The Net is Dead

Marco van Hylckama Vlieg on web technology, design, life and everything

Commentary

Join the discussion! Leave a comment through the comment form below!

• At 10 December '07 - 22:54 Stefan wrote:

  

  Excellent take on the Google homepage. Might’ve been at least politically correct to have a disclaimer stating that you work for the competition (you’re still there, right?) but other than that… I am appalled at your findings. I never took the time to look at the code because I would expect a company like Google to do things the way they should be done. You just showed me that they don’t. It’s scary, because it’s so simple to do it right in most cases here.

  
  

• At 10 December '07 - 23:53 Jcl wrote:

  

  I tend to agree with you. Just a quick note: taking the millions of visits (probably every minute) google.com does have, I can see a reason (even if it’s just bandwidth-safe) for not having quotes on attributes (as long as basically all browsers on this planet allow for not having quotes).
  
  Same for not having a doctype or anything that… albeit not “valid”, do not (in reality) change the usability within a “normal” web browser, yet it saves up a lot of bandwidth when multiplied by the number of visits.
  
  Think of it the way of the typical american airlines example, taking one olive out of the salad supposedly saved a million dollars a year. Change olive for bytes :)

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 00:55 Marco wrote:

  

  @Stefan the politically correct stuff is on my About page. I always speak on my personal behalf of this site. I’m not even allowed to do anything else.
  
  @Jcl this could definitely be true if the page were smaller than my version when compressed. Surprisingly enough, it isn’t. Mine comes out slightly smaller

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 02:45 Jcl wrote:

  

  @Marco: agreed, there are plenty of stupid things in that source code… just meant an explanation for the lack of quotes on attributes and the lack of every unneeded thing and just that (still valid argument even if your page is better and more optimized).
  
  Does not make up for having a plainly shitty code, of course… although there are probably some obscure reasons to have it like that (I can’t understand or think of them… but hey, I don’t work at google )

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 03:27 bramn wrote:

  

  Hmmmm interesting post Marco. Interesting that a company like Google can get away with bad standard compatibility. But I do think that more reasoning went into this design then one might think, like some of the comments already point out. No excuse for the sloppy code ofcourse, that’s just sick ;)
  
  By the way an interesting addition to your post might be this old post of Andy Rutledge I remembered. He redesigned the Google homepage: http://www.andyrutledge.com/google-redux..

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 05:02 Marco wrote:

  

  @Bramn yeah I know that (excellent) post by Andy Rutledge. I guess his post and mine are kind of complementary. His is about the design and mine is purely about the way it’s been built. I agree with a lot of Andy’s design improvements but in my post I didn’t want to dive into that because, as you already said, there may be more reasoning behind the design than we think.
  
  I find it interesting by the way how people seem to think that there may / most be obscure reasons behind why this page is this shitty. I have to resist this tendency myself as well.
  
  It’s almost like we’re all assuming that there HAS to be reason behind it… because it’s Google! And because it’s the most visited page on the planet!
  
  It may just as well be a crap page… with that being the end of it.

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 06:05 Kilian Valkhof wrote:

  

  Your finding that the site looks the same without css is very interesting, from a business point of view that might seem like an extremely valid choice (however, ill-informed and wrong)
  
  Another interesting point is the massive amount of bit-wasting google causes. Like you said your version comes out a tad smaller, add to the fact that your css and javascript will be cached and the immense number of page requests google get, it’ll make the server a lot happier.
  
  I remember an article from some time ago that attempted something like you did, but also calculated the amount of bits google would save each day, month, year. The numbers were immense.

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 06:09 Premasagar wrote:

  

  Yes – it always puzzled me why a company so adept at producing utterly cutting-edge web applications should settle for <center> tags and other junky markup on their most important web page… Strange, huh?

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 09:13 David Dorward wrote:

  

  I gather that the introduction of the meta language content was due to a suggestion from cynthiasays, but I’ve never heard of this before.
  
  A quick web search (I don’t have time for exhaustive research right now) suggests that it might be used by a few non-English search engines (but not so much now), but I don’t know why they would need that when HTML already has the lang attribute, and HTTP has the Content-Language header.
  
  Also, since the only mentions I found were for search engine use, I don’t know why an accessibility checker would highlight it.
  
  Does anyone have any information that suggests it might actually be useful on the WWW of today?

