14 October 2000
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:01:36 +0100 From: Andrew Simmons <andrew@zpok.demon.co.uk> To: grenville <grenville@andrewjay.co.uk> CC: complaints@demon.co.uk, tips@spesh.com, John Young <jya@pipeline.com>, robert.blincoe@theregister.co.uk Subject: Re: MobileShop.Com grenville wrote: > > Dear sir, > > Mobileshop.com Ltd > > I write with reference to your WebSite list of lame UK dotcoms - > zpok.demon.co.uk . The above company is thriving and profitable and I take a > very serious view of it being included in your list. If I do not recieve > your immediate confirmation by return that all reference to said company has > been removed from your site I will instruct our solicitors to commence > immediate high court proceedings for injunctive relief to prevent your > continuing to display same and also press for costs and damages. > > I await your reply > > Grenville Reeves > Managing Director > MobileShop.com Limited Grenville, Well, as I can't afford to defend my sense of humour legally, I have no alternative but to give in to your demands. I shall remove said site from the list as soon as convenient (probably by Monday 16th.) However, I am rather pissed off about having to do this, for the following reasons: (1) The 'lameness list' [ http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/lame/lame.dotcoms.html ] is a joke. (2) The only criteria for being on the list - as stated on the page - is that I spot an advertisment for the site on a bus, poster, TV etc. I'm offering an OPINION - something I believe I am still entitled to - that most of these sites are 'lame' in the sense of being badly designed and implemented, and operated by people who have no knowledge of, or interest in, Internet culture, community, or history, but are only interested in making money. (Ironically, by dint of your pompous and ludicrous email, you have confirmed that you and your site certainly fit that category.) (3) Nowhere on the page does it say anything about the profitability or "thriving-ness" of any of the sites on the list. (4) I have received a grand total of one (1) other request to remove a site from the list. This was phrased as a polite request, and came from a real person; I subsequently engaged in an interesting email exchange with the person. In the end I declined to remove the listing, and I have not heard from them since. (5) It is my belief that, as I am merely offering my personal opinion of a site's quality, and that this is done for purposes of satire and review, that you would be laughed out of court, along with your absurd request for 'damages'. However, you have proved that you have more money than I have, and I therefore have no alternative but to comply. Yours, managing to find the absurdity amusing, \a Andrew Simmons PS "zpok.demon.co.uk" is my domain, not my "WebSite". There is in fact no such thing as a =site= dedicated to lame dotcoms; there is only a single page on the site http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk. You may find the sites at http://www.whatis.com/, http://www.ietf.org/ and http://www.w3c.org/ useful in clearing up these misconceptions. -- Encrypted mail preferred: http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/public_key.html
Source: http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/lame/lame.dotcoms.html
Lame UK dotcomsUpdated 14th October 2000 This page lists random lame dotcoms spotted advertising on the side of buses, the tube, and the occasional TV ad in 1999/2000. Although it says 'lame', there's no guarantee [or implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose] that they really =are= lame -- it's just my cynical assumption that cos all the other new dotcom sites have been, these will be, too. Note for the clue-impaired: 'lame' does not imply anything about the financial status of these sites. I consider them 'lame' in the sense of 'crap': some general criteria. The first Pompous Legal Threat (PLT) has now arrived! So, note to anyone pissed off at being on the list: all you have to do to get yourself removed is threaten me with legal action (or provide a reasoned and sensible justification of your non-lame status.) Mail threats to lameness@zpok.demon.co.uk. WHY?Because man is, by nature, a hunter! A gatherer! A collector! A hoarder! A ...trainspotter! (oops) no, no, but really -- it's a compulsive hobby that will give you endless hours of fun. Before you know it you'll be carrying a pad & pen around wherever you go, hoping to be the first to spot that new "lame.com" ad on the side of a bus... also, it gives me something to do whilst waiting for the latest mozilla daily build to download. And because the web is not for sale. And because it keeps me off the streets. What's more, the envy of success - of those who actually get up off their arses and do something - is the British disease. So why not do a page celebrating it? Updates to lameness@zpok.demon.co.uk, please. EXCLUSIONS
I'm wondering whether to start a second list: 'clue-impaired', for old economy firms who make a horrible hash of their web presence. There might even be room for a third, much much shorter list, of /good/ UK dotcoms... I can think of four: CREDITS
COPYRIGHT[ meta ]Delightful article about Fucked Company on Guardian Online: "Kaplan, meanwhile, says he has no worries about the other competitors entering his space. "We're seeing the shakeout of day-late, dollar-short FuckedCompany.com copycats," he notes bullishly. "Ironically, FuckedCompany.com proves the point that there's only room for one. Original, well thought-out ideas will be rewarded and impostors won't last." " THE LIST
|
[ ] enormous graphics / front page ( 50 pts)
[ ] (excessive) use of Flash ( 50 pts)
[ ] Miss Boo (200 pts)
[ ] employees only there for the IPO ( 20 pts)
[ ] site name has nothing to do with site content ( 15 pts)
[ ] site has no real content ( 50 pts)
[ ] site confuses web with ecommerce ( 20 pts)
[ ] silly/meaningless domain name ( 10 pts)
[ ] site breaks on Linux/in lynx/mozilla ( 50 pts)
[ ] "best viewed with IE at 800x600 resolution" (100 pts)
[ ] Windows ?character set?s? ( 80 pts)
[ ] WYSIWYG HTML ( 25 pts)
[ ] hosted on NT ( 30 pts)
[ ] popups ( 30 pts)
[ ] breaks without java/script/cookies ( 40 pts)
[ ] breaks without cookies etc SILENTLY (100 pts)
[ ] any mention of new-media, e-commerce,
net, cyber or information superhighway (100 pts)
[ ] overuse of animated gifs ( 50 pts)
[ ] ad-hoc lameness ( )
[ ] charges for 'value added features'
(eg advanced search on silicon.com) ( 50 pts)
[ ] registration => sold to spam-lists (100 pts)
[ ] splash screens (100 pts)
[ ] Flash splash screens (150 pts)
[ ] attempting to mimic Windows95 interface (200 pts)
[ ] broken USER_AGENT filters ( 75 pts)
[ ] displays Apache 'server error' (100 pts)
[ ] IIS/SQL Server/ODBC/NT errors (200 pts)
[ ] contact/feedback link does not have email (150 pts)
[ ] copyright notices in the HTML source (100 pts)
[ ] gratuitously ugly HTML ( 75 pts)
[ ] deliberately obfuscated HTML (100 pts)
[ ] Bad business sense: going up against a category killer
[ ] BBS: massive overkill for stupidly small niche market
[ ] "Under construction" ( 50 pts)
[ ] OTT, bland, identikit 'Design' ( 50 pts)
[ ] staffed exclusively with Nathan Barleys (150 pts)
[ ] 'last updated' (not: "most recent update") ( 20 pts)
[ ] sending me legal threats in attempt to get off
the list (500 pts)
[ ] pages dedicated to explaining how the navigation
or interface works (100 pts)
[ ] no indication of which text is a link (100 pts)
[ ] IDE meta generator tags left intact ( 30 pts)
[ ] meta generator="Microsoft FrontPage" ( 80 pts)