Yes, believe it or not, MySpace – the infamous profile and networking site, which has more than 90 million registered users – has been voted #1 on PC World’s list of 25 worst websites. Yes, believe it or not, I am right behind them. Yes, believe it or not, I know that I am turning myself into naked flamebait for saying this. It just seems like a justified time to vent my frustration.
MySpace is poorly designed. The whole site – IMHO – is ugly. The site is written in an out-dated and un-semantic manner – obviously not in an attempt to keep member profiles to a certain standard because even the public areas are designed in this fashion, and half the profiles I’ve seen have found workaround to delete the adverts and navigations. The markup is also a mess, and – from what I’ve heard from other techies who have examined the inner workings of the site – a mess of different technologies and therefore unscaleable. If you don’t agree, then you’ve got nothing to compare it with. Take Flickr for example – it’s got a clean, clever design that changes itself depending on what you’re doing to make itself most useful to you.
I could live with nasty design if the site offered some sort of amazing service and polish. Unfortunately, whilst the idea behind the site is commendable, in reality it hasn’t worked all that well.
Instead of the brunt of it’s 90-million-odd users seeing MySpace as a great way to network and make new friends, they seem to see it primarily as a way to make themselves feel good about themselves. The most important element of any MySpace profile page is the pictures page. This is where people who are ‘your real friends’ (i.e. ones that give you nice picture comments in return for equally superficial comments) are required to remark on how you’re the most beautiful and, importantly, original person in the world. Pictures come in the following forms:
- Webcam pics with the subject blatantly straining not to look at the camera;
- Pictures with pouts / pictures with pouts + staring obscurely at something that isn’t there / pictures with pouts + poking the pout with an index finger / other combinations;
- High angle shots (achieved by holding the camera with your arm extended fully upwards), usually with the obscure ‘wtf, don’t you see it too?’ stare and/or a pout;
- Low angle shots blatantly intended to maximize bust size, but often concealed behind ‘oh, I was looking at my computer and my wemcam crawled into my lap and took a picture of my tits’ or some such travesty;
- Mirror shots that usually miss out the subject’s head and focus heavily on their skinny jeans, spotty tops, zip-up hoodies and converse or flat-shoes (and occasionally their straight, thick fringes if they managed to get their heads in).
Pictures have poor quality and composition as a pre-requisite. The majority of comments go like this:
“omfg, look at yoo!
Sex on legs, init
I want to get inside ur panties! *penetrates*
xxxxx <3 <3 <3“
Apart from being rather disturbing, inarticulate and superficial, such comments are a great example of how MySpace messes with your writing style.Â The core of MySpace users have developed the most irritating writing style.Â I presume that it is supposed to be individual and arty… it just really isn’t.Â The whole commenting and picture system reeks of elitism.Â The blogs, with their retarded use of underscores, italics, underscores, the letter ‘x’, extra spaces and differently coloured single words take it to a whole new level.
Anyway, thats the end of my rant for now.Â Perhaps I’ll rant some more as more stuff comes to me.