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 09:23 Marco wrote:

  

  @David I thought it was a bit odd as well. From the validator:
  
  Rule: 4.3.1 – Documents are required to use the META element with the ‘name’ attribute value ‘language’ in the Head section.
  
  It felt a bit redundant to me since the html element already has a lang attribute but the validator insists on having the META element as well.

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 10:13 Teddy Zetterlund wrote:

  

  This is quite nice. I like the analysis you have done of the page and your own experiment is nice. I agree with pretty much all of the choices you have made and I just fail to see why Google just won’t update their search page – a mystery for sure.
  
  I noticed one thing of importance though.
  
  Your use of legend is not something I’d recommend. Having a legend text that long will likely make users of screen readers ears bleed. I’m not an expert in the area but I do know that at least JAWS (which I’m not quite sure exactly how popular it is but it should still be widely used) repeats the legend text before each “input” element in the fieldset.
  
  That’d be rather annoying with a legend text that long, I think :)

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 10:17 Marco wrote:

  

  @Teddy that’s an interesting insight. I definitely didn’t know this so there’s something new learned.
  
  I modified the page and put ‘Search’ in the legend and ‘Terms’ in the label. That would make JAWS say ‘Search Terms’ which makes more sense I think!
  
  Thanks!

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 10:20 oscar wrote:

  

  I don’t get you rambling. It is the most visited page isn’t it. That should suffice.

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 15:36 romacafe wrote:

  I suppose 100% latest-and-greatest markup style would be good, but if this isn’t a demonstration that it isn’t as important as many HTML-geeks think, then I don’t know what is…
  
  Think of the time and money wasted if Google employees agonized over the markup of the homepage the way other posters in this thread are… No wonder Google is ahead of the curve, they’ve learned not to care about the B.S…

  
  

• At 11 December '07 - 16:01 Marco wrote:

  

  Amusing! Thanks for your input even though it sounds a bit negative.
  
  Allow me to explain some things to you:
  
  First of all: HTML 4.01 isn’t ‘latest-and-greatest’. It’s been around for ages. Nothing new and exciting about it. The W3C recommendation was published in 1999. Not exactly new I’d say.
  
  Secondly: Accessibility matters. If you don’t understand why this matters then I seriously hope you’ll never go blind or otherwise become disabled in a way that limits the ways in which you can use a computer.
  
  Third: A web developer who knows his/her job doing a webpage RIGHT doesn’t take more time nor costs more money than having a clueless person do it all wrong. There’s no potential waste of money at stake here.
  
  In short, for a multi billion dollar company I really don’t see any compelling reason to produce bad frontend code. Google’s technologies are usually pretty amazing. I found it strange that they’re seriously lacking in this one department. In my opinion it kind of puts a bad smell on otherwise really great things.
  
  I’m sure it has some reason but I’m also quite sure the reason is NOT that the above is all B.S.
  
  But of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion!

  
  

• At 12 December '07 - 06:45 Max wrote:

  

  Like you said, it would take little time to correct the flaws on the page — I don’t know how long you worked on it, but even if I make a “safe” guess it’s not exactly an amount of time that’s likely to drive Google into bankruptcy. Heck, just pull the page through HTMLTidy and work from there.
  
  I am kinda curious as to what you let Cynthia check. Section 508 is fine according to her (it?), it’s (at least) WCAG 2 that cause it to fail. In fact, when I check Yahoo! and Live against 508, the only one to fail is Yahoo!...
  
  Care to do a take on Live and Yahoo! as well? Possibly other sites as well; I think it’d be just as great a series as the Redux articles by Andy.

  
  

• At 12 December '07 - 07:55 Marco wrote:

  

  @Max I ran all cynthiasays tests. Section 508 and WCAG 1,2,3.
  
  Both http://www.google.com/ and http://search.yahoo.com/ pass Section 508.
  
  On WCAG both Google and Yahoo have issues:
  
  Yahoo only on some small things (meta tags mainly).
  Google fails on things I consider a bit more important:
  
  10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links.
  
  Failure – Anchor Element found at Line: 2, Column: 1231 is directly adjacent to the Anchor element that precedes it.
  Failure – Anchor Element found at Line: 2, Column: 1308 is directly adjacent to the Anchor element that precedes it.
  ...
  ...
  ...
  
  and
  
  12.4 Associate labels explicitly with their controls.
  
  Rule: 12.4.1 – Identify all non-hidden INPUT elements that do not have an explicit LABEL association.
  Failure – INPUT Element, of Type TEXT, at Line: 2, Column: 3362 in FORM Element at Line: 2, Column: 3151
  
  About taking a look at other pages than this one from Google:
  
  I took on Google simply because it’s by far the most used one on the planet. I suppose I could take on any page from any major player and find issues. The primary point of this post isn’t ‘bashing Google’. The point is the fact that I wonder why large corporations in general seem to have so little attention to proper frontend web development.
  
