Worst Websites of the Year
Daily Dose of Bad Design (Daily Sucker)
Current Examples of Bad Web Design Presented Daily (direct link)
Bad Web Design
Overview (direct link)
Current Examples of Bad Web Design Presented Daily (direct link)
Overview (direct link)
These sites run the gamut from just a few tragic mistakes to the worst kind of Over-The-Top websites you see featured in The Daily Sucker.
My personal favorites are the WTF?—What The Heck?—sites that make you shake your head and ask the question, "Did anybody look at this site before it went live?" The answer to that question is usually, "Doesn't look like it."
You need to go through the whole list because today's rankings aren't permanent. For example, I'm very fond of #17—Jes MaHarry—and I'm sure it will rank higher when the final list comes out later this year.
Vincent Flanders comments: They've fixed it.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Ended up as the one of The Worst Websites of 2013
July 15th, 2013 10:10 pm by Vincent Flanders
Did anybody look at this site before it went live?
Submitter's comments: I'm a long time reader, but this is the first website I came across that prompted me to submit it.
I need to register a fictitious name for my business that I'm putting together, and this is the site I need to traverse to do it.
The color scheme is a full-on frontal assault to the retinas and the navigation scheme seems illogical at best. Enjoy.>
Vincent Flanders' comments:
I don't know what menu item I clicked on the home page, but The Wisconsin Register of Deeds listed by County page's color scheme is taken from the home page and I wish they had taken the color scheme from somewhere else.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Ended up as the #5 Worst Website of 2013.
June 19th, 2013 5:05 am by Vincent Flanders
It doesn't surprise me that the quality of the food is in inverse proportion to the quality of the website. That's very common with restaurant sites.
Submitter's comments: I'm just back from a trip to San Francisco, which is Coolness Central. But as we both know, suckiness is too strong a force to stop, even there!
We had heard about a particular restaurant and went online to find out hours and such. My wife said, “Come look at this, something's very wrong!” So I looked at the site and I was thrilled to watch 30 zillion images slowly loading per page. Hilarious!
I soon realized that we had the epitome of a right-brain website with no left-brain function whatsoever! It is pretty looking, which fits this type of site. It's all HTML tables, duh, of course! As far as I can tell, it's made with Photoshop slices, which Photoshop then cuts up the main image and barfs out HTML that includes every separate layer of Photoshop.
A mystery remains, because you could just use maybe 1 or 2 giant images per page–what they're doing is totally the hard way. My thought is that maybe the client called and said, “Whaaaa! My precious site is loading too slow!!!” So the designer somehow broke it up into a million pieces and now you have an extremely crude “parallel loading scheme.”
Final bonus: on the menu page, zero SEO because it's all images! Hooray! It's simply unbelievable and I hope you “enjoy” it as much as I did!
P.S. We did have lunch there and the food was great! :-)
Vincent Flanders' comments: Initially, I thought I was looking at a Splash page with no links. I couldn't find any. I went out to the grocery store and when I came back I accidentally clicked what turned out to be the link to what was the “home” page. The link was the word “Enter” but its color blended with the background and I didn't see it.
From a cursory examination, it looks like every page is made out of images. Not helpful for SEO. The text on the menus was also very small and hard to read and needed leading between the menu items.
Another very suckily designed website.
January 30th, 2013 5:05 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: I haven't written to you in about a billion years, but I saw a new sub-site at Verizon today that made my eyes bleed. Enjoy becoming nauseous and jittery while viewing this!
Vincent Flanders' comments: The problems show up on a long portrait monitor. Your eye is drawn toward the numbered red squares. You instinctively mouse over them and the fly-out menus are ugly and the font is hideous. The body text is small and difficult to read because the color is #666—Satan's CSS
Verizon is being “cute” with their navigation. If you know how the navigation works, then it's easy to navigate.
Other comments #1: Oh Yeah, I just love to scroll a modern example of PDF file. The only features missing on this glorified roll of toilet paper are the serrations and the gray recycled paper color. Just throw it down on the porta-potty floor on your way out.
