2010: Year of the Redesign

Sometimes change is a good thing. I like when computers get faster, when cars get more powerful and more efficient, and when a band I like releases a great new album. Sometimes change is not a good thing, like when a website you visit regularly undergoes a major design change for the worse. This is the situation I have found myself in several times so far this year! In case you haven't noticed, I have a hard time dealing with change.

#1 - YouTube's 2010 Redesign
It all began with YouTube's new site design which launched at the end of March 2010. I feel that YouTube's new look is vastly worse than the previous version in several ways.

My grievances include:
· Video summary moved below player from right-hand side
· Home and History links disappeared
· Subscribe and Upload buttons moved, became colorless and joyless
· Five-star rating system discontinued
· Blatant Facebook ripoff "Like/Dislike" rating system implemented
· User comments no longer displayed in chronological order
· No separator bars between user comments
· Player volume control now horizontal instead of vertical

YouTube before and after the 2010 redesign.

In all honesty, the new YouTube redesign ranks up there with the Edsel, the Arch Deluxe, and New Coke in terms of failures. I'm not the only one who feels this way! Check out the 2,500+ comments on the YouTube Blog that echo my sentiments. The new design is an absolute travesty. Everything familiar has been discarded in favor of a new look that is about as intuitive as a tangled extension cord: where do you even begin?

This is a real shame because I used to love spending hours on YouTube looking up videos about anything and everything. Since their new design launched, I find I am spending less time on there and the time I do spend there is less enjoyable.

#2 - Google's 2010 Redesign
Next, we have the new Google homepage. Google is great at helping me find what I am looking for, but they are slipping when it comes to displaying that information to me. First things first: their logo changed in 2010. The new colors have more of a pastel look and the drop shadow is gone. Instead of looking at a search engine, I feel as though I am looking at a flat, two-dimensional page made for little kids.

Google's 2010 redesign features a subtle new logo.

But wait, it gets worse. The search results page now features a vertical column on the left-hand side of the page. Rather than filtering my search results to show only Images, News, and Videos on top of the search results page, the filter links are now on the left hand side. I don't like this position on the page, I don't like the icons, and I don't like that I cannot collapse the sidebar completely.

Comparison of Google and Bing Results Pages.

Most of all, I hate that the search results sidebar is a blatant rip-off of Bing. While we're on the subject, Google recently introduced a new "feature" that lets users randomize the background image on their homepage in June. Seriously, if I wanted my search engine and results page to look like they were made by idiots, I would just use Bing. Now that both search engines have nearly identical layouts, I'm left with no good alternatives.

#3 - Wikipedia's 2010 Redesign
Finally, let's take a look at the Wikipedia redesign which launched in April 2010. The new default theme is "Vector," which features clean lines and abundant gradients that have a very Microsoft-esque quality about them. The web's most famous peer-edited website is now one of the goofiest looking websites out there.

Wikipedia before and after the redesign.

But the worst offense by far is the relocation of the search box from the left-hand navigation to the top right corner of the page. I never realized how much I use the search box until they moved it! After using Wikipedia regularly for years, I find myself frustrated and angry when I position the mouse cursor on the left hand side and my search box is gone! Arrgh!

They really missed the mark on this one. Articles written by committee seems to be working well for Wikipedia, but design by committee is not.

#4 - NewEgg's 2010 Redesign
NewEgg is the Internet's second-biggest Internet-only retailer after Amazon. They stock a wide variety of consumer electronics, computer parts, gadgets, and even appliances for sale. In 2010 their website underwent a face-lift, and I think the new look is definitely NOT an improvement.

First, the daily deals have been moved off the homepage to their own separate page. Now it takes an extra click to see what's on sale today. Content should get easier to find rather than being buried deeper into the site.

NewEgg's New Look for 2010.

Next, the font size on the product listing pages grew a few sizes. I'm not sure what it is about the font, but it doesn't look right in the context of the page. It's hard to get more specific about it, but I just don't like the way it looks.

Closing Thoughts
If I could communicate one thing to web designers, it would be this: remember that your site's user interface does not belong to you, it belongs to your users! Ask them for feedback, listen to the responses, and for God's sake if it's not broken, don't fix it!!

