I was unaware until today that commenting was not enabled on my blog.  Whoopsie-doopsie.  I fixed the problem, and now anybody with something to say (who is also registered with TypeKey) can leave a comment.  I know that you’re all ecstatic and everything now, so please try to contain yourself, okay?

So innergeek.us has been named the number 88 of the "World’s 100 Worst Websites" by Micromart magazine http://www.micromart.co.uk in the UK.  This is how the article starts:

The World’s Worst 100 Websites

After his recent trip around the world in 80 websites, Ashley Frieze was quickly talked out of his vow never to do it again. Here are the first 50 of his list of the World’s Worst 100 Websites…

What makes a website bad? To get some clues, I went onto the Internet in search of Tim Berners-Lee’s original vision (available somewhere inside www.w3c.org). His aim was for:

* Easy to find information with rich, cross system, links
* Ease of use and accessibility
* Usefulness

So, any website which is the opposite of these is clearly bad. I devised a scoring system (described at worldsworst100.blogspot.com, which also contains all the links to the sites in this article and the next). I then started Googling for anything and everything.

The list of sites which follows is the result of a large, but not exhaustive search. Some of these sites are so bad they’re good. Some are archetypes of the sort of site that litters the net and wastes server space and bandwidth every hour of every day. Sites were scored in:

* Uselessness
* Bad design
* Wasted effort
* Timewaster potential
* Smugness

Given the diversity of the Internet, and how easy it is for any idiot to set up a website, the results of this narrow-minded scoring system are bound to be very subjective. Entertainment does not count as useful, for instance and some people’s strongly-held beliefs can come across as smug. So, this list will tell us something about the web, but who knows what it is!?

***************

On their website, they list numbers 100-91 so that you will purchase the magazine to read the rest.  I am very interested in seeing what they have to say about innergeek.us, especially since their site isn’t exactly a pillar of awesome design and usefulness. I just don’t want to give them any money for a magazine that disses my website, whether or not it’s justified. If anybody has a copy of the article that they could scan and send to me, I would greatly appreciate it.

I really wonder what hangup that writer (who, talk about useless, made blog specifically for this article:  http://worldsworst100.blogspot.com) has about geeks and wasting time. 

Who is Ashley Frieze to decide what is a time-waster, anyway? And why do guys named Ashley not go by something cool, like "Ash," instead? What kind of guy disses geeks who has a personal website named http://www.incredible.org.uk/ that even has a link to a page called "incredible geek?"  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Maybe Ashley should have taken his personal website out of search engine indexes before resorting to public, published defamation of other people’s more useful websites.

It’s not my fault that he wasn’t geek enouch to score well on the Geek Test.

(Thanks to David McCann for the tip about the Micromart article.)