digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Why Ugly Design Works... And Why Most Designers Miss the Point

blog.gojobby.com — Interesting blog entry (by a designer) supporting the "ugly design" theory. Contains some links to some other good discussions and articles on the subject.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bscott86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Very interesting blog & article (http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/03/04/the-role-of-anti-marketing-design/)

    I think the biggest theme is not making a site ugly, but keeping it simple, uncluttered, and lightweight. It doesn't have to be ugly to accomplish these things.

    I'm not sure if I buy the "anti-marketing" concept. I think that building a site with "anti-marketing" characteristics is a side effect of keeping things simple.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Exactly. It's not that uglier is inherently easier. It's that, at some point, one has to choose between form and function (pretty vs usable). If you're a web designer, and you choose pretty over usable, you should be fired. The pretty, slick "Web 2.0" design is just like the flash crap of 10 years ago. Everybody did it because it was cool, but when you look back, people wonder how the hell we used those pages. Well, for the most part, we didn't. Same thing here. If people can't navigate - or with these 8pt fonts, actually read - your site, you lose.

      Pretty isn't bad, but it has to take a backseat to usable.
    • JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"...I think the biggest theme is not making a site ugly, but keeping it simple, uncluttered, and lightweight. It doesn't have to be ugly to accomplish these things..."
      nope. eBay is cluttered and definitively not lightweight.
      i think a site being ugly or beautiful is not important. and it goes beyond what mrUnderBridge says. the "message" brought to the user and the value that the website gives to him are the most important. also convincing him that he will find the information he is looking for.

      a beautiful and hi-tech website bring some good advantages though: your users will become evangelists, even if your product is not the best on the market (see apple)
    • theOster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@mrunderbridge: agreed (as per the great maddox):
      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=faq

      "Why does your site look so *****? / Why do you use such huge fonts?

      My site looks ***** for the following reasons:

      1. Bandwidth conservation. I'm costing my ISP, Xmission, a lot of bandwidth per month, even with the text-heavy layout I have now. Xmission has been great about hosting this site, and I want to make it as efficient as possible while still getting my point across.

      2. Protest. I'm keeping my web site ***** as a protest against all the slick-looking, contentless web sites out there. Nobody cares about your stupid rotating icons and fading links. Mine isn't the only site on the internet that uses a simple layout, perhaps you've heard of this one?

      (insert google image)

      Some webmasters have spent years tweaking their layout and designing their site, and very few get any traffic. This site, as ***** as it looks, gets over 1 million visits per month. I use large fonts also as a protest against all the stylish garbage you see out there. When I go to a web site, I WANT TO READ THE CONTENT. Trust me, that micro-font everyone uses isn't nearly as original as they think. I've chosen a black background for most of my text because it's easier on the eyes than staring at a white screen. Think about it: your monitor is not a piece of paper, no matter how hard you try to make it one. Staring at a white background while you read is like staring at a light bulb (don't believe me? Try turning off the lights next time you use a word processor). Would you stare at a light bulb for hours at a time? Not if you want to keep your vision."
    • mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That site may get lots of traffic and be clean on the content, but it still looks ***** and would be much better if the design was better. Just look at Slashdot [shudder].
    • Pile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think the problem is the notion of "beautiful" is mainly propagated by graphic designer/types who are into using convoluted technology that does most of the work for them such as Flash and Dreamweaver. They don't realize how bloated the pages end up being in the end.

      http://BSAlert.com/
    • 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@JoeWall -> the "message" brought to the user and the value that the website gives to him are the most important. also convincing him that he will find the information he is looking for.

      Not even. You can do all you want to try and "convince" me that the data I'm looking for is available and easily accessible, but if I can't get to it because I'm constantly tripping over someone's idea of a "cool design," that's the last you'll see of me. I'd take a visually scaled-down but highly functional website over one that's loaded with visual candy any day.
  • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Small text looks “cooler”, but it’s certainly less readable. It’s particular annoying for me (a user who has his 15″ laptop cranked up to 1920 x 1280), though I am savvy enough to ctrl-+ my way to readability on sites with small text."

    Way-ell, I'd think you'd make your text larger then, too, EH?
    • Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My screens 15.4" at 1680 x 1050 and I like my text on Medium. All lcd's only look good at their native resolution.
    • stylesP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://readeasily.mozdev.org/index.html
      to make those dark blue font on black background sites readable - under firefox
      and under Opera just use the different viewing modes
    • mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It should also be noted that all that Flash text crap isn't resizable, which is especially important for the visually impaired since they can't zoom in or have it read to them my their computer.

