Hi all, on a site like trickmagic dot com, its basic cookie cutter design or look for a site like this. Has anyone see results that show a "Better" design or a design that looks more modern (web 2.0 ish) works better or worse?
John
digg is nothing special, flickr the same, delicious couldn't be any more plain....
its been proven that ugly sites make money, but i don't know how much more
I disagree. I think Digg and Flickr are both beautiful and functional. Del.iciou.us is ugly, but functional. And there are many Web 2.0 sites that are quite nice. Here are a few:
it's kind of hard, because I have not ever compared a good design on a domain compared to a web 2.0 on the same domain. I do think that clean, professional, and easy on the eyes will make the most money in the long run.
I disagree. I think Digg and Flickr are both beautiful and functional. Del.iciou.us is ugly, but functional. And there are many Web 2.0 sites that are quite nice. Here are a few:
Hi all, on a site like trickmagic dot com, its basic cookie cutter design or look for a site like this. Has anyone see results that show a "Better" design or a design that looks more modern (web 2.0 ish) works better or worse?
John
Most ugly websites do get more visits.. I think people are primarily there for the content.. But people are starting to change! Designs sites all the way!:thumbup:
« Reply to Has anyone seen success in designing sites over the ugly basic look?