Other comments #2: As with Xerox (Worst Website of 2011), of course the site sucks—and for the reasons already mentioned. Again, as with Xerox, my objective here is to be adopted by the individual who convinced the decision makers at Verizon to pay (big money, no doubt) for this.
Other comments #3: There are other usability issues because services merged. If you attempt to log in incorrectly (say due to a brain fart leading to a forgotten password), the login form not-so-helpfully sends you to a new page to assist you in logging in with your correct domain by adding another field to reset on password failure.
March 25th, 2013 3:03 am by Vincent Flanders
Other comments #1: It makes perfect sense if "what matters most" is confusion.
Vincent Flanders' comments: It's been fixed..
May 14th, 2013 3:03 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: I am shocked, shocked to find website suck here: moving banner with flashing and blinking links, animated Gifs, multicolored “new” signs, and longish front page in need of organization and a navigation scheme.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I'm confused. I thought electric cars are the future. If they're the future, the website should be “futuristic”—whatever the heck that means. It certainly isn't a flat, responsive website. It's about as sucky as it gets. OK. OK. It's not as bad as any of the sites listed in Worst Websites of 2012: Beyond The Pale. I was just trying to make a point.
Personally, I'm absolutely stunned by the logo. Oh, heck. I'm absolutely stunned by the whole site.
Other comments #1: Oddly, there are one or two nifty (in a nutty, but somehow appealing way) ideas on this site. The problem is that the general design is just horrible. Please take a little time to rethink the overall design, and I am sure you can get a final product that is much better.
Other comments #2: Kill the animated 'new' icons and the site would be 50% better. Think how much energy would be saved by having static icons!
Other comments #3: I am impressed at the cheesecake on the site links. Earthrace deserves praise for using a well-proportioned model, instead of some anorexic fashionista. The boat in the background looks like it might be interesting if my attention were not being directed elsewhere.
Note: some of the cheesecake is NSFW.
April 5th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Other comments: Ugh, they use AdSense and now I'm getting ads for Rick Jones Pianos on YouTube and everywhere else I visit that uses AdSense.
Submitter's comments: Supposedly the largest piano retailer on the East Coast.
Vincent Flanders' comments: This comment confuses me. Why? The site sucks. Is the company successful because nobody sees their website, but the company has great word-of-mouth? Is the company successful because the website is so poorly designed, but it matches the expectations of their customers? Do they have great TV and other media campaigns? Would they be the biggest piano retailer in the world if they had a better looking website?
The tables, the borders, the centered text, the long home page, and images are resized in HTML or CSS (PageSpeed says that "Serving scaled images could save 3.1 Mb [98% reduction]" on the Testimonial Page).
It's 1995 ugly.
April 17th, 2013 9:09 pm by Vincent Flanders
When presentation becomes more important than the experience of actually eating the food, then the chef has failed. The same goes for a website.
Submitter's comments: I found this website from an ad in a website that is about genuine food. I trusted the ad, thinking the website must be good if it's on this type of website.
However, upon seeing the site I see only: “click to read.” Then I see lots of buttons, making me feel that using the website is complicated.
Then I actually read the content. The content does not suck.
Apparently, the website is done is a format used in newspapers that you can read on the Internet and catalogs for websites that sell stuff.
The website is unusual in that it has no content except for the “click to read” part. Usually, you can read the content immediately.
Did I mention the website's content uses words that I don't know what they mean—even if Swedish is one of my two native languages?
The website uses a mechanism where the website can be scrolled up and down and to the sides, which I don't know if that exists on other websites.
Vincent Flanders' comments: What's wrong with this site can be summed up in three words: “Flash. Flash. Flash.” Geez.
Other comments #1: Well, that was pointless. Just a Flash flipbook skin of a "website." And the 'click to read' button just sends you to full-screen, which didn't make it obvious until you clicked it.
Other comments #3: When I read "Press 'Esc' to exit full-screen mode" I pressed my browser window's Close box to exit the site.
April 10th, 2013 12:12 am by Vincent Flanders
This is one of the worst active website designs I've ever seen.
