digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Top 5 Worst Websites EVER

time.com — As selected by TIME Magazine, these five websites suffer marketing infestation, are in need of an overhaul, are notoriously slow to load, are discriminatory, and are just plain annoying.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 11, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

245 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+257Who else predicted myspace would be on the list?
  • slugicide, on 10/11/2007, -11/+239I'm supposed to care about a magazine that thinks Second Life is a Website?
  • Wonderkind, on 10/11/2007, -4/+186This list is about as accurate as the "25 most beautiful people" lists.
    It's nothing more than a lame article, spread out over 5 pages to maximize banner views.
  • dvsbastard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+107Short list (for those who don't want to click through 5 pages just to find out the sites):

    eHarmony.com
    Evite.com
    Meez.com
    MySpace.com
    SecondLife.com
  • heathengray, on 10/11/2007, -7/+96I'm sorry, but was the SecondLife.com review of the website, or of the game?

    The best part: "Visually, this vast virtual world can be quite impressive, but it's notoriously slow to load (it runs on free software you have to download) and difficult to navigate, even with a broadband connection".

    Thats right, it's slow to load and play because It's free software that you - OMGS - have to download?? Download an online only game? Won't somebody think of the children?!

    TIME (which is an apt name for a magazine, seemingly run by a bunch of old-folk yelling "Damn Kids! Get off my lawn!"), and partner CNN (impartiality, anyone?), should go back to reporting the hard-hitting news they're used to. Like Paris Hilton.
  • epyon180, on 10/11/2007, -14/+78I have to agree with Myspace.com, ***** that piece of ***** website.
  • TypeEE, on 10/11/2007, -2/+61This site is just as annoying as it separated one page content to 5 pages.
  • TroubleInMind, on 10/11/2007, -8/+53Dugg for not mentioning Ron Paul.
  • yagotmeseruchi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40But the all-time worst is http://jimjacobson.com
  • melonhedd, on 10/11/2007, -10/+42I'm supposed to care about people who care about Second Life?
  • ExSlashdotter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+33They got MySpace, which is one of the obvious offenders, but they missed my personal favorite: godaddy.com. Their site is just ridiculously ambiguous.
  • darny, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Warning: Redundant comment

    #6: Time.com

    5 freakin pages? Please. As if.

    I love you digg!
  • ShocktechSFL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26Digg needs to have a moratorium on these annoyingly stupid top 5/10 lists
  • GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26You know, I heard an interview with this guy (who's kinda creepy looking in the commercials) and his explanation for not including gays was interesting. The site's matching algorithm is based on his research on good relationships (he's a PhD shrink or something), and that research was on heterosexual couples, and so it wouldn't apply to homosexual relationships. Maybe it's a cop out on his part, but that kinda makes sense to me. Would anybody be clamoring for a gay only dating site to allow heterosexual people on it?

    In reality though, everyone should avoid online matching/dating sites. They're a last resort, and so everyone there has already been rejected in the real world. It's like when you go to the produce dept and there's only 10 tomatoes left. There's never any good ones, because those are the 10 tomatoes that have been systematically rejected by everyone else shopping that day. I guess I'm generalizing, cuz I'm sure there's a few normal people on there, but how about the majority of them.
  • BobOki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23If THOSE are the WORST EVER sites..... then these guys have never even browsed the web.
    Buried as inaccurate.
  • unusualbob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24ya, im getting sick of pages that require multiple pages to view what should be a simple list.
  • reflex768, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27It's a good standard for naming worst sites. Like a truly bad movie, a bad website has to have failed marketing expectations and/or a ruined concept. Plan 9 ends up being campy and fun like an awful DHTML/animated gif site, but big budgeted Catwoman is genuinely terrible. It doesn't have an excuse and neither do these sites.
  • internetslacker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20All websites that don't offer free porn are horrible.
  • dn11, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Yep, I prefer the website Half Life 2 to that Second Life website.
  • OwdenBowden, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Yeah they for got one site. TIME.com
  • norle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Actually, it doesn't "discriminate" against gays, it just doesn't "support" gay and lesbian dating.

    Personally, I think it must discriminate against me as well because there is no "Man seeking Sheep" selection...
  • invisiblesun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19No matter how much you want to say it embodies the Web 2.0 vibe, it's still a computer game. Many of the grievances listed against it are valid, but why not mention all the bad things about Bush while you're stringing together unrelated items? Also, I like how they seemed to fault it for requiring a download.
  • X111, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I vote for any site with more ads than content on any page. Oh hang on, I vote for time.com.
  • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Or, you know, you could go outside, instead of sitting in your room pretending to be outside.
  • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16What the author didn't tell you about eHarmony is that every criticism they had of the site also applies to every other dating site out there. The last sentence is the real reason for the sites inclusion, "The site also discriminates against gays," dropped in there as an "Oh, by the way...".