      Actually, ANY site that basically says, "I'm sorry, I know you like looking at pages in a certain way, but MY WAY is better" needs a good bitchslapping. That includes sites that resize your browser window (ARGH!), that automatically play music, or force you to sit through some excruciating Flash intro.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0A better Read Easily link is:
      https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1224/
  • fullcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24You can be a good designer and still have usability skills. These people are called "Decent web designers".
  • mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I'm an artist and graphic designer, and I'm constantly boggled by horrible design, even by professionals. I think the comprehension of *why* something works or doesn't is where the skill is, as the general person's reaction design is almost subconscious and emotional. They don't know why they like it; they just know they like it.

    Part of the problem too is that designers are sometimes asked to do something totally contrary to good design, like put a ridiculous amount of text on something (I deal with this all the time). Does your cheap-ass fluorescent tube dollar-store sign really need your business number, mailing address and phone number, along with a whole paragraph of what you sell? Fuh-gly!

    The same goes for web pages...if you squint and it looks messy and like a direct mail catalogue, it looks like ass.

    Plus, "Comic Sans" needs to be eradicated from the planet.
    • NinjaJedi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Amen to that! I work in IT and, although I'm not in the web-developers team (I do SQL Scripts and Database management), I hear them constantly being perplexed by The Board's decisions for the site, and constantly changing their mind on what they want. I feel sorry for the Web-heads, and in a way, I'm glad I'm still an amateur web-designer (did a couple of small sites for friend's bands and stuff)

      Also, Death to Comic-Sans (I still get emails from people in the company that have set pink Comic-Sans as their default Outlook font! Bleugh!!!)
    • erratictoad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5> Plus Comic-Sans needs to be eradicated ....

      That of course, as with any design or designer is entirely subjective to them and those that agree. "Ugly Design" works simply because they've gone for usability and most folk will ignore site design when it is usable. This is why Google works - it is why they took off so quick when first they hit teh world - their front end was plain, it was simple AND it worked (and still does).

      Good article but a lot of words to say KISS
    • jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2TimesNewRoman should be eradicated as well. Serif fonts should only be used on type over 16pt.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NinjaJedi: That can be easily remedied by setting outlook to render emails as plain text by default. You can still click the header and "View as HTML" as needed.
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jgreene
      Serif fonts exist with a very good reason, but indeed they have poor readability on screens. This is why people should respect CSS media types, especially screen and printer. All major browsers support it, no webdesigner does.
    • quesera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Everyone disses Comic Sans (and I am not one to disagree), but I can't for the life of me think of the last web page I visited that used it. Yes, it's a ridiculous typeface, suitable for almost nothing except for office "social event" notices printed on colored paper and posted in the cafeteria... But why does it inspire such hatred when it's used so infrequently??

      EDIT: Oh. I get it now. I am not a Windows user. My Macintoshes and FreeBSD boxes do the right thing and replace Comic Sans with my default font, so I am protected against such atrocities. So there's your solution to freedom from Comic Sans and other web-vectored mal-things.
    • mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0> Plus, "Comic Sans" needs to be eradicated from the planet.

      Unless, of course, you're writing a comic. :)
  • NinjaJedi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I must admit - this really IS an interesting and eye-opening article. Being a bit of an amateur web-designer myself I've always strived for that profissional, slick look to try and get my skills up there with the "Professional" web-designers. But now I read this I might have to think twice. I don't think for a second that big corporations are gonna start downgrading their sites to make them more usable or userfriendly. So this is good advice for somebody who wants to make a good functional site ... concentrate more on databasing, search engines and indexing and leave all the fancy graphics down to a minimum. Genius!!
    • Wenham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well if the company is based in a country where the public facing site has to, by law, be accessible then you will find a good deal of companies will up their usability and accessibility or face legal action.

      The question is of course will be: will they then spend more money on getting a 'decent designer' (e.g. one that has good design skills and understands that accessibility is not a 'bonus' but a fundamental prerequisite of site design) or keep and retrain their existing designers...there should be no need to 'downgrade'

      Either way the message is clear to designers (and in some way to coders as well) forget accessibility at your own peril.
  • Lexiclick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree completely with bscott86. The design of a website comes secondary, functionality takes precedent. I myself love designing websites, but content wise, theres nothing more rewarding than serving thousands of visitors high quality content.