Let's just hope that craigslist never updates their interface.

I'm not the only one who feels this way:
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-video-page-launches-for-all-users.html
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/an_inconvenient_drop_shadow.php
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/

Automotive Design Disasters

When a car manufacturer decides to introduce a new vehicle, it takes dozens of people and many thousands of hours of work before the first completed vehicle rolls off the assembly line. These people work in teams to design the exterior, the interior, the engine, the chassis, and the suspension down to the finest detail.

Part of the automotive design process includes continuous peer review and design changes to make the vehicle look and operate as perfectly as possible. However, I have to question the designers who put their stamp of approval on the following designs, because these vehicles have to be some of the worst automotive design disasters in recent history!

The 2007-present Scion xB has one glaring design error. Can you spot it? This vehicle has just one reverse lamp, positioned off-center on the left side of the bumper. Would you wear a pair of pants with only one back pocket? Would you listen to a stereo with only one speaker? Absolutely not! So why on earth would you make a car with only one backup light? I suppose this might look good if you are a cyclops or that chick from Futurama.
Holy taillights, Batman! The taillights on this Mitsubishi Lancer Wagon are only slightly shorter than the Sears Tower. Not only will they make other drivers extremely aware of when you're coming to a stop, but if you live near the coast you can park this car up on a cliff and use its towering red lights to direct incoming ships safely to the harbor!

The Nissan Cube is neither hip nor square. It's not a van and it's not a sport-utility vehicle. It's not fast or sporty, nor is it intended for towing or going off road. I'm not really sure what it's purpose is, but this much I do know: it is hideously ugly from every angle!

Nissan aren't the only ones who can make an ugly, box-like vehicle. Take a gander at this Pontiac Aztek crossover! From its double-nostril front end to its plastic-clad sides and depressing roofline, this vehicle is an absolute monster that no doubt incorporates every single idea the design committee came up with. I cannot imagine why they stopped production after just 4 years...

Cadillac may be "The standard of the world" when it comes to luxury, but even the world-famous luxury car maker has had its share of design disasters. Take this Cadillac Seville for example. Its "bustleback" design looks less sophisticated and more like the car got rear-ended in a crash.
Speaking of ugly rear ends, check out the exhaust on this Porsche Boxster! That's right, a single pipe, dead center. Pardon my French, but the design and location of the exhaust pipe on this car looks just like an arsehole. I'm sorry, but there is just no nice way to call this one.
Hey, is that a pipe organ on wheels? Nope, it's just the rear end of a Lexus IS-F. The designers of this sporty sedan went more than a little overboard with the number four. Four doors? Check. Four wheels? Check. Four exhaust tips? "Oh what the hell, let's do that too!" they must have said. This is one design that should have been four-bidden!

A modern car is a complex system of electronic and mechanical systems working together in perfect harmony. In fact everything under the hood is so perfectly set in place that drivers are discouraged from ever knowing what really goes on thanks to the prevalence of plastic engine covers. These pieces of injection-molded junk are used excessively today in an attempt to limit access to your own car and to cover up the fact that today's engines look extremely lame.

The dashboard of the Toyota Echo may be one of the most visually unappealing designs I have ever seen. From its center-mounted instrument cluster to its shapely glove compartment, this thing looks like there was even less thought put into it than the movie "Gigli." How did they not realize how bad this looks?
Whether you're going to the moon or to the grocery store, the dashboard of this Nissan Quest minivan will make every trip and adventure! Its bizarre spaceship-like layout throws decades of intuitive and ergonomic designs out the window in favor of something that looks like a busy-box toy for adults.

Good God Almighty! The mother of all speedometers may be the single biggest thing about the Mini Cooper. The gauge is almost as large as the steering wheel, and is so ridiculously large that even blind people can see it. What an awful, awful design!

Look, I understand that designing cars is hard work - but we're not talking about putting a man on the moon, here. We're talking about shaping steel and glass into pleasing and practical shapes that people can feel good about buying. The majority of automakers have got this down pat - but as we can see here, some of them still need help when it comes to producing cars that are not disasters of design.