  As an article like this is quite a lot of work I’m not sure if I’m gonna take on another major page in the near future. It’s probably better to go for an entirely different subject. But maybe. Never say never.

  
  

• At 12 December '07 - 12:09 your name wrote:

  according to html tidy, this page is generating 234 warnings.
  
  google.com only has 13.

  
  

• At 12 December '07 - 12:31 Marco wrote:

  

  Hi mister anonymous (your name).
  
  I knew this was coming! I’m aware of the issues these over 3 year old templates have. Over time, some issues slip in. It’s a very complex page and I’m not getting paid to maintain them. It does serve as a reminder to do a bit of springcleaning on them though so thank you very much for pointing this out to me.
  
  Other than that, I suppose you’re trying to tell me I have no right to say the things I said in my post because there’s some validation errors on this page. I honestly don’t think these pages have any relation to the contents of this post. If you want to compare something then compare my version of the page to the original.
  
  But again, thanks for pointing out that some minor problems slipped into my templates over the years!

  
  

• At 12 December '07 - 12:43 Kamil Szot wrote:

  

  It’s most visited page for a reason. It works great. And due to quirks mode will always work great because no one tampers with quirks mode code in browsers anymore.
  
  All css layouts must relay on hacks and hacks tend to break down in new versions.
  
  And it maintains layout, css or no css as noted in article, so I can go there with links browser and still see nice familiar webpage not some unordered lists, headings and paragraphs.

  
  

• At 12 December '07 - 13:17 Max wrote:

  

  “All css layouts must relay on hacks and hacks tend to break down in new versions.”
  
  Really, Kamil… Anyone with a bit of CSS knowledge can take 1 look at google.com and formulate some simple, future-proof, non-hack-using CSS rules for it. Lots — if not most — CSS does not require any hack to be completely cross-browser, even in IE.
  
  All this “Google Is Doing It This Way Because It Works!” — that line’s been used in a couple of comments, now — is utterly silly. If everyone thought like that we wouldn’t have had Google in the first place, because back then, Altavista and Yahoo worked, too.
  
  Have fun holding on to web 0.3, please excuse us while we move on.

  
  

• At 13 December '07 - 03:18 Anne Helmond wrote:

  

  I really enjoyed this critical take on the most visit homepage and the complementary article link to Andy Rutledge’s redesign.
  I loved the little touches in your take, such as the ‘more’ ;)

  
  

• At 13 December '07 - 04:04 Tobias wrote:

  

  Again, a really interesting blog post Marco.
  
  “Doing stuff (or actually don’t do stuff) because it works’ really kills innovation. If we all would refuse changing things because they ‘simply’ work, we’d probably still be walking around with huge gettoblasters on our shoulder in stead of iPods in our pockets (and I doubt we’d have gettoblasters, but my point is clear). And changing the page in this case should make sense other than only to comply to standards. On my file system Marco’s page is a byte smaller than Google’s. And a byte multiplied by the number of hits (a lot, take that for granted) equals a lot of bytes, equals a lot of bandwidth, equals … (ah well, you get the point).
  
  There was something else in the post that grabbed my attention. It was ‘the lucky few’ that made me wander. It seems to me this is a very under-developed functionality. In fact, all the lucky button does is direct you to the page highest in rank not taking into account context or whatever.
  
  I think the goal of a user typing a search term into the Google search box is not to get a list of where he might find information on his subject, but to actually go to the page where he can find the information needed. This is exactly what the lucky button does, take a user to a (albeit a best guess by rank determined) page where he can find what he’s looking for. If Google can develop a best guess taking into account context of the search term, ranking, historical overview of searches and such the lucky button becomes a real genuine find and go button. Google has taken a first step by letting this man (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8493378861634507068) do a presentation on his ideas of user interfaces. The full 25 minutes are worth wile.

  
  

• At 13 December '07 - 04:57 Kamil Szot wrote:

  

  @Max
  
  Actually Yahoo and Altavista didn’t work. I still remember horror of searching for information back then. I remind myself why Google is the most visited page on the web by visiting from time to time other search engines. They still don’t work.
  
