Look at the Webby Awards getting more and more irrelevant.
There are 13 reader comments
• Apr 20 2004 • 1:22PM
"thousands of sites submitted" times $120 entry fee ...
• Apr 20 2004 • 1:58PM
i understand that they want to include sites that people actually use on occasion, but i don't really think that friendster, with its hour load times, deserves to be nominated.
• Apr 20 2004 • 2:31PM
What? No kottke.org? It's a sham!!!!
• Apr 20 2004 • 4:05PM
They're not too bad on the whole. The personal category is just dreck though. Of the ones that would load for me, they were mostly just bad flash experiments with jumpy menus and almost no content. The baby site was just a jumpy nav plus badly photoshoped images. I know there are plenty of non-blog personal sites worth considering in this category, I wonder if no one entered.
• Apr 20 2004 • 4:42PM
For the longest time, I've wanted to win a Webby. In the last two years or so, I've realized that the Webby is nothing more than a footnote on someone's resume, and a paper weight.
Oh well. At least it's a creative looking paper weight.
• Apr 20 2004 • 5:34PM
Meetup.com is a political site, eh?
• Apr 20 2004 • 8:08PM
It's like browsing through someone's old list of bookmarks. I wonder if they're making much money?
I'd say they are less relevant, to be sure.
• Apr 21 2004 • 6:39AM
I quit giving the webby awards any importance for a while now, they just keep getting worse and more irrelevant.
• Apr 21 2004 • 7:30AM
I'm still waiting for www.the-dreamers.com to load.
Oh wait it's just loaded...hmmm... flash animation.
How can a webpage that takes 30 seconds to load, be considered for a webby award ?
• Apr 21 2004 • 7:56AM
You mean the Webby's were once relevant?
• Apr 21 2004 • 10:34AM
Irrelevant = not the sites I would have chosen.
• Apr 22 2004 • 12:14PM
Ooh snap, Jason.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
Jessi • Apr 20 2004 • 12:49PM
I think it's just a 'how many categories can you think of' contest...