    This was a good read - but I am not so sure that "ugly" designs work. I think that web developers and designers need to find the happy medium between functionality and design.
    • NinjaJedi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is very true. It's good to understand that excellent design with tasty graphics is good and all but can slow things RIGHT down and does actually put a lot of people off. I know a lot of friends and click away from a site if it's done in Flash, for example.
      I'm seeing this post as an eye opener. Those sites mentioned (Plenyoffish.com and Craig's List)are ugly when compared to site's we're used to but they're still not as ugly as some of those early Geocities sites. (rememebr them?!?!? Ooooh I can see the bright animated .gif's now!!!) Now they WERE ugly.

      At the end of the day it's all about functionality.

      This site, in my oppinion, has found a very happy medium. It's a simple design, but it's kept out of the Ugly corner by small non-memory intensive graphical touches. In fact I'm sure I stumbled upon this site about a year ago and thought it looked too basic for me!! But now I absolutely love it!

      OK, I'm ranting. I'll leave it there!! (3 posts in 15mins?!? That's a first for me!!)
  • cadavreexquis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Designers have too much emotional bias towards pretty things."

    BS. Any GOOD designer knows that design should be the least noticeable thing about a website. Those that design with small text and other affectations are simply bad designers.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He didn't say *good* designers. There are quite a lot of bad ones out there.
  • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Interesting blog entry (by a designer) supporting the "ugly design" theory."

    Always nice to see some compliment their own work. Perhaps some fair disclosure that the "designer" is you.
  • nasalexport, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Just add some ***** and it will be OK
  • nads, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Unless your website is a blog, ugly definately works. I was so attempted to spend ages on the look of one of my websites but a few months ago when Ugly Theory was mentioned I spent more time on functionality than rounded corners, web 2.0 and all that and you know what? I now get 3000 unique vistors per day to my web site, it may not be digg but for me that's a lot of users! Remember, Design = Look plus Functionality (or somma like that!)
  • GetOffMyLawnKid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Ugly design theory my ass. If ugly design worked I'd be reading /. instead of digg. Seriously I tried /. to get my tech news in the past and it was so unappealing to the eye and hard to read I just gave up. Digg FTW! as a disclaimer I DRTFA.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You're kidding. You'd rather have pretty, inane content than (arguably) more relevant news.

      I think that "I didn't read the article" bit at the end sums it up pretty well.
    • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'll admit I had a hard time navigating that site the first. A BIG flag for poor design
  • Schadenfreude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think there's something to the author's point that "I'm not entirely convinced that people (as a whole) can't have radically different reactions in different mediums." YMMV, obviously, but speaking for myself, I do react more negatively to a website (especially a personal site) that's super slick and "designed." I think because, to my consumer brain, "slick" means "corporate" and therefore somehow inauthentic or coercive ("What's this site trying to sell me?")

    The blogger he's quoting (about the Matrix, Scion, etc.) is using slightly poor examples to support his case, since the things he's talking about are objects, consumer products, and not information. It's paradoxical, but a lot of people love cool products but hate advertising, even if it's for the cool product. And if something looks too much like an advertisement, it's a turnoff.

    Obviously not a universal point of view, or else there'd be no debate on this issue. Maybe the trite-but-true bottom line is that there is no single "best" theory of design. Sometimes ugly works best, sometimes pretty works best.
  • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7if your a designer and your good at your job you can get a good looking site that also works well. you don't have to have one or the other unless you still need practice and education.

