site designs and redesigns of 2007.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mlcisme, on 12/21/2007, -19/+1Good article on some well degsigned and useful Web 2.0 sites.
  • HiNThere, on 12/21/2007, -9/+15When anyone can put up a website these days, it's great to see examples of how quality design and UI really makes a difference.
    • vram1980, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1why is this guy getting buried?
    • disabled4diggin, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3"When anyone can put up a website these days" These days? Anyone can put up a website since geocities, 9 years ago but that didn't stop sucky website design.
  • tellall, on 12/21/2007, -8/+2very cool!
  • bean48009, on 12/21/2007, -14/+2I still think we need to put a stop to this "Web 2.0" business. I think Facebook did it best with their simple, amazing CSS site & Ajax framework. More sites should take a big look at what a 23 year old kid has to say about design and programming.
    • SergeiGolos, on 12/21/2007, -6/+2Ajax is Web 2.0 basically.
    • tgormtx, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Sergei is correct. Ajax and CSS IS Web 2.0. And the majority of the crap on this list is probably made some 23 year old trend following idiot.
    • smackhero, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2the only people bitching about web 2.0 are non-web-developers or incompetent ones that don't understand it's just a term describing the natural evolution of web application UIs.
  • occ1979, on 12/21/2007, -9/+2My favorite of all these sites listed here is http://www.fluther.com
    It's cool to see good new sites listed alongside some of the biggies.
  • yohan, on 12/21/2007, -5/+4SomethingAwful got a well-needed site design update.
    • Papajohn56, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1ha. hahaha. it looks like *****, and nobody reads the front page anyway
    • smacksaw, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1FARK.com is also conspicuously missing from the list.

      hahahahaha....just kidding. Unless their goal was to drive away all of their contributing users, further tank that stupid FARK.tv and not sell Drew's lame book.
  • fiveonefive9, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9Http://www.ted.com should be on that list
  • JasonCox, on 12/21/2007, -11/+53Am I the only one who thinks most of those designs are just god awful?
    • maxxin, on 12/21/2007, -9/+2yes
    • tgormtx, on 12/21/2007, -5/+9No, you are completely right. All of these are lame, underdeveloped Web 2.0 crap or mobile ports of a poorly designed site (Facebook).
      • mhuggins, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I mostly agree with you, but how is Facebook poorly designed?
    • TubaTechno, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10Can anyone really explain to me why these designs are labeled as "great"?! Most of these are redesign showcases that don't really give a comparison of what they looked like before the redesign.

      What a stupid article.
      • dildoolielly, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3If you look closer, you will see these examples were created by personal friends of the DIGG founders
    • keyo, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Apparently all you need are a few gradients ... and a friend who writes these top 10 padded out lists.
    • lseeley, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1These sites all appeared to be designed well, in the sense of web design, not graphic design. I find most "Best Design Websites" often rely on heaving graphic art, instead of actual web design.
  • timbro1, on 12/21/2007, -4/+24half the websites on this list are lame.
  • bosssmiley, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Seemingly uninspired but clean/elegant designs. I'm ambivalent. When does clean and simple cross the line into obvious, simplistic and/or repetitive?
  • N3k74r, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2I haven't even heard of these websites.
    • santaliqueur, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Never heard of Google Documents? Flickr?
      • wire02, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1did you not read the article that was on digg the other day?....70 some odd percent of Americans have never heard of google docs....he is one of "them"
  • 1337zork, on 12/21/2007, -1/+23Nothing special about them O_o
  • david76, on 12/21/2007, -2/+39The author doens't appear to get out much. All these site are just little trend kiddie sites. Many of them use very similar visual treatments (can you say gradients?). None are particularly unique or groundbreaking.
  • antoniuk, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11lame ass plugging for digg owner sites... buried
  • MacParrot, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1Well in my opinion one of the best sites of 2007 HAS to be:

    http://www.macparrot.com iWeb = web 2.0? hahahahahaha!

    No, even I can't say that with a straight face and I'm ashamed enough to accept the massive digg down I richly deserve
    • synthoid, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Your site sucks more ass than Kevin Bacon in a guest starring role on Prison Break.
  • chrisOrbit, on 12/21/2007, -5/+8http://www.thefwa.com/pca2007/

    Much better list. IMHO
  • oslointhesummer, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4They all look the same.
  • melonhedd, on 12/21/2007, -5/+0http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9466/dotmacsuck ... awful
  • richardiscool, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Pownce is completely robbed from Twitter.
    • Papajohn56, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2both of which suck and have dumb names
  • panicofficer, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7I was hoping to see some good before and after shots. This just seems to be plugging currently popular sites.
  • wezman2, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3To stay true to the 'redesign' title, you really do have to consider NFL.com. A juggernaut of a website was vastly improved and provides one of the best sports experiences on the web.
    • melonhedd, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1BEST SPORTS EXPERIENCES ON THE WEB
  • OKeric, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6They should have included CNN.com.
  • chrismgtis, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10Buried. This is a bit lame.
  • tgormtx, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6The designs in this article are mediocre at best. Clearly written by an amateur with a hard on for Web 2.0 crap. Oh yeah... buried.
  • Darcy, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2I don't think it matters what sites they chose for the list, people will still criticize them. That's just the nature of the interweb.
  • Christia, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Kudos for not writing greatEST...
  • isunktheship, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0buzzword looks a lot like steam
  • mulletmusketeer, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2how quickly diggers forget their vows to never visit a cnet site again...
  • MeatBiProduct, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1busted !!
  • fabulodude, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3You forgot to include Craigslist
  • iPoul, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0facebook ?
  • jdandrea, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1http://www.virb.com/ FTW!
  • diggerphelps, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1How'd they overlook this?
    http://www.sharperfx.com/kkmime/index7.htm
  • TheReport, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2twitter? are they kidding me, that site still looks like rotten fart
  • CNeovitch, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0Good visual experience with functionality are key to quality browsing.
  • natgem, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I actually haven't heard of some of the websites listed, can't wait to check them out and see for myself how great they are. Thanks!
  • geuis2, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1current tv aka current.com has a staff of 40 people running a site that gets less thank 100,000 unique visits a month. Talk about inefficiency
  • erusf, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1My favorite new site is definitely fluther.com. I'm addicted!
  • dildoolielly, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Professionally speaking, there is nothing "award winning" about them. Digging in deeper it seems to be no more than a mere plug for Kevin Rose and his buddies.

    More of that "Digg Democracy" at work, I guess
  • mikehill33, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Nobody mentioned the best design of 2007: 2 Girls One Cup!
  • Christbait, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Yay for designing your website so it looks a bit like an iPod.
  • fuckshit, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0oh, really
  • metik, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0cnn.com did a very good job with their redesign.
  • Papajohn56, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2"Pownce" is a terrible name and offers nothing.
    • Chirp08, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2sounds like a site for attacking people, is that what it is?
  • ewcost, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1this is lame? buried.
  • mdavis, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1no myspace??


    kidding.
  • ieatsmurfs, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1most I disagree with, however Facebook for the iPhone is brilliantly designed.
  • kellygreen101, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Fluther.com has allowed adult and mature q & a that most other sites have allowed the teenie boppers to overload. quick answers to questions with substance.
  • AntoineDigg, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1Even if most of these sites are not ground breaking, most of them are well designed. I find people on Digg to be tough critics, but I'd like to see some of your designs. Please, amaze me with your "ground breaking" designs.
  • christina091, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0Great collection
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.