    Hating eHarmony has become Politically Correct because the founder is an Evangelical Christian, and doesn't want to cater to the homosexual community.

    As far as the rest of the criticisms... well, some parts of attraction are difficult to quantify in a database search. Chemistry.com tells you that it remembers your rejects and tries to build a profile of them to sort through the profiles it does offer to you, but what if everything about the person is perfect except that he or she is physically unattractive?

    I've been on a number of dating sites, and IMO, eHarmony is one of the better ones out there.
  • terrab0t, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Yeah, that's the impression I got from this article too. I've seen much worse websites, but the people at Time will never know about them. This was more like the five websites that most annoy old yuppie clueless late-comers to the web. It was interesting more as a glance into their world than a critique of website and application design. The fact that they think of Second Life as a website further exposes them as clueless.

    Case in point, they run one of the many annoying sites that force you to click a link and reload just to see another page of text. Any site following this format doesn't stand a chance in hell of being bookmarked by me.
  • FRAGaLOT, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Anyone with any common sense knows the difference between a web site, and an online MMO. They even say it's a "separate free download" which sounds to me that the part they are whining and bitching about IS NOT the website it self, but the service. Everything online suffers from "lag" give me a break! Might as well blame your car for traffic congestion on the freeways. At least they nailed MySpace properly.
  • m0j0j0j0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I'm so tired of listening to these journalists who give me their opinion on best and worst web sites. Including eharmony just helps to validate my view. I met my wife on eharmony, and we met a couple on our honeymoon cruise that also met on eharmony and were getting engaged. Unless you're looking for a booty call (try adultfriendfinder), or have the looks to succeed on the meat-market sites (match, etc), it's worth a try if you're serious. The money I saved on crappy dates alone more than made up for their fees.
  • zewam, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12No wonder evite.com is on the list! "Evite" is french for avoid.
    :-)
  • sasso, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9worst top list ever
  • Ibanezfoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Admit it, you have no myspace friends.
  • guntario, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I think that article should be added to the list of the five worst articles of all time.
  • fatpads, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I didn't....until your reply
  • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Yeah, the slideshow feature on Forbes.com is the absolute WORST.
  • cjpro, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Yet, I didn't expect for you to have to go to the fourth page to find it. It should have been first one!
  • NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I'm not a fan of second life (I tried really hard to get into it but over all it just wasn't a fun experience) but you cant even call it a website. Thats like saying Quake2 is the worst website every. Every time you try to get information people just kill you. I have a tree in my bark yard that makes a pretty ***** website too. But when i rate websites i try to stick to the HTTP ones.
  • orlyfactor, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11I'm so glad eharmony.com was mentioned. I knew the developer who initially worked on his site and he called it from the beginning, the guy who runs the place is a gigantic *****.
  • Armyguy120, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7PLEASE stopping linking lists from Time Mag.
  • JoeHeavyFlow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7TubGirl.
  • jennamalia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8And about as scientific or methodological as a single author's "I don't like..." sentiments.
  • quik22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7sounds like someone was rejected by an eFatty.
  • alpine75, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Buried for using the word EVER in the title.
  • norle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Yes he does. Tom is his friend.
  • meez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Meez.com stole my nickname. -.- I should have kept that domain and saved the world from that godawful site.
  • nfollmer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Wow..................I seriously want to move now, just because that idiot lives in the same state as me.
  • Quito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Lamest title EVER.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I agree. eharmony does not discriminate against gays. Just because someone provides a service to a specific group of people, doesn't mean they are discriminating against anyone else. If I sell women's shoes, am I discriminating against men? If eharmony said that gays are not allowed to use the site, that would be descrimination, but they dont have to go out of their way to provide the same service. Gays can use eharmony all they want, they just cant look for the same sex. Same thing if a man comes in to my women's shoe store. He can buy all the shoes he wants, but he cant demand that i provide him with men's shoes.
    sorry about all the shoe analogies, but if the shoe fits.... nevermind.
  • andrewmi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Well, if "M" came before "E" in the alphabet...
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I see that as usual, they are criticizing the behavior of various users on MySpace and somehow concluding that this must be the fault of the website itself. As if it's impossible for any other social networking website to have fake profiles and spambots. Buried as lame.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 242 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.