    if you find yourself with an ugly layout to get the job done then you need to try again.
    that being said, just because its simple doesn't make it ugly.
  • dilg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3At least the author admits he should revisit the design of his own site. It looks like a bad marriage between Digg and http://www.rubyonrails.org/.
  • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are a lot of people who make decisions (higher ups, consumers) with very poor design sense. When I work with customers like that, I give the a quick layout of what they want, and a few things of how I would do it, and 99 out of 100 they pick one of mine or there is a blending. Poor design stems from designers bending to whims. Sometimes you got to educate who's paying you. Also asthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I can like something, and others may say bleagh. But it is up to the designer to make it at least pleaseing and of course workable. Those who can't I like to call "glorified secretaries" You can't please everyone all the time. but if your good, you can get peopel to give you the nod of approval
  • Superkid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just think abut sites like myspace…craigslist…ebay…google…amazon(to an extent)…they are all flippen ugly, beyond ugly. Infact, they are ugly to the point we stop focusing on how they look but focus on what they contain and provide. It’s like holding up 2 targets…one being design, and one being usability (functionality), these companies just decided to take down one of those targets and only leave one up. To the web development and design community I don’t think that means…drop the divs and start using nested tables again … but rather to really focus and ask yourself what is my site providing and how can I make it easier for users to access it.
    • stupidStan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No need to drop the divs and use those (incredibly) nasty nested tables again. People just need to UNDERSTAND how to use CSS properly and sites will be just as, if not more, usable than with nested tables...
  • Gills, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3works for Windows
  • KevyKev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This was covered 6 years ago. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/marsvenus/
  • stupidStan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0-removed- (double post)
  • stupidStan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I focused on User Interface Design (UID) for my bachelors degree (computer science), and this is a huge problem. If you are able to correctly combine 'beauty" and usability, there is a lot of money to be made. I took at least 4 classes focused completely on site usability, and what I learned has helped me immensely. I don't consider my site design to be ugly, just simple. I feel that simplicity is much preferred over a fancy site that has a long load time and lots of gradients, colors, pictures, etc.
    • jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you are correct. simple is not ugly, just not necessarily "pretty". designers want to show off their photoshop skills and all the things they learned in the latest PhotoshopTV podcast tutorials. unless you sell actual product on a website, there is no need for a lot of "content," so a simple, easy to navigate page that propogates your brand on the internet is all you'll ever need.
  • sabarsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i think the article is referring to all the eye-candy designers who don't know how to eliminate the extraneous. great designers know how to focus on content and present it an an easily digestable form.
  • booberry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great article, sometimes its hard to find common ground between looks and usability.
  • kwilliam71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Isn't this an age old argument, form over function and which should prevail? As most things, there needs to be a fine balance I think.
    • ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This article has neither form, nor function. The design is abysmal and the grammar is worse.
  • therealfoz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Form should always follow function.
    The prettiest site in the world is useless if no one can find it or can't quickly assertain what the site is pushing/selling/informing.
    Good article.
  • kmedlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is that people tend to think in extremes rather than in shades of difference. Of course form should follow function, but for many that means "ugly." If you look through about 90% of the OSS web applications, they look terrible to the point where you wouldn't really want to be looking at it every day which, even if usable, doesn't bring in users.

    Consider c|net of 5 years ago...That site was impossible to navigate and hard to find specific things. The philosophy of most users was, "If I find it...I better download it now! I'll never find it again." Now they present the same information in a new format and it's much more manageable. But that new format highlights content people are looking for, and has some aesthetically pleasing characteristics.

    You cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater in either graphic design or usability! Similarly, you cannot ignore the draw of an aesthetically pleasing design. People respond better to things that look good. T-Mobile doesn't use Katherine Zeta-Jones because they couldn't find some bookish looking acne faced girl. They use her because she has a look that sells.

    ALL the functionality and ease of use in the world cannot be overcome by an unpleasing design.
  • onesix18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As an architect, I must add that this discussion applies to building & urban design much in the same way that it applies to web & graphic design. Any time a designer of any sort puts aesthetics before (a) function/usability and (b) serving their client's needs, they are letting their ego control their work. Of course aesthetics has a place in design (and is often critical to good function), but the best design tends to 'disappear'--i.e., it performs its purpose so well that you don't even think of what your using/inhabiting/etc. as 'having been designed.'
    • kmedlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Evil -

      I hate to say it but you are illustrating the point in the article. People will go to the ends of the earth to explain why one method is better than another. In reality, both have merits for different reasons. You pointed out, very smartly, that people don't like to scroll which I would agree with wholeheartedly. I contend that if the content is compelling they'll scroll which is how I base my decision.

      So we could go round and round. Read the articles I provided and enjoy. Even if you don't change your mind at least have some respect for the other view points presented. Eric Meyer has a great eye for design and the article is very well written. Anyone arguing design for the web should read it. :)
  • Pile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ironically though, the guy who authored this article has one of the worst bad-design flaws ever: the stupid fixed-width page.

    I'm so sick of seeing web pages that do not take advantage of the variable display area of the web browser/screen resolution. This to me, is the most grevious error of most designers. They take a technology and slap limitations on it for the sake of making their design easier to manage. L A M E!

    http://bsalert.com/
    • kmedlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Pile,

      Fixed-width page vs. Liquid design page...it's a matter of choices not of good v bad. You should check out this article: http://www.thinkvitamin.com/features/design/making-popular-layout-decisions

      I would argue that fixed width serves most readers better as a design decisions because:
      1 - It's easier to read shorter width columns than longer ones (supported by Jakob Nielsen)
      2 - The white-space to the left & right of the main content can be visually appealing if dressed up well (visit: http://www.visitnc.com/)
      3 - It makes text rendering MUCH easier on both the designer & the reader