I am not the only one who feels this way:
http://blog.cargurus.com/2009/07/17/the-ugliest-cars-of-2009-and-2010
http://www.scottbradford.us/2010/01/12/the-ugliest-cars-of-the-2010-model-year/

Why The Kindle, Nook, and Other E-Book Readers Suck

I like technology that makes sense and makes my life easier. Voicemail is a great idea because it lets people leave messages for me when I am busy. Cruise control on cars, that's another great invention. But I fail to see what's so awesome about electronic book readers like the Kindle, Nook, and Sony Reader.

Electronic reading devices are very trendy right now, and I just cannot figure out why people like them so much! When compared with traditional bound and printed books, it seems to me that e-readers are a vastly inferior technology. Here's why:

An electronic book reader is an expensive investment. Amazon's Kindle reader costs $259 for the 6-inch version and $489 for the 9.7-inch DX version. Barnes and Noble's Nook reader is also $259, and Sony's line of e-readers (cleverly named Reader - nice one, Sony) ranges from $199 to $399. Wow! Reading a plain old paperback book does not require any special hardware other than your eyes and your hands.

When you think about it, an e-book reader costs about the same as a netbook computer yet has less functionality. Both devices can display electronic books and RSS feeds, play MP3s, and access the Internet via 3G and Wi-Fi. However, a netbook can also be used to run programs, access email, watch videos, and more. Netbooks also feature full color screens and keyboards which make them much more suitable for accessing the Internet than e-book readers.

Another problem with e-readers is battery life. Both the Nook and the Kindle feature internal rechargeable batteries which last 10 and 14 days, respectively. However, both of these pale in comparison to traditional bound-and-printed books which never need to be recharged.

When it comes to durability, traditional books beat electronic readers into the dust. A paperback or hardcover book can survive getting banged around in a backpack all semester and still be perfectly readable. Accidentally dropping an e-reader could result in a scratched or cracked screen, or in the worst-case scenario, a $259 paperweight. Don't believe me? Check the comments from Kindle users on Amazon's Kindle Drop Test video.

Borrowing a hardcover or paperback book from a friend is extremely easy. Borrowing an e-book from a friend is, well, not so easy. Currently, Barnes and Noble's Nook is the only platform that lets you lend your electronic book titles to a friend. There is a maximum time limit of 14 days your friend must also have a Nook reader, PC, Mac, or iPhone. I hope Grandma can speed-read through Harry Potter in less than two weeks!

One heavily advertised feature of e-book readers is their ability to store up to 1,500 books on the device's memory. Now I don't know about you, but I usually just read one book at a time. It's nice that they give you so much space, but is it really necessary? E-books are not MP3s, and I honestly don't plan to read through hundreds of volumes of literature the way I would listen to hundreds of songs on an MP3 player.

When it comes to purchasing books, retailers such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble are quick to offer their electronic titles at discounted prices. Amazon has Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" as a hardcover book for $26.40 or paperback for $9.99. Kindle users pay a paltry $6.39 for the same title in electronic format. It would seem at first that owning an e-reader would allow Kindle users to save piles of money on their book purchases, but sadly this is not the case.

The truth is that serious readers already know where to get the best deals on books. Whether it is trading in merchandise at the used bookstore, patronizing the public library, or browsing websites like half.com and eBay, true bookworms never pay the full cover price for their books. That same copy of The Da Vinci Code sells for just $0.75 cents on Half.com in Like New condition!

In many cases, perfectly good books can be purchased at thrift stores and yard sales for 50 cents or less. I picked up a mint copy of Herman Melville's classic Moby Dick (published by Bantam Books) for a mere 15 cents at my local Goodwill. The same book costs $4.95 for a digital copy at Barnes and Noble. Why pay the extra $4.80 to read about Captain Ahab on an electronic device if you don't need to? Electronic books are still not as good of a bargain as used books and probably never will be.

Additionally, I can think of several ways in which traditional bound-and-printed books will always be a better choice than electronic books. For example, my mother would absolutely love to unwrap the newest thriller from Jeffrey Deaver on her birthday. However, I cannot give her an e-book to unwrap, nor could I get it signed by the author at a book signing.

