digg

Join DiggAbout

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

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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • reflex768, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26It'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.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15What 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.
      • 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.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I'm not sure that opening up to homosexuals at this point is anything more than a political move. Gays already know of the site's anti-gay policy, so I'm sure they would resist any eHarmony attempts to make inroads, anyway. And besides, the number one determining factor for the value of any dating site, far and away, is the sheer quantity of profiles available to browse, and eHarmony has zero.
        • blaaguuu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5To say that everyone on dating websites is a loser who has been "rejected in the real world" is pretty immature... I don't use dating sites myself, but I have often considered it, because i have a hard time finding dates simply because i am not very social, and don't meet new people often... I am in no way a social "reject", but just don't give myself many opportunities to get out and meet people of the opposite sex. I would imagine that many people on dating sites would be in a similar situation. Its just another way to meet people - and a way that is much more convenient for a lot of people.
        • mikesherov, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Tons of people get into the real world before they find their match. Some of these people work in jobs where they don't feel like dating their co-workers, and find meeting people at bars repulsive. I have a few friends who use dating sites, and it's not because they are bottom of the barrel, it's because they have busy lives, and are unsure of where to meet people interested in what they are interested in.
      • 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...
        • Nitesmoke, 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.
      • EggChen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3My wife and I met through eHarmony. Nonetheless, neither one of us could stand the site or the service. They did send us a cool crystal bowl from Tiffany's when they found out we got hitched though. Classy.
      • antiorblkflag9, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Try going out into the real world to meet people
    • m0j0j0j0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I'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.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Yeah they for got one site. TIME.com
      • Disease, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6At least AdultFriendFinder lets me find the lesbian couple down the block looking for a threesome.
    • themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I thought eHarmony was supposed to be religious so isn't that why they discriminate against gays?
    • jman8888, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Myspace is up at tha top. Dugg
  • slugicide, on 10/11/2007, -11/+238I'm supposed to care about a magazine that thinks Second Life is a Website?
    • Katana314, on 10/11/2007, -15/+7It's sort of a 3D Web 2.0 thing. I give them credit for thinking it, and for calling it bad...people I know who used to play it say Linden is now just about raking in the money, like Blizzard.
      • opticsnake, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5It's absolutely NOTHING like a 3D web 2.0 thing. Web 2.0 refers to the combined use of CSS, Javascript and XML along with a clean look to present a dynamic web page. Second life is anything but that. It's a 3D universe where you interact with other people, kind of like World of Warcraft but without the actual missions. You can customize the look of your character (so long as you have enough Linden bucks, which you can buy with real money or find one of the money trees) and then go find the sleaziest parts of the world and watch poor slobs make their virtual characters have virtual sex while they wank it in their parents basement.
        • naio, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Wrong. You described the technical side of web 2.0. Katana was talking about the CULTURAL one, that is, user-driven content and interaction.
          • GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Maybe we should stop coming up for stupid non descriptive names for things. I mean, really, WTF is .NET?
        • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No... Web 2.0 means user-generated and shared content as opposed to Web 1.0's static pages. It has nothing to do with the technology to achieve that sharing -- the fact that AJAX and a particular style comes along is just a matter of fashion.