Submitter's comments: The home page takes up literally less than a quarter of my screen, and all 8 (yup, just 8) pages are the same ridiculous size. Oh, except for the one that has the completely mismatched tiled gradient background image that was clearly made to fit that teeny viewport.
I don't even remember having a screen small enough for that to make sense, especially by the time websites became a “thing.” Do yourself a favor and don't be tempted to look at the page source; it's guaranteed to make your brain start dribbling out of your
ears. And yes, they're still a functional company.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I don't believe the site is that “active.” As the photo below shows, the home page was last modified on March 24, 2005. It isn't an active site if it's been eight years without a redesign.
The header tells us the home page was last modified eight years ago and looks like it was designed back in the 640×480 days of the web.
This is another of those “I hope they don't depend on their website for business” websites. I suspect they don't need the web. Still, the site sucks.
January 23rd, 2013 4:04 am by Vincent Flanders
Vincent Flanders' comments: Ended up as the #17 Worst Website of 2013
They fixed the site. However, a copy is at archive.org.
February 25th, 2013 2:02 am by Vincent Flanders
It's another in a long line of Over the top Websites (OTT). Over the Top sites generally deal with philosophy, religion, politics, end times, etc., but they're generally not mainstream. Most often, they're the creations of liberal loons or raving right-wingers.
Submitter's comments: The only thing that helps(?) in figuring this one out is the header: “Free Energy. Gravity Control. Alternative Science.” The “about” page is only 20 screens, as opposed the home page's nearly 100. I think I'll follow the advice about three screens down: “…No Like? Just skip what you aren't interested in…” and skip the whole website.
Vincent Flanders' comments: What drives me crazy is there are plenty of over-the-top types who have nice looking websites. MemoryHole, by Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorist Professor James Tracy‘s website looks infinitely better than the run-of-the-mill OTT site featured on WebPagesThatSuck. An even better example of a good-looking OTT website is InfoWars, which is run by Alex Jones.
C'mon guys, you've got Internet connections in your bunkers. Use some of your comrades' design techniques and de-suck your websites.
Other comments: I get my morning chuckle on after perusing such a site. The design is pretty average for an OTT site; a little imagination and creativity would go a long way to at least make it more entertaining.
February 19th, 2013 4:04 am by Vincent Flanders
School children all over America get sent to this terrible, terrible website. Just wait for the awful cursor tracker.
Vincent Flanders' comments: I have to ask myself, “Is this the kind of site school children expect to see?” Heck no. It's an insult to the intelligence of children everywhere. It's just another Over-the-top Website. To make matters worse, they have unmarked Microsoft Word Documents. Click a link and you start to download a document.
Other comments #1: I do hesitate to be too critical, because this person (Cheryl?) appears to really care about teaching biology, and like most teachers, likely has very limited resources for doing so. That being said, I just wish her passion for teaching were expressed in a more credible web presence.
Other comments #2: As a 'hobby' website, it is okay. And for kids, some of the cutesy stuff works. But when the first link is for 'AP Biology', you've got 17 year-olds using the site, not 7 year-olds. My 17 year-old would hit the back button pretty quick, thinking the site isn't for her.
Other comments #3: As a parent, I have often come across these types of websites when helping my child find research information or a project idea. Kids websites are often built and maintained by teachers who do not have the money or time to make good websites. They are frustrating as heck, and super ugly, but probably not going to change.
February 15th, 2013 12:12 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: In general, this website is an ugly 90's-style website, but the real kicker occurs here, where the coder forgot to close every header tag on the page.
Vincent Flanders' comments: What's most impressive is that somebody spent their valuable time trying to figure out what was wrong with the page. Seriously, this is one of the more screwed-up text pages I've seen, but it looks “fine” in Internet Explorer. If you're using Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari, then the text keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. This screenshot demonstrates what happens as you scroll down the page.
Other comments #1: Testing with multiple browsers is a vital part or web design that cannot be overlooked. Also, "you get what you pay for" was never more true:
META name="generator" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"
With that said, no tool is a bad tool, FrontPage, Flash, whatever; the problem lies with one relying on the tool to make up for one's own ignorance of basic design and coding standards.