Non-electronic books are often gifted in other ways as well. Religious texts such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran make excellent family heirlooms when they are handed down from generation to generation. Proprietary electronic devices do not. Honestly, do you really think your great-grandchildren will still be using Micro USB and 3G technologies decades from now? I sure hope not!

Regular books are also excellent for situations where I really would not feel comfortable using a $259 electronic device. Take the kitchen for example. A spiral-bound cookbook will always show your favorite recipes, even if it gets a little marinara sauce or water on it. E-readers are much more delicate and might not fare as well in a hot, messy kitchen environment.

Also, I can leave a regular book in my car on a hot summer's day in Phoenix without worrying about ruining it. That's something I cannot do with an e-reader.

Another great thing about dead tree books is that they can be used for the duration of a long flight, including take-offs and landings. People with electronic readers must adhere to the same strict rules as other personal electronic devices aboard an aircraft. Hope you don't have to land during a suspenseful part of the chapter!

Finally, there comes a time when every book lover must prune their shelves to make room for new books. It is easy for me to find a new home for books I did not enjoy or do not wish to keep any longer. They can be donated to charity, given away to friends, exchanged for credit at a local bookstore, or in the worst case, put in the recycle bin.

What do you do with the $4.95 copy of Moby Dick you purchased six months after you finished it? So far, there are no trade-in or buy-back options for e-books. You are stuck with them my friend, so choose your purchases wisely!

When you consider the high cost and limited functionality of today's electronic book readers, I just don't see why anybody would ever buy one! You don't need to read between the lines to see that traditional bound-and-printed books offer greater flexibility and freedom of ownership at lower prices than electronic books. So far as I can tell, e-books are a very innovative solution to a problem that never really existed in the first place.

I'm not the only one who feels this way:
http://www.markhaddon.com/e-books
http://mikeshea.net/Seven_Swords__44000_words.html
http://jasonkinner.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/a-few-reasons-e-book-readers-suck/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0Zry_R4RQ

Stupid Naming Conventions: Cell Phones

Today, cell phones can do everything from snap pictures to play music, go on the web, and even open and edit business documents. They have full keyboards that swivel, flip, and slide open in every way imaginable. To make these new phones even more appealing to teens, college kids, and hipsters, cell phone manufacturers began giving their phones names.

Just look at the Razr, the Rokr, the Chocolate, the Shine, the Instinct, the Secret, the BlackJack, the Scoop, the Cookie, the Lotus, the Renown, the Behold, the Saga, and the ubiquitous BlackBerry. This is a trend that's really, REALLY fucking stupid and I wish it would stop before it gets even more out of hand. These names are almost as generic and inane as colognes and fragrances at the mall.

How could you ever tell someone that you got a new phone called "the Chocolate" and not feel stupid and embarrassed? What a dumb name for a phone! What a dumb name for anything other than a bar of chocolate! I'm just waiting for them to come out with a phone called "the Cliche." Better yet, the perfect phone for me would be called "the Critic," if only it made fun of all the other phones with stupid names. I would rather have a phone with an esoteric naming system like "A-100" than a retarded name dreamed up by some marketing executive.

Phone manufacturers: stop naming phones after random nouns in the dictionary. Seriously.

I am not the only one who feels this way:
 http://techcrunch.com/2007/04/05/the-futurist-where-all-these-cell-phone-names-are-taking-us/
 http://betanews.com/2009/02/04/does-a-cell-phone-s-name-spell-its-success/
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS131854+03-Feb-2009+BW20090203
https://web.archive.org/web/20081208211128/http://blog.gsmliberty.net/cell-phone-musings/cell-phone-names-gone-wrong/

Modern Living

There are certain things in life that I think I will just never understand. One of those things is the "modern" or "contemporary" movement in architecture and design. I just cannot wrap my head around it.

I just can't see the appeal in bare, hardwood floors, track lighting, and wacky furniture. Who wants to live in a place furnished with $4,000 Swiss-designed ergonomic chairs and a wine bar? Why are people so eager to live in houses that look like art museums? It's ironic how the more "minimalist" an apartment is, the more it costs.