  Maybe you (probably not anyone) could do, no hack, future proof layout of most visited page but will the layout display correctly in links (or lynx) browser ? Will the layout display correctly on some exotic platforms?
  
  There are innovations and there are fads. Innovations help people achieve things easier. Fads make people pay a lot of money and jump through hoops just to stay trendy. I’m not claiming that CSS is just a fad. CSS IS extremely useful but tons of elusive experience and knowledge of css hacks you require for doing simple things in layouts in pure CSS.... I don’t know. I don’t see it making anyones life easier.
  
  W3C guys just haven’t invented any proper way of doing grid layout. That’s too bad because grid is what people need. HTML tables and css floats are just things that are most easily abused to achieve desired goal.
  
  Preaching standards is good. But violently preaching adhering to not complete, not practical, poorly implemented, and inconvenient standards does not seem so good to me.
  
  You said: “Have fun holding on to web 0.3, please excuse us while we move on.”
  
  Technology is not a railroad where you go only forward. Technology is evolution when you try new things but also you keep things that work in their niche. Do you happen too know how long ago nature invented sharks? Did they step aside when the rest moved onward? No. They are still alive and eat lots of other things that are so much millions of years more advanced then them.
  
  Sorry for my english. Hope my message can be understood.

  
  

• At 13 December '07 - 09:14 Max wrote:

  

  @Kamil: it can be understood, yes. =]
  
  

  
  Maybe you (probably not anyone) could do, no hack, future proof layout of most visited page but will the layout display correctly in links (or lynx) browser ? Will the layout display correctly on some exotic platforms?
  

  
  
  The whole point of CSS in combination with sensible markup — and that combo is key, here — allows the page to degrade gracefully. Whether the layout will display correctly in lynx is moot, since lynx doesn’t do layout in the first place. Lynx is text-mode, so using sensible markup makes even more sense there than it does on “regular” browsers. The same goes for search engines (granted, Google’s front page doesn’t really need the SEO, but other pages do) and visually disabled people.
  
  

  
  CSS IS extremely useful but tons of elusive experience and knowledge of css hacks you require for doing simple things in layouts in pure CSS.... I don’t know. I don’t see it making anyones life easier.
  

  
  
  You have Microsoft to thank for that, mostly. Doing simple things in layouts in CSS is usually a pretty straightforward business. Getting it to work in IE may be a bitch, but you can’t blame CSS or the W3C guys for that. The specs are mostly clear enough — it’s the browsers that should follow them.
  
  

  
  W3C guys just haven’t invented any proper way of doing grid layout. That’s too bad because grid is what people need. HTML tables and css floats are just things that are most easily abused to achieve desired goal.
  

  
  
  I don’t really understand this — might be the language barrier. My definition of a grid layout (which happens to follow the one on wikipedia), is perfectly feasable in today’s HTML/CSS. No abuse, just marking up your page correctly and add proper CSS. You can even get by without using “hacks” to get IE displaying it as it should.
  
  If you’re talking about multi-column layouts, yes, that’s harder to do (even though it will see great improvements in HTML5), but really, is that something you want? Computer screens and pieces of paper make for completely different reading environments.
  
  

  
  Do you happen too know how long ago nature invented sharks? Did they step aside when the rest moved onward? No. They are still alive and eat lots of other things that are so much millions of years more advanced then them.
  

  
  
  Sharks may still be alive and eating, but their numbers ARE declining, mostly thanks to one species that is, in fact, more advanced: humans. The sharks may not like it, but there’s your fact. If humans want to eat shark fins, they WILL eat shark fins, and the fact that sharks have been around for millions of years does nothing to prevent that from happening.
  
  This railroad you mention? Actually it does only go forward. Evolution works towards more efficient / higher survival rate. As browsers evolve into beasts that interpret and display markup according to the rules, sites that keep relying on old code will slowly go extinct, and the web will be a better place because of it.

  
  

• At 13 December '07 - 12:28 Pam wrote:

  

  I see some people get offended by this like they own google and are making money from it’s business. This post I like to think is not putting on search against another but is simply posting on errors that are apparently on the worlds most visited webpage. Me being the average consumer would like to think this Fortune company with its staffing regulations would have no error frankly.