Other comments #2: FrontPage 5.0 isn't merely the always-problematic FrontPage; it's a seriously outdated version of FrontPage, released between 1998 and 2000 (versions 4-8 are tough to track more precisely, thanks to some stupid versioning decisions by Microsoft, but I can say with certainty this version is from that two-year span).
So is this page actually this old, or have they just used a ridiculously old tool to build their page? There are free tools today that can do a much better job than this without any effort.
February 4th, 2013 6:06 am by Vincent Flanders
Vincent Flanders' comments: Ended up as the #15 Worst Website of 2013.
March 26th, 2013 4:04 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: The web page has a sound file that required me to download a plugin, which I promptly ignored. Page is excessively long, font is multi-sized, multi-colored and even scrolls. There is so much text on this page I didn't even bother reading most of it. Keep scrolling down to see several poorly Photoshopped images and a hit counter at the bottom of the page.
There are few text issues as annoying as large quantities of centered text. This site annoys me. I'm also annoyed by the probably-unlicensed-hence-copyright-infringing use of the Twisted Sister classic song “We're Not Gonna Take It.”
Also amusing are the pictures of “2 Anonymous Chicks” (how can they truly be anonymous when I can see their faces?) and the picture below the 2 anonymous chicks, which is just another proof of Godwin's Law.
Disclaimer: I think I used Comcast in the early 2000's. I don't remember having issues with them, but their offerings weren't as complex as they are today. Like everything, your mileage will vary.
March 19th, 2013 7:07 am by Vincent Flanders
Vincent Flanders' comments: Ended up as the #14 Worst Website of 2013
March 18th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Apparently, the Catholic Church has become heretical since Vatican II—UFOs, and . . . oh, what's the use? Just pick a subject and they have something about how it has meant to ruin the Church. Not surprisingly, it is not run by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (more fondly remembered as the Inquisition). Here's another for the OTT file, but they really need to try harder if they want to get in the top ten.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Just when I thought it was safe to go back to church, this site comes along. On the other hand, it's nice to see some small part of the Catholic Church has a loon website—I mean Over-the-top Website. Maybe it's because I'm a lapsed, Jesuit-educated Catholic, but I don't know WTF this site is talking about. Not a clue. That doesn't really matter. What matters is the site's design sucks.
The links on the home page go on and on. There's no organization. My favorite page is “The Invalid New Mass,” which weighs in at more than 7Mb because large images are scaled down by HTML rather than being physically scaled down (a 1389×938-pixel image [612K] is forced to fit a 175×150 container). There are lots of other problems, but why bother? Crap is crap.
If the people who spent the time to build this “website” had focused their efforts on curing breast cancer, the Susan G. Komen foundation would be shuttered by now.
March 14th, 2013 2:02 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: <meta name=”GENERATOR” content=”Microsoft FrontPage 6.0″>
Do I have to say anything else?
Vincent Flanders' comments: It would make my job easier if you said a little more<grin>.
Part of me wants to give it a pass because it's for kids and kids like shiny things. On the other hand, I don't want to encourage bad taste. After all, our school system rarely teaches art and certainly doesn't teach aesthetics.
For some strange reason, the box at the top left side of the page is not a link to the home page (on the subpages).
April 16th, 2013 1:01 am by Vincent Flanders
Submitter's comments: Focus, people, focus. Organize a bit—try a real menu. If you have your first page filled with almost-every-conspiracy-out-there, most visitors just might think you are more than eccentric. The site does give some warning:
To best understand this site, we highly recommend the classic movies “They Live” think of it as a partial documentary. Also see “The Matrix” and think of it as an analogy of life on Earth. (Ignore the two sequels).
As a two-for-one, visit the sister site for knowledge of health and conspiracies not influenced by those nasty extra-terrestrials using us as batteries.
Vincent Flanders' comments: Another great example that fits in with my article: Over-the-top Websites. There is a wonderful warning on the home page that would fit right here on WPTS:
If you get upset, stressed or angry after reading anything on this site, do this simple kinesthesiology technique called EMOTIONAL STRESS RELIEF