A perfect example of where you'll find such minimalist accommodations is the new Cityscape project currently under construction in downtown Phoenix. The developers behind the project are building two high rise towers of "living spaces," with prices ranging from $300,000 up to $3 million dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. Three million dollars...for a luxury condo in downtown Phoenix.

First, let's take a look at the term "living spaces." It sounds like a politically correct, sanitized term for "condominium." Who gets so offended by the word "condominium" that we had to switch to "living space?" People live in apartments, condos, and houses, not "living spaces." What a stupid made-up word!

The press is gushing with love and adoration for the Cityscape project, but I am still not convinced that it's a great idea. You might even say I am disgusted with the situation. I'll do my best to explain why.

The fact is, Phoenix was established in the 1860s as an agricultural community to grow crops for the workers of the now-defunct Vulture Mine near Wickenburg. It is and has always been a working-class city for everyday people. Of course, once word got around about the excellent climate and cheap land, the cat was out of the bag.

According to the US Census Bureau, the population of Phoenix increased by 35% between 1990 and 2006 with over 529,000 new residents. With a total population of over 4.1 million people, Phoenix is the 5th most populated city in America.

It should come as no surprise that our perennial blue skies and comparatively low cost of living are attracting people from other big cities in droves. The problem is that they're bringing their big-city ideas and attitudes with them.

New high-rise housing developments like Cityscape and the boondoggle light-rail project have invaded our humble, working-man's town! Next thing you know, our already-sprawling metropolitan statistical area will be even larger than the Beltway or Chicagoland. Every square foot of desert will be landscaped and paved over and we'll look just like all the other big cities out there.

Today, Phoenix has a bit of an identity crisis. On the one side you have the die-hard Phoenix natives who promote the historic preservation of landmarks, support museums and cultural centers, and seek to preserve our heritage. They're proud of Phoenix and its rich history of mining, ranching, agriculture, and water management.

On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of transplants who relocated to the Valley of the Sun to escape the high cost of living in other large cities. Their visions of concrete, steel, and glass monoliths towering over the desert with their "sleek, contemporary, and modern lines" just turns my stomach. So what if a couple of historic buildings have to get torn down? It's all in the name of progress.

These deep-pocketed developers see themselves as messiahs who will bring culture and contemporary art to the Valley and revive our struggling downtown neighborhoods. I wish they'd just pack up and go back where they came from.

We have our own culture here already. If I wanted the crowded feel of urban living, a bunch of overpriced boutiques and a coffee shop on every corner, I'd move to New York. Don't bring your pretentious, big-city ideas here.

The idea of a $3 million dollar condominium is simply absurd, and yet the Cityscape project will trump other luxury housing projects like the Grigio Lakefront Lofts in Tempe and the Optima Camelview condos in Scottsdale which go for a measely $1.6 million dollars. I was hoping the madness would not spread to Phoenix, but it looks like it's coming whether I like it or not.

The last thing I want in my hometown is a bunch of latte-sipping artists and interior designers squawking about dust devils blowing through their wine-and-cheese parties, scorpions in their boots, and the wicked hot summer heat.

Phoenix was never the shoot-em-up kind of stagecoach stop like in the old-Western TV shows and movies. It does however have its own unique culture and history. Phoenix has never been a "form over function" kind of place. Let's keep it that way.
[Note: This article was originally written February 1, 2008 and revised February 9, 2009.]

Not So Smart Car

In these uncertain economic times, it seems that change is the only certainty. Wild fluctuations in gas prices over the last few years are taking their toll on American drivers, who are once again demanding smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles. It's almost as though we had forgotten everything we went through in the 1970s! The news media reports that the era of gas-guzzling Sport-Utility Vehicles has come to an end. But is the growing demand for shrinking cars really all it's cracked up to be?


Let's look at some of the hottest selling compact and subcompact cars of today, such as the Honda Fit, the Toyota Yaris, and the Chevrolet Aveo. Compared to their mid-size and full-size counterparts which emphasize things like power, comfort, and performance, this new generation of super small vehicles sacrifices all of these attributes for the sake of economy.

By reducing everything from engine displacement to wheel size, subcompact vehicles can achieve more miles per gallon because they are significantly smaller and lighter than competing models. You cannot get something for nothing however, and there are some serious trade-offs to consider when purchasing a subcompact economy car.

