Time Lists 5 Worst Sites

[Bec]

It's common to see "best of" reviews -- but here's one where Time.com has listed what it considers the top 5 worst sites ...

_________

It's all too often that someone rates the best Web sites on the Web. But, it's not often enough that the worst Web sites get lambasted, so we're glad to see that's exactly what Time.com has done

They rated the five worst Web sites for various reasons, ranging from business practices to random annoyances. Some highlights include:

eHarmony.com gets pegged for charging too much and discriminating against homosexuals.

MySpace.com gets hit because of the spammers and the site's seeming unwillingness to do anything about them (a trend that threatens to rot the massive social network from the inside out).

SecondLife.com is picked on for its difficulty, performance, and gaggle of griefers that bother new players.

Evite.com is nagged for being cool but desperately lacking functionality.

Finally, silly graphic proprietor Meez.com is simply called "annoying".

From Time.com

_______________

Article

[DonMike]

Do you guys really think eHarmony discriminates? I mean, it's a site for straight people. Would you say that gay.com discriminates because they are for gay people? I'm still a little on the fence about this one.

[Bec]

Do you guys really think eHarmony discriminates? I mean, it's a site for straight people. Would you say that gay.com discriminates because they are for gay people? I'm still a little on the fence about this one.

I understand your point -- I just found it somewhat heartening that a big publication like that would even consider homosexual discrimination a reason to consider putting them on a top worst sites list to begin with.

[SPACE GLIDER]

if EHarmony is guilty of anything it's those COMERCIALS. Do you see the normal looking women hooked up with those creatures?

"She loves me for me!"

[Jasun]

Too true about MySpace.

I deleted my account there.

Who the fuck needs it?

90% of the messages I got were spammers trying to lure me to another site. It was worse than gay.com's chat room.

most people's pages are annoying as fuck... 50,000 huge graphics, video, audio, flashing animations and requiring a four-foot wide screen to view.

many dont' even load.

[Jasun]

OH and Don.. technically, gay.com DOES allow for straight people.

In their personals, you CAN select that you're a man looking for women or a woman looking for men.

You might not get many hits, but the option is there.

[JamesXR]

It actually seems to make sense to segregate gay and straight on dating. If you're judging the value of a dating site, the number of available members is kind of key. The easiest way to tell that is by Alexa ranking, someone with 5000 is probably going to offer you a lot more choices than someone at 100,000. If most people on the list are straight people and you're looking for gay, then you're wasting your money. Since the gay population is smaller it seems like they'd be better served the more straight dating sites they were excluded from, as that would concentrate their numbers on the remaining sites. With dating sites, so long as their services are good, consumers would seem to be better served with fewer options.

[Bec]

if EHarmony is guilty of anything it's those COMERCIALS. Do you see the normal looking women hooked up with those creatures?

"She loves me for me!"

LOL yea -- so much for "truth in advertising!"

[delobucks]

If you want to advertise for your gay paysites, so just use gayromeo.com and add you advertise profile.

[DonMike]

I understand your point -- I just found it somewhat heartening that a big publication like that would even consider homosexual discrimination a reason to consider putting them on a top worst sites list to begin with.

Ah, yes. I hadn't thought of that. That's great.

I have reservations about the whole eHarmony thing. But I'm kind of cranky today and I've written two different rants on this and deleted them because I can't make my point clear. My sister told me she thought the Gay and Lesbian Yellow Pages were discriminatory because if they had a Heterosexual Yellow Pages gay people would be up in arms. I see nothing wrong with having a specialized business geared towards a specific demographic. I don't think we need to have reruns of Growing Pains on BET. We don't need to have The Bachelor on Logo. So why does a website geared for straight people to meet each other for dating need to allow homosexuals to sign up? Same as why would Gay.com need to allow straight people? There's just no point.

[Kewlaidkiddd]

For some strange reason my mind wandered to this thing on VH1 where they talk about Paris Hilton asking if Walmart was the place that you buy Walls?


But I agree on the eHarmony issue... As a business you should have the ability to market your product to the demographic that you choose. It just doesn't make a lot of common sense and thats an area that it seems a lot of the public is lacking in these days. Yeah lemme go to gay.com to find a chick because when I think of gay people, I think of a man hooking up with a girl... Well actually to think about it, it is the best way for a man to get a girl in bed with him :-)

I mean should I have the right to sue a grocery store because they don't sell an engine for my car?

[SPACE GLIDER]

For some strange reason my mind wandered to this thing on VH1 where they talk about Paris Hilton asking if Walmart was the place that you buy Walls?

:groovy: