2.72

10 May 2006

Standby for a quick rant.

Since launching the redesign of the TCC site I’ve been overwhelmed by the response. The site was featured on a few gallery and forum sites, I received tons of email, got IM’s, in-person compliments, and the obligatory mom blog post. I personally feel I’m just enjoying the wake made by Jesse’s great design. (That’s a wakeboarding reference, for those living in the alps.)

I also officially “rebooted” the site, even though I was over a week late in doing so. The CSS Reboot site allows for late entries, so it matters not. To my surprise, the site is getting votes, even though it appears in the middle of a long list of rebooted sites, some 10-12 pages into the system.

Still, the rating (as it is now) is 2.07 … out of 5. I remember reading about the ratings being harsh on another blog last week, but I had no idea it was this bad.

At first I thought I was just being defensive, but when I double-checked the score against the highest rated – read that again: “the highest rated” – site I found that the TCC site wasn’t doing too bad. The best rating, among hundreds of rebooted sites (including such greats as Jeff Croft, Natalie Jost, Avalon Star, and Jonathan Snook!) is: 2.72.

2.72

Out of 5.

Out. Of. 5.

Is this not ridiculous to anyone else? Are those voting really being that harsh? Do these designs really suck that bad? Is there a problem with the system?!

So while I’m somewhat disappointed the site’s receiving a D rating on CSS Reboot, I feel a little better knowing Jeff Croft’s amazing masterpiece isn’t getting much better.

Not that I care about ratings. :)