While it is true that small, narrow tires offer reduced rolling resistance, they also have a smaller contact patch with the pavement which results in reduced grip and handling. Vehicles made of lightweight materials such as plastic and aluminum instead of steel may provide the benefit of weight reduction at the cost of occupant safety. Finally, vehicles with tiny, underpowered engines may cause drivers to ride the accelerator more aggressively in order to maintain speed. When looking at the trade-offs necessary to achieve fuel economy, I have to question whether those few extra miles per gallon are really worth it.

Take for example the Smart car. This darling of the media industry has been highly praised as the leader of the pack: it is the smallest, the lightest, and the most efficient gasoline-powered vehicle for sale in North America. From 2004 to 2006, Smart cars were available only as grey market imports which were sold through independent dealerships. These import models were modified to meet US DOT safety standards and were not affiliated with Daimler AG, the German parent company that owns Smart. In 2006, Daimler announced that the Smart car would be available for sale in the US starting in 2008.

The main difference between the grey market imports and the 2008 Smart Fortwo is the motor. The small, turbocharged engine has been replaced with a larger, 1.0-liter non-turbo engine. The new engine has just 3 cylinders and puts out about 70 HP. The Fortwo still holds just two occupants (one driver and one passenger), and it boasts an EPA estimated mileage of 33mpg city and 41mpg highway (see fueleconomy.gov). The 2009 Fortwo starts at $11,590 for the base model, $13,590 for the Passion Coupe, and $16,590 for the convertible model.

It seems the timing of the Smart car couldn't be better, with gas prices soaring and drivers desperate for an easy answer. A reservation program launched in 2007 offered interested customers a spot on Smart's waiting list, which now has an estimated wait time of 12 to 18 months for delivery. Clearly, thousands American drivers are eager to get their hands on the Smart car.

To me, the Smart car phenomenon is absolutely baffling. I am shocked that American car buyers really are gullible enough to fall for the Smart car. Eleven thousand dollars for an EPA-combined 36 miles per gallon? Surely they must be joking! The Smart car strikes me as a rip off as both a driver and a consumer. There are plenty of ways to get better mileage without getting into this pitiful econobox of a car.

If miles per gallon are your top priority, you are probably the kind of person who has a panic attack every time gas jumps from $3.25 a gallon to $3.75 per gallon. The idea of paying more money and receiving less product just boils your blood! Well, that's exactly what buying a Smart car boils down to. Eleven thousand dollars for a car with no cargo space to speak of, a two-person capacity, and an engine that's less powerful than your average motorcycle. Hah! If you have ever considered buying a Smart car to save on fuel costs, consider the facts:

The 2009 Honda Civic and 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt both offer 4-passenger seating, an honest-to-goodness trunk, and 4-cylinder engines that are more powerful than the Smart car by 30 to 50 HP. Oh, and they get comparable mileage at 33 and 36 mpg combined, respectively. If you're going to buy a brand new car, why not get something you can actually use? Where are you going to put your groceries in a Smart car, on your lap? Are you going to pile in and take a road trip in that thing? The point is that the Smart car is not significantly more fuel efficient than a normal car, but its miniature size, high cost, weak engine, and limited cargo space make it significantly less practical to own.


It is not at all necessary to buy a brand new car to get good mileage. On Internet message boards, drivers routinely brag about squeezing 50 to 80 miles per gallon out of conventional gasoline vehicles. How are they doing this? By pairing the most efficient vehicles on the used car market with special driving techniques in a combination known as hypermiling. All you have to do is pick up a used Geo Metro, Ford Festiva, or Honda CRX-HF in the AutoTrader, check your tire pressure, and just drive the speed limit. I'm not joking; it really is that simple!

According to the The Kelley Blue Book, you should be able to find a Honda Civic hatchback in good condition for about $2,000 bucks. If you were to buy one and spend maybe $4,000 dollars fixing it up on things like new tires, a new stereo, and maybe some body work or what have you, you would still save a pile of money compared to anyone who spent $12,000 dollars on a Smart car. Not only that, but you'll enjoy equal or greater mileage depending on your driving style.