  
  

• At 14 December '07 - 06:41 Marco wrote:

  

  Small maintenance update:
  
  I’m happy to announce that this page validates again after some minor spring cleaning.
  
  Glad to get that out of the way!

  
  

• At 14 December '07 - 06:57 Max wrote:

  

  Exactly, Pam.
  
  The problem is, Google is everywhere, and that kind of brand recognition tends to go hand in hand with fanboy-ism. If Marco would’ve picked apart Apple’s front page, there’d be hordes of Mac-fanboys that couldn’t look beyond the URL of the page discussed, and concentrate on the meat of the matter. Same goes for microsoft.com.
  
  I typed that without checking it, but now I did, and (no surprise): Cynthia does not approve of apple.com either. Not at WCAG 3 anyway, 508 passes. Heck, it doesn’t even get through simple HTML validation! Boo, Apple! (and that, before I get flamed to a crisp, is coming from a RABID Mac-fanboy).
  
  So yeah, let’s stick with the REAL topic: a site that gets as many eyeballs as that, made by a company that is such a large player on the interwebs, should be technically sound. No excuses.

  
  

• At 14 December '07 - 12:05 Max wrote:

  

  Oh dear, Marco, what have you done to all 234 of those poor, poor warnings? =]

  
  

• At 16 December '07 - 02:30 Kamil Szot wrote:

  

  @Max, thanks for your reply
  
  > Whether the layout will display correctly in lynx is moot, since lynx doesn’t do layout in the first place.
  
  I overshot myself claiming that most visited webpage displays in “lynx” correctly. Actually
  $ lynx http://www.google.com/
  gives me “400 Bad request error”. I almost never use “lynx” (instead I use “links”) so I definitely should check this before claiming anything. ... but
  $ links http://www.google.com/
  shows google page with proper layout without any degradation.
  
  > You have Microsoft to thank for that, mostly. Doing simple things in layouts in CSS is usually a pretty straightforward business. Getting it to work in IE may be a bitch, but you can’t blame CSS or the W3C guys for that. The specs are mostly clear enough — it’s the browsers that should follow them.
  
  I am thanking Microsoft every hour that I waste to make things look good. Doing simple layouts in CSS is easy when you decide how the page should look. But if you get design from an artist in .psd format and you have to do it with every detail pixel perfect, and the designer has specific ideas how the page should behave when the content is too short or when the browser window is being resized things start to get messy. I don’t like to tell people something can’t be done, unless I am pretty sure It can’t be. So this messy scenario is recurring pattern in my life.
  
  Unfortunately in some areas specs are not clear at all. Especially when it comes to height: 100%
  And even If specs are perfectly clear they still can be bad if they don’t cover some desired scenarios. And such bad specs lead to implementation differences and implementation specific extensions. So I can’t agree with you that W3C is without blame.
  
  > My definition of a grid layout (which happens to follow the one on wikipedia), is perfectly feasable in today’s HTML/CSS.
  
  Sorry for using imprecise term without explaining what I meant. I come from programming background so when I hear “grid layout” I think about something like this http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/..
  Full height, full width, split into rows and columns. With ability to place items in cells. With ability to nest new grid layouts inside cells to any necessary depth. Plus ability to specify what should be done when size of contents of cell exceed cell size.
  
  With such tool a lot of things can be done easily. Closest thing to this in html is a table with width and height set at 100%. And IMHO that’s the reason why tables were so abused. Abusing floats to do such thing is very hard (if not impossible). I haven’t seen any solution to this. If you know some please point me to it, I’ll be constantly thanking you in my head . People struggle to do two or three columns. Struggle to have them expanding to height of container. Struggle to have them sizing to content. To have complex footers. Not to mention nesting of layouts. Despite the benefits of CSS any nontrivial scenario seems to become a constant struggle.
  
  > Sharks may still be alive and eating, but their numbers ARE declining, mostly thanks to one species that is, in fact, more advanced: humans. The sharks may not like it, but there’s your fact.
  
  And I thought I could just scare you away with sharks!
  
  Humans are exceptions to lots of nature rules. But surely there are thousands species more evolutionary advanced than sharks that are still no match for them. I haven’t heard about chimps eating shark fins.
  
  I heard funny thing lately. Some DNA research recently showed that actually chimps are more evolutionary advanced than humans. It looks that It’s not about how far you went, but whether you took the right path on the last few intersections.
  
  And even humans are still being killed by such simple and ancient natures inventions as viruses, bacteria, and parasites.
  
