2.72
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. :)
I give your city church site a 4/5. Does that make you feel any better? hehe.
Seriously, INCREDIBLE job on that site. If I had to write all of the great things about the site it would end up filling up this box (well, I guess it would scroll – but you understand).
Keep up the great work!
§ Nate Klaiber · 11 May 2006
it really is a great site. well done.
§ chris · 11 May 2006
I gave you a 5/5 for the City. I’m so very inspired by it. I think people are really stingey with 5s. Heck, look at Nate, said you were so INCREDIBLE and gives a 4? :) I gave my own a 4 because I’m so much more impressed by others, but I would expect those others to rate higher than 2.5! Thanks for linking me, and next to Jeff and Bryan, that’s an honor!
§ Natalie · 11 May 2006
Are moms allowed to vote? If so, of course, there’s no question… 5/5
§ Mom · 13 May 2006
I’m not sure what’s up with people. Not to be negative, like you said, but a lot of the time the people voting on these sites have very poorly designed sites themselves. It’s kind of ironic. Maybe they’re jealous that you created an incredibly gorgeous site. I very easily gave it a 5, as i feel it deserves. Ratings on sites like stylegala have been bothering me for a while. It’s like people look for the things WRONG with a design and exploit them. I would much rather take a criticism from someone i respect, such as yourself, natalie, etc, then someone who doesn’t seem to have a design sense. That’s part of the reason i really like CSS Beauty over Stylegala.
§ Rob · 14 May 2006
I think the main problem is that a significant percentage of the active CSS Reboot readers (and voters) are those who have entered their own designs themselves — and who therefore have nothing to gain by voting other sites up, and everything to gain by voting them down.
It’s fundamentally broken, and I’m sure Adam will do something different next time. Don’t take it too personally.
For what it’s worth, The City has a gorgeous, ingenious design. I’m glad you didn’t enter earlier, or there’s no way my firm would be #2 in the Reboot at the moment!
§ James Archer · 14 May 2006
You may have hit the nail on the head, James. I’m sure the majority of voters are site rebooters themselves.
As for rebooting late, I thought by doing so I may have actually helped, since it was easy to get lost in the crowd the first few days. That’s a testimony to your site, you know. The fact that’s its still ranked so high speaks volumes about the caliber of the design and development of it. Great job!
§ Sean Sperte · 14 May 2006
The ratings are ridiculously low on most of the sites to the point of rendering them meaningless.
I’ve seen plenty of stunning sites on that page (TCC included) receive very low ratings. There’s definitely a flaw in the system…maybe it’s just an obsessive compulsive 12 year old rating things time and time again.
Regardless, The City Church is a great site and has raised the bar for all church sites. That site and The Dulles Church (www.dulleschurch.org/) are examples of fine craftmanship from a design and development standpoint as well as a positive message. Great work.
§ Brad · 15 May 2006