Finally, if you really hate paying for gasoline SO much that you would sacrifice everything fun about driving (such as performance, handling, safety, and comfort) by purchasing a Smart car, then maybe driving is just not for you. Find a job closer to your home and ride a bike to work. You could also move to an area with a good mass transit system and take the bus, light rail, or subway to work. The idea that anyone can justify cramming themselves into a Smart car for a 30 mile daily commute and feel good about themselves is just preposterous.

You know, I think it's pretty ironic that they call them Smart cars, because based on the facts you'd have to be pretty freaking dumb to buy one (or just really poor at math).[Note: This article was originally written October 16, 2008 and revised February 6, 2009.]December 2009 Update: The Smart Car has been voted one of the ten worst cars of the decade by automotive review site Jalopnik.com.

Web Pollution 2.0

I've noticed something new on the web these days. Every story, every article, every post on every newspaper and blog is now adorned with a set of cutesy-colorful "social bookmarking icons." The madness is spreading like wildfire.


About.com recently ran an article about social bookmarking and of course, in the box right next to the story was a "submit to digg" link. It should come as no surprise that social bookmarking is popular with bloggers and websites with user-generated content such as Instructables and GetRichSlowly. What surprises me is how many major newspapers have also latched on to this Internet epidemic.

The New Yorker has stuck to text links for its social bookmarking, but still allows you to instantly add any story to digg, del.icio.us, and reddit. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is out of control with a whole box of buttons after every article. The New York Times offers the same "convenience" in a collapsible menu.

So what exactly is the problem here? These sites are just making it convenient for people to integrate news, events, and information into their own little social networks. What's wrong with that?

Well, I'm kind of upset that major newspapers are even concerned with "social bookmarking" sites to begin with. To me, social bookmarking is nothing but a big popularity contest. Before social networking, writers, bloggers, journalists, and reporters wrote articles because they had something to say. They wrote to get a point across or to communicate a message to an audience.

It seems that now, articles are being written just to win the approval of a crowd. Newspaper columnists may add keywords like "Apple" and "Google" to their headlines more than they used to, because those terms rank highly on social news sites like Digg. Articles speculating on what a high-tech company may or may not do in the near future are hastily slapped together with little regard for facts. Journalism has been reduced to a beauty pageant in which the article the crowd approves of most wins, regardless of the contestants' true character.Secondly, I cannot believe that every thought that moves from some hack writer's mind to their keyboard is WORTHY of such instant, overnight, global promotion on the mainstage of Internet news outlets. Basically, who decides what is news and what isn't?

When you have a fully staffed newspaper, it is often the editor who decides if a story is newsworthy. This editorial process helps filter out the boring, incomplete, inaccurate, and uninteresting stories from ever getting printed. With social bookmarking, any wacky story has the potential to become front-page news.

So you cracked the screen on your iPod nano and feel entitled to a replacement? SO WHAT. So you beat Super Mario on NES in five minutes? GOOD FOR YOU. So you compiled a list of the top CSS tutorials on the web according to you? GIVE ME A BREAK. This is not news.

The simple fact is that not every story, blog, or article ever written is worth reading. I have found many of the front-page articles on social news websites to be irrelevant and lacking in substance, facts, and even proper spelling and grammar. Whatever ridiculous story is headline news today will be forgotten by tomorrow in the wake of an even more fantastic story.

Please stop cluttering up my web browsing experience with your stupid social bookmarking icons. Good newspapers and websites are about CONTENT, not about how quickly they can be spread around the web. I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Check out:Signal vs. Noise: It's the content, not the icons
ProBlogger: Social Bookmarking Icons - Are they Worth It?
ValleyWag: Fight Social Bookmark Icon Pollution
MezzoBlue: Mooching 2.0
Shakk.Us: Mother of all social bookmarking services icons

I don't look at social bookmarking icons as adding convenience to users, I look at them as catering to lazy people. How hard is it to copy a link and email or IM it to your friend? If the article is really THAT good, it's no trouble at all. You won't see any of those fugly little icons on any of my articles as long as I can help it. That's all.

[Note: This article was originally written August 22, 2007 and revised February 5, 2009.]