  I’m not Google fanboy, and I don’t hold anything google does as sacred. I guess I just took an opportunity to blow off some steam on subjects such as CSS vs tables, idealistic vs pragmatic, telling other people what to do vs giving them tools and letting them decide for themselves.

  
  

• At 29 December '07 - 07:53 Rimantas wrote:

  

  Interesting, I thought everybody went with Google homepage redesign three of four years ago. I see that’s ongoing exersise :)
  
  One thing I would like to point out: there IS a reason for this page
  not to have any doctype. Very valid reason – this page does not follow any standard! So, what doctype do you put on the page, which does not conform with any markup standard? Correct, none. Which Google did.
  And which is the right thing to do. By the right thing to do I mean “not putting any doctype for pages you know won’t validate”.
  
  Trying to validate such pages makes no sense: first, they don’t claim to conform to anything, second, how do you choose what to validate for?
  Now, let’s pretend Google ment to use HTML4 and just forgot to put doctype on. Still, where did you get the idea, that attributes can be unquoted only if they contain numbers? It is recomended always quote attributes, but it is allowed not to do so if they only contain only alphanumeric characters, hyphens, underscores, periods and colons (section 3.2.2 of the spec).
  
  Regarding accessibility, moving links to the bottom of the source is probably the best you did here. Accesskeys and legend are most likely
  overkill with doubtful benefits, if any. And, different from markup, do not
  rely too much on automated tools for checking accessibility stuff.
  CSS and markup-wise there is still a room to squizee more. META “keywords” on THIS page? Come on… And what’s with a case of classitis– LI class=“pipe”?
  
  If one wants to get out any unnecessary bit, then do not forget that HTML4 allows to omit some end tags, and some tags altogather.
  unquoted attributes (which ARE valid) with single letter IDs, class names, etc. will allow to save even more…

  
  

• At 03 December '09 - 22:25 Geomancer wrote:

  

  Google is GOD .. end of!

  
  

Got something to add to this?

Feel free to leave a comment on this site. You can use Textile and Emoticons. Your email address is only used to show a gravatar. Please stay on-topic and use common decency. Spammers will be shot in front of a live studio audience.

If you plan on posting code, use pastebin please and post a URL to the code. The comment processing doesn't deal very well with code. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Human comment spammers: don't bother posting your crap here. Comments are moderated and I won't let any of your shit through.

Trackbacks

• Earlier musings
• Mass Effect - The best Space Opera of all time (2)
• Yup, Yet another JQuery Accordion Plugin (81)
• Week In Links: a WordPress plugin for link digest posts (1)
• Technorati: What happened to you? (1)
• Some random thoughts about the iPad (1)
• Bookalicio.us version 2.0: an attempt to design the prettiest book blog on the net (3)
• Me, version 2.0. Released! (15)
• PreDevCamp SF Bay Area at Palm HQ - a videoblog (6)
• Me, version 2.0, almost done (2)
• Why I choose the Palm Pre to be my next mobile phone (6)
• What's up with the blogosphere lately? Tired of list-posts! (11)
• Create your own Twitter image badge with PHP (13)
• Five reasons why I hate Facebook (with a passion) (176)
• 5 things MySpace could do to improve Profile 2.0 (1)
• MySpace looking mighty fine with Profile 2.0 - How I built a MySpace profile that doesn't suck (3)

• Tumblr
• Popaganda
• "I come across as miserly because after nearly dying I have realized that life can be taken away at..."
• "I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism,..."
• Photo
• somethingintellectual: This too, kay? The zombie apocalypse is...
• Search terms in the access log of Bookalicious.
• Photo
• "Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest..."
• *SIGH*
• Hope. Delivered.
• Gran Turismo 5 porn
• The best mobile OS on the planet is getting even better!
• stfuteabaggers: revolutionnow: technipol: Clay Bennett does...
• Photo
• visit me on Tumblr

• Tag Universe
• ajax blog bloggers blogging blogosphere blogs browser browsers clock cms code comment-spam comment_spam css design dutch firefox flickr google hype internet islam javascript mac mint pagerank performance photography php php5 pivot pivot-blacklist pivot_blacklist powerbook programming prototype rails referrer+spam referrer_spam rss spam spammer spammers taggerati tags technorati template trackback typo variable web+2 web_2 web_development weblog weblogs website wordpress xhtml yahoo yui (all)