      Those are just three off the top of my head...but I'd hardly call fixed-width "one of the worst bad-design flaws ever" because, quite frankly, you're not supported by much evidence other than personal preference. So don't try to be a design authority about that particular decision for the author.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0One of the mantras of web design: "People hate to scroll."
      When you use a fixed-width layout, you're forcing people to scroll more than necessary:
      a) Vertically, because their browser windows are wider than the fixed width (this was the case for me - the article looked like a strip of toilet paper down the center of my monitor; I even left a comment)
      b) Horizontally, because their browser windows are narrower than the fixed width

      kmedlin:
      i) Multiple shorter-width columns can be placed side-by-side in a variable width layout, giving both the ease-of-reading of short columns and the utility of available screen space. If the single-column-strip method was more useful and visually appealing, newspapers would be distributed on rolls like toilet paper.
      ii) If you like the look of the dressed-up whitespace outside the main content, it's not difficult to create a variable width layout that leaves whitespace on either side.
  • cutefcuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can somebody say http://www.craigslist.org/ ?
  • GrinningFool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay, could we stop with the flippin' Ugly Design blogs, articles, and rants?

    Hmm. Come to think of it, maybe we could use Ugly Design as a viable alternative to Intelligent Design.

    /me gets buried.
  • enzomedici, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Most of the successful sites are ugly.

    Google, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo, Hotmail, Slashdot....are all ugly.
  • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think, of the above sites, I'd say Ebay is the ugliest, with /. coming up behind. But they do their job, which a lot of people want. I don't think that eBay is even particularly fast. It's interface is confusing. But everybody likes those cheap, used goods. I go to Costco, too. Perfect for what I need, but they don't spend a time on store window displays. You go over to the huge bin where all the $25 pants are and fish out the one with the right measurements.

    Of course, this does not mean that ugly means efficient. Some of the damned ugliest sites in web history can only play horrible MIDI songs, and give you nothing but a vision of a horribly isolated crank that made the website.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1craigslist.com

      prepare for hyperlink rape when visiting.
  • YellowBook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Had enough of KISS?

    Do you think ***** will catch on? Clean Uncluttered Neat Tidy

  • papagoatee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, i guess when it comes to web usability it's largely a two edged sword. If your site looks ugly, you better have great content to back it up. If your site looks great, you can get by with so-so content. Just like a woman. If she is an airhead, but looks fabulous, it's ok. If she is fugly as hell, better make damn sure she is smart. If she looks fabulous, and is smart, hey, that's an added bonus!
  • wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What a pile of *****! Scoble should shut up as he has no idea what he is talking about.

    Let's see. To begin with he examples a DATING.. and I repeat, a DATING site. A site that naturally would be making lots of money from ads given it's popular and provides a good service. And whether it's ugly or not is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with the popularity of the site. Look at Slashdot. If it had ***** posts would someone read it, be it ugly or nice? I don't think so.

    "Because I wanted to make it fast. I didn’t choose a pretty font because doing so would have added a little bit of weight to my CSS file. Does this matter? I think it does. I read a LOT of blogs on my cell phone and mine loads WAY faster than many blogs out there"
    Further proof he has no clue of what he is talking about. Adding a ~20 characters line will NOT add that much of a weight to a CSS file sand it wouldn't matter. Viewing site on cellphones? I guess Scoble never heard of media="handheld". A good designer could always write a CSS specifically for mobiles if it's requried. Fast load? All depends on how well the HTML is written.

    Scoble should get a clue or just shut up.
  • posure, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Of course people like ugly things; why else would anyone buy a PT Cruiser, Aztek, Element, or Scion.
    • YellowBook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People *do* like ugly things - how else could my girlfriend get to reproduce? I suppose I could pimp her out but not sure who'd pay.
  • freakystyley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a pretty interesting topic, one that I cover on my blog: http://www.uxpdesign.com/fsbrainstorm/more.php?id=859_0_1_0_M (Please forgive the self-link, but at least it's relative). In short, credibility is really in the eye of the beholder.

    Furthermore, I should I also elaborate on the fact that "ugly" is pretty relative. When you've worked for people who think that http://www.globalwinespirits.com looks good, you know that this is the case. So as a designer, not only do you have to worry about the site's intended audience, but you also have to worry about your clients' tastes (or lack thereof).
  • haba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2read more about this particular blog entry here:
    http://www.airbagindustries.com/archives/009137.php
  • Unknown1987, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2that is absolutely retarded
  • jaredigital, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Digging your own blog article is beyond pathetic. I am convinced, now more than ever, that this is all some half-baked publicity stunt to promote Jobby. Weak.
  •  

    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.