I've seen quite a few threads about the worst designed commercial sites, but I'd rather get some opinions about what you consider the BEST designed commercial sites, and why?
Best designed commercial site
- Thread starter SenseiSteve
- Start date
Excluding personal websites - yes, regular websites of business entities.
cyberworldhost
Cyber Specialist
I don't know it depends on the type of business in my mind. Google is a nice design but all it is search. So They don't got much to work with. It get the main point across though.
I always thought The New York Times (www.nytimes.com) had one of the best websites by a newspaper. It transcends an incredible feel of holding a real paper in your hands.
The Times (UK), The Wall Street Journal, while also great work, they have more of a traditional design. The NY Times are the only ones who managed to nail it so well.
The Times (UK), The Wall Street Journal, while also great work, they have more of a traditional design. The NY Times are the only ones who managed to nail it so well.
Took a look at the NYTimes - got interested and read a few stories. You're right.
I like these two:
http://www.loveisrespect.org/
http://www.thedailycat.com/
I think they both address their target demographics very well (probably the top concern when creating a design, in my opinion) and are attractive sites in general.
http://www.loveisrespect.org/
http://www.thedailycat.com/
I think they both address their target demographics very well (probably the top concern when creating a design, in my opinion) and are attractive sites in general.
TurnKeyInternet
Member
The best website is hard. I like Google and The New York times for sure. However, I guess you can really acheive what ever you would like to with millions or tens of millions of dollars per year to invest in the best. There are some sites that are the best for ROI, even though they may not be the best. Plus, the Internet is so huge, that is is hard to view all the sites to determine the best.
I think you have to be a speed reader to read the warning on www.loveisrespect.org.
thedailycat is great - good info and design
You're right about never being able to review them all. That's why asking here helps us view sites we would have probably never found on our own. That's what I like about Stumble.
TurnKeyInternet
Member
Well there are 10k plus members at Hosting Discussion. It would require all of us to review 1,000 new websites a day to keep up with the number coming online daily. I read there was a couple million new websites that come online everyday.
It is hard to place legitimacy on some of these best site awards because there is no possible way. With cars there are only a handful of car makers and maybe a few hundred to thousand card models. I think car and driver screws up their ratings every year.
Why don't we just scale it back to those sites that you've visited - which are the best? The purpose of this is simply to compare what each of us has experienced. One of my favorites is www.webmd.com.
Last edited:
Just saw where the NYTimes has an Alexa traffic rank of 115 with over 113,000 links - they must be doing something right.
Zachary McClung
New member
The have paid a lot of money. I wonder how much the ny times spends per year on their website. The site seems simple in principal.
The NY Times company runs over 50 websites including About.com. They pull in nearly 3 billion in revenue annually and employ over 9000. I'd say they spend their fair share on hosting solutions.
Zachary McClung
New member
Steve,
You always have to go into specifics don't you. While that is interesting information and if I ever find a job at NY Times it might come in handy. I don't know why they would be looking to hire me with my writing skills though. lol
You always have to go into specifics don't you. While that is interesting information and if I ever find a job at NY Times it might come in handy. I don't know why they would be looking to hire me with my writing skills though. lol
-
HostingDiscussion
A community for web hosting professionals and enthusiasts, since 2002.
