Best and worst "individual big player" home sites

[sasquatch]

BEST (looking):

1. Fma
2. Reflex
3. Digimedia

WORST (looking):

1. "Webfather"
2. Telepathy
3. Name Administration

 

[David G]

WORST (looking):

1. "Webfather"

It looks like an old design and not updated in ages. However, I am sure Rick Schwartz could care less if someone thinks his website is not too too pretty what with his great domains and high income.

 

[Jonathan]

No urls? C'mon, you could save us all the trouble of having to look them up.

 

[sasquatch]

No urls? C'mon, you could save us all the trouble of having to look them up.

BEST (looking):

1. Fma fma.com
2. Reflex reflex.com
3. Digimedia digimedia.com

WORST (looking):

1. "Webfather" webfather.com
2. Telepathy telepathy.com
3. Name Administration nameadministration.com

It looks like an old design and not updated in ages. However, I am sure Rick Schwartz could care less if someone thinks his website is not too too pretty what with his great domains and high income.

'nother one of those "deep" comments. Comon man, you've heard of fashion police, it's now time for domain police.

Speaking of "webfather" and fashion in the same sentence, the guy seems to be removed from any sense of fashion or the current wardrobe trends whatsoever. At every one of his domain conferences he wore just about the same freaking thing. Hey webfather, images of palm trees on shirts and beige socks are so passe man. Wake up, these aren't early 1980s anymore (and that goes for your website too!)

Oct 2004
dnjournal.com/images/wrap/rick-howard.jpg

May 2005
dnjournal.com/images/columns/rick-elvis.jpg

Oct 2005
dnjournal.com/images/te2005/regtable.jpg

Oct 2005
dnjournal.com/images/te2005/rick-alina.jpg

Feb 2006
dnjournal.com/images/traffic-sv-2006/shoeshine.jpg

(Incidentally, what's up with this ^last photo^? Is this what some people call "social networking", or is it what some people refer to as plain, old "ass kissing"? Either way pretty disturbing if you ask me.)

 

[NexSite]

It looks like an old design and not updated in ages. However, I am sure Rick Schwartz could care less if someone thinks his website is not too too pretty what with his great domains and high income.

He has like three good names, and about thousands of regular fee names. Let's not romanticize too much here.

High Income?

How do you know? Do you often check his "books"?

Gee, not only do I sound like a$$hole to respond to peoples comments like that, It can actually make you feel like one, if you have a conscience.

For the record, Rick has a great portfolio and a pretty nice return from it.

Sasquatch, you missed a golden opportunity here to be yourself, so I filled in for ya. Hope you dont mind the plaguerism.

 

[BiggieBiggie is verified member.]

Hi

Links removed!

These guys make enough money already without your promotions of their websites.

If others want to view them, then they can type it in the address bar.


who made u the official "digger-up" of other people's business anyway, and who made you the website fashion police.

post a link to your site in "website reviews" and let us take a stab at that!

 

[Luc]

www.sasquatch.com ?

 

[denny007]

If I recall well in the business 2.0 he claimed making just $2M/year, considering he started quite early, it is not that much...

 

[NexSite]

2 million aint that much?

Pretty damned good in my book.

 

[denny007]

Considering he was smart and started early ? Nope, 2M is really not that much...

 

[Steen]

Reflex is pretty good looking, but standard.
I can't believe digimedia is listed though. What on earth is good about their site?

 

[sasquatch]

2 million aint that much?

Pretty damned good in my book.

2 million (even if underreported for tax purposes) is pretty good in any book, but is also highly relative considering the fact that he could probably make 2 million alone with each one of his better porno domains. In fact when you think about it pointing some of the most valuable porn names to textual ppc pages is perhaps one of the most wasted things anyone has ever done on the net. Right there the guy is cyphoning money away from his own pocket by the truckloads.

I can't believe digimedia is listed though. What on earth is good about their site?

Well I agree, but at least they've got something even if one or two pages, unlike most others, like for example these "minimalist" dudes at VerticalAxis.com :-D

 

[Devil Dog]

I can recall Mr. Schwartz saying many years ago, "The uglier the pages, the quicker surfers'll click through to rid themselves of the ugliness".

:dunno:

 

[Luc]

I can recall Mr. Schwartz saying many years ago, "The uglier the pages, the quicker surfers'll click through to rid themselves of the ugliness".

:dunno:

that must have been MANY years ago because now most will use the back button or close the browser if they see a crap page similar to "webfather's".

there is a big difference between SIMPLE and UGLY. Simple works, ugly doesn't.

 

[David G]

I can recall Mr. Schwartz saying many years ago, "The uglier the pages, the quicker surfers'll click through to rid themselves of the ugliness". :dunno:

That is true to a certain degree but a little ugly is better than a lot of it. Finding the best ratio is a key.