          Read http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (and he should know - he invented the bloody term). In fact, by those terms, 2nd Life is as Web 2.0 as they come.
        • richardiscool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG!
    • melonhedd, on 10/11/2007, -10/+41I'm supposed to care about people who care about Second Life?
    • invisiblesun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18No 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.
      • rarson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I agree, but I think a better point is, the article was about web sites. It mentions secondlife.com in the title and then proceeds to complain about the program you have to download in order to "play" Second Life. Second Life itself isn't a web site, so they shouldn't be complaining about it in an article about the worst web sites ever.
    • bebop717, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3To you the second life website is looks only a website because you have web 1.0. I have web 2.0 so I get a rich experience.
    • FRAGaLOT, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Anyone 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.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I'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.
    • illahtech, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I think the author knows it's not technically a 'website', however all that mindless enthusiasm was bound to generate a backlash...
  • rcktwnmad, on 10/11/2007, -4/+256Who else predicted myspace would be on the list?
    • miyamotofreak, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3I did.
    • Hayaemsay, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Well done, here's a cookie.
    • 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!
      • andrewmi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Well, if "M" came before "E" in the alphabet...
    • dagamer34, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Since time.com put myspace on the list, I have new faith in media. Otherwise, I'd tell em to go to hell with thier corporate sponsors!
    • iancrose, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Not me. I only guessed eHarmony. Dating and Christianity go great together if you actually market yourself as a Christian dating site. Otherwise, they make for a whole lot of annoying and a trip back to the bar.
    • keeganspeck, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I actually didn't. I assumed that this list was just another crappy... well, list. And, one made my Time. I would have expected more of a "Yeah kids, come on and like us because we're hip and cool like that new Myspace thingy you like so much!"
    • Vich, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3MySpace is the worst website for the wrong reasons. It's a great concept, and its loads of fun to find friends and stay in touch, but it's very poorly executed.
      The code is a mess, there is little protection against spammers/scammers, it's supposed to be a personal site yet it's damn hard to customise.
    • nublet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1who didn't :^)
    • RoboPimp3000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I did but not because Myspace is buggy or ugly (though (it is), but because bashing Myspace was the trendy thing to do in 2006, and TIME, ironically, is always a year behind.
  • Wonderkind, on 10/11/2007, -4/+185This 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.
    • allywilson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Agreed. That article wasn't even entertaining :-(
    • Hayaemsay, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2So MySpace isn't one of the worst websites?
    • jennamalia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8And about as scientific or methodological as a single author's "I don't like..." sentiments.
    • legallyillegal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1what banners?
    • MajorD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I was more hoping for a list of "Most graphically displeasing websites" rather than what seemed like Time.com's opinion mixed with a ***** of ads. As terrible as MySpace might be to some of you, and as poorly as it performs, you've got to hand it to Tom for making it easy to find old friends... and don't even mention classmates.com.
    • judbeasley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Damn those invisible banners! DAMN them to HELL!!
  • mannaran, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4Die in a fire, spammer
  • brindon, on 10/11/2007, -29/+11Absolute pap. Time Warner is really showing it's biases (bashing a site because it doesn't allow gays? What about dog matchmaking? Should they be forced to do that too? Or Transvestite rights? "Time Warner doesn't care about cross dressers")

    Anyways - crap article.
    • satx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Yes, dog matchmaking is on par with gay matchmaking...

      Go eat a *****.
      • HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Just make sure it's a dog *****. It's not covered with poop and they don't carry AIDS.
        • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I winced when I read that line because I knew it would bring people like you out of the woodwork. Go back to your cave, you homophobe.
      • brindon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I was just waiting for someone like you to start whining about how your right to right-click has been impinged. Oh noes! And yes, Virginia, it's wrong to force private companies into other markets they don't specialize in - whether its gays or dogs or transvestites.
  • roflcawpter, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5I wish I could digg this 5 times simply for mentioning Myspace.

    And cudos to sticking it to Second Life. It's a great service and all, but it's time for a change. We have games with visuals like Crysis, yet we're still running Second Life. Jeezes, get with the times. It's time for them to start a Second Life 2. Think procedurally generated graphics and programming, enhanced visuals, and a better looking interface. Update the engine, and you can the pave way to Web 3.0 * jumps behind rock *
    • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Or, you know, you could go outside, instead of sitting in your room pretending to be outside.
      • roflcawpter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Or you could suck my dick you *****, how many Diggers even have a ***** life? RAYNAR, more like RAYTARD, dick.
  • Kumaku, on 10/11/2007, -11/+10Forbes.com
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Yeah, the slideshow feature on Forbes.com is the absolute WORST.
  • epyon180, on 10/11/2007, -14/+77I have to agree with Myspace.com, ***** that piece of ***** website.
    • nfollmer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2How bout it. Myspace is for emo kids, with no real friends.....
      • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Look at the traffic. There aren't that many emo kids in the entire world. Sure, they're the status quo on Myspace, but don't generalize.
    • Ibanezfoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Admit it, you have no myspace friends.
      • norle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Yes he does. Tom is his friend.
      • epyon180, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If by myspace friends you mean the latest rapper trying to sell his ***** album, then yes I have plenty of myspace friends.
    • FiveGallonDigg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2it's still a good way to discover indie bands
      • joebaloney, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If by "good" you mean "lame"
      • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Or you could, I don't know, go to concerts, listen to some more obscure college and internet radios, find a music sharing community on whatever social networking site (NOT MYSPACE) you use... there are better ways than submitting yourself to spam, banner ads, and bad design.
  • heathengray, on 10/11/2007, -7/+95I'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.
    • 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, -0/+2Actually Second Life's Website works fine, but some of the support functions suck. Reporting bugs is a nightmare, with some convoluted system that makes no ***** sense at all. But if they can nail the reasons why MySpace sucks, you'd think they could tell the difference from a webpage and a video game world.
  • ATLien, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Blockbuster.com new online rental website should be on the list, it is horrible compared to Netflix.
    • BigPapi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Couldn't agree more. Blockbuster is a perfect example of being stuck in a slow Ajax hell. Things that used to take 5 seconds like removing a few movies from the queue, took over a minute with the new website. The damn thing was so slow and inefficient that I had to cancel the service.
    • jpt62089, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Actually it's very easy to use. Just find a movie click Add to Queue. If you want to reorder it it's all AJAX so it's very easy. I've sadly never used Netflix though so I can't comment on how easy their system is.

      The only thing I do not like about BB.com is that it takes 2 days to get a movie. It used to take a day though. Back before the trade in stuff.
      • joebaloney, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"it it's all AJAX so it's very easy"
        Shhh... don't tell anyone, but AJAX, in and of itself, has nothing at all to do with something being easy. But thanks for knowing a buzzword.
  • ExSlashdotter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32They got MySpace, which is one of the obvious offenders, but they missed my personal favorite: godaddy.com. Their site is just ridiculously ambiguous.
  • Pitstopper, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2An easy way to get ur website known??
  • Brunofs, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0http://www.pudim.com.br/ is the best of the worst
    • joebaloney, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0That means it's right smack dab in the middle.
  • dvsbastard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+106Short 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
    • unusualbob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24ya, im getting sick of pages that require multiple pages to view what should be a simple list.
      • Aharoni, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Too bad because you're living in a capitalistic society. More pages = more ads
        • andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wow, that's suprisingly insightful.
    • infinitInk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3thank you !
    • 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.
  • StillGaming, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5This article needs more Dustin Diamond.

    http://www.dustindiamond.com/
    • SilentRamble42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Nothing needs more Dustin Diamond. Buried as inaccurate.
  • ShocktechSFL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26Digg needs to have a moratorium on these annoyingly stupid top 5/10 lists
    • iamso910, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1...and a moratorium on using the word moratorium !
  • dotorg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Meh, I'm not sure any of those would've made Mirsky's Worst of the Web.

    They have no idea what bad websites are.
  • TypeEE, on 10/11/2007, -2/+61This site is just as annoying as it separated one page content to 5 pages.
  • batfan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2This site is bad, flaming bad.

    http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/petersFashionPage.html
    • jessicass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ok that is hilarious.. but I have to wonder what kind of search you were on when you stumbled upon that..
      • karlhouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0My teacher in high school showed that to our class, someone showed it to him. That is one of the funniest sites to show people
        • neoblaque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Sure, you just keep on telling everyone that story.
  • madman75, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4Add this one to the list as well
    http://www.democrats.org/
  • SomeImagination, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Trust me, I've seen far worse!
  • yagotmeseruchi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40But the all-time worst is http://jimjacobson.com
    • darny, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Crashed firefox. thanks.
      • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Not mine. I think it was probably one of the several plugins he is using that caused your crash, quicktime, shockwave, god knows what else.
      • dorkino, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Crashes my Firefox everytime I close his page.
    • nfollmer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Wow..................I seriously want to move now, just because that idiot lives in the same state as me.
    • NJPENSO, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not going to lie, I laughed out loud at the group of faces following my mouse around.
      • neoblaque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Funny yes, but a little scary too since he is the Director of Psychiatry at a hospital. Didn't crash my Firefox though............
    • siecly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0lol brilliant, kinda reminds of when homer made a homepage
    • tony23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I absolutely refuse to believe that that website was built for any reason other than to demonstrate what a really bad website looks like.
  • ocauTMM, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Sif.... this is far worse then all of the above:

    http://www.msy.com.au

    Funnily enough, they are quite a successful computer outlet here in Australia :)

  • darny, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Warning: Redundant comment

    #6: Time.com

    5 freakin pages? Please. As if.

    I love you digg!
  • TroubleInMind, on 10/11/2007, -8/+53Dugg for not mentioning Ron Paul.
  • 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.
    • coldskool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Then GoDaddy certainly takes the cake... I cant believe it didnt make it.
  • fuzzynyanko, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I agree with Second Life. I tried it to see what people were talking about, and the graphics were slower than The Elder Scrolls 4.
    • FRAGaLOT, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1But they weren't talking about it's website, but the game it self. Actually Second life is Great.. just don't use a laptop that has integrated Intel graphics. Use a gaming system dumbass!
    • dorkino, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Second Life is truly pathetic. It's little more than a bunch of people trying to have fake virtual sex.
  • Dobby156, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2I pitty any fool who uses Myspace or Second Life, they should change its name to get-a-life.
  • redlantern64, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Sadly, I've seen worse.

    Well...maybe not worse than myspace... :-)
  • sdenike, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Crap article, only reason I found it interesting is because I know the girl on the main page of eHarmony.
  • internetslacker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20All websites that don't offer free porn are horrible.
  • guntario, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I think that article should be added to the list of the five worst articles of all time.
  • 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 *****.
  • sasso, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9worst top list ever
  • zewam, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12No wonder evite.com is on the list! "Evite" is french for avoid.
    :-)
  • Beedigital, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Sometime ago i created a digg news featuring some of the best Flash Sites around. http://flashprayer.blogspot.com

    It's strange how the worste site gets a 1st page here and the best don't . I mean does bad is good here?!
  • ZeRux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8No goatse? But good for them if they never seen it.
  • dn11, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Yep, I prefer the website Half Life 2 to that Second Life website.
  • Beedigital, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1yes, i guess i have to respect that.
  • atarix64, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Arguing about who has the worst website on the whole internet is worst than a cripple fight, everyone is a winner ;)
  • mrrealtime, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I once made a software product that was reviewed in Time magazine. It was a CD Rom game. Time compared it to "crayons" and "the outdoors" saying that the main drawback of the software was it kept kids tied up to a computer. 'Nuff said.
  • 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.
    • brindon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They're the worst ever that have failing competitors owned by Time Warner.
  • slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Thanks for the article.
  • ripstuntz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2www.cougarwrestling.com. Seriously, it's the worst site known to man. If you dont believe me, go there.
    • haggie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That's not the type of "cougar wrestling" that I was hoping for...
  • endustry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Most of it just sounded like elitist's repugnance. In other words, when Time tries to do snark it usually just comes off like Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.
  • Aaronontheweb, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Buried as inaccurate... these are the worst websites for THIS year, not all time.
    • dackerman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Correct +1

      Myspace however will always be the worst website of all time.
  • SavageBlackCat, on 10/11/2007, -9/+101) Dailykos
    2) Whitehouse.gov
    3) Aljazeera
    4) DrPhil
    5) HardOCP (after Kyle got caught photoshopping benchmarks)
  • licoricewhip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I guess, for as bad as these sites are, posting such an article on Digg now has the curious lemmings clicking on the links.
  • ispep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Any ubuntu fanboy blog should be on the list.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 126 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.