Comment by SwellJoe
7 hours ago
I always use this site as a canonical example of The Good Internet. The kind of site that is rare today but used to be most of the internet, and we're all worse off for the change.
Lightweight handmade HTML and CSS. Very little JavaScript. The site is fast as hell, instant transition between pages, it'd make a React SPA blush.
The URLs don't change. The navigation is familiar and unchanging. Back button works as expected. Bookmarks into the site don't break.
It costs him almost nothing to run, so he isn't compelled to fill the pages with bullshit ads that disrupt or interrupt. It's got a handful of ad banners at the top and bottom, as ads used to be. I'd prefer it had no Google ads, since surveillance is part of the deal one makes with Google, but it's not the worst offense.
Edit: Also, because it uses core/standard web technologies exclusively, he has never been required to change it to keep it working or update a bunch of stuff for security reasons. Maintenance cost is effectively zero...whenever he wants to work on the the site, he can. He's never been compelled to drop everything to perform npm acrobatics to get a security update rolled out.
> It costs him almost nothing to run
> Maintenance cost is effectively zero...
His estimates[1] of ongoing costs seem different:
> I spend probably 60 hours a week continuously improving this website, answering visitors' questions, solving their shoelace problems – even granting permission for my material to be re-used by other educators.
> All of this effort earns me less than 1/5 of the Australian National Minimum Wage.
> I'm thinking of calling this my “Million Dollar Website” – not because it's worth a million dollars but because it has cost me a million dollars compared to what I could have earned at a regular job (based on an average Australian annual wage of $50,000 × 25+ years).
Granted it seems like you're commenting just on the cost of maintaining the site's HTML/CSS, and I agree that making the website simpler reduces those costs. But even with more complex websites the development costs are often less than the cost of developing good content, attracting people to your site, paying for hosting, etc.
[1] https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/support.htm
Content creating is not maintenance. And hosting of a static site is dirt cheap, caching works flawlessly.
It could've been a two-million-dollar website if he'd tried to roll his own CMS and Javascript framework, for zero benefit over the one-million-dollar website he actually built.
> Content creating is not maintenance.
Technical maintenance isn't the only kind of website maintenance. Unless you're ready to put a site into hibernation, maintaining the content is an ongoing cost. For example, Ian adds testimonial photos and quotes that people submit via email not to mention corrections and improvements based on feedback.
> It could've been a two-million-dollar website if he'd tried to roll his own CMS and Javascript framework
Sure, and it could have been a three-million-dollar website if he wrote a web server from scratch in a language he invented to host the bespoke CMS and JavaScript framework he created.
But more reasonable alternatives to a personal HTML/CSS site like this would be either an off-the-shelf CMS or a third-party website builder. Those seem like they'd be more expensive in some ways and cheaper in others.
OK, that feels like a choice.
Wow, he even made navigation that puts the links on little shoelace ends. Indeed, this is the kind of thing that was widespread, and which the soulless modern net never has.
A tremendous amount of care went into the site, and it shows.
The site owner, Ian, says he is seeking an alternative to google ads. Seems the site may be struggling financially.
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/support.htm
That's the worst thing about Google Ads. Google keeps an absurd amount of the money, and they punish your users. And, of course, ads in general became so abusive and intrusive that everyone uses an ad blocker, making ads less effective as a revenue source.
But, I don't see how a static HTML site could be a struggle to keep running. It costs almost nothing to host something like that, even with a lot of traffic. I guess if one wanted to make a living off of it, it'd be a struggle.
Thank you for the link! Just donated. That site changed my life in a small but persistent way — my shoelaces haven't come undone in more than a decade now.
Which knot do you use?
1 reply →
another one I loved...I guess still love too https://sheldonbrown.com/fixed-conversion.html
Ah, yeah, Sheldon Brown was great. I was sad when he passed (nearly two decades ago, now). I'm glad to see someone cares enough to keep his site running all these years later. It hasn't ever stopped being useful information.
Yes, agreed. Website made out of love instead of desire for profit. Insanely useful information that's hard to find elsewhere. Timeless.
> The kind of site that is rare today but used to be most of the internet, and we're all worse off for the change.
To me, it is not that these sites are rarer today than they once were. In fact, I think they are more of these today. It is just that the internet today is way bigger than it once was, and a lot of crap came with it. In fact, the web page dates back from 2000, and believe it or not, what is now known as enshittification was well on its way, though it was more Flash than Javascript. It was the peak of the dotcom bubble after all. The time such websites were "most of the internet" was more of a 1990s thing.
A site like Ian's Shoelace Site is not representative of its time any more than it is now, in that it was, and still is unusually good.
> Also, because it uses core/standard web technologies exclusively, he has never been required to change it to keep it working or update a bunch of stuff for security reasons.
On the client side, sure. On the server side, there is still maintenance to be done, especially with https where you have to manage certificates and their expiration, even though certbot make it simpler. But arguably, that's his host job and he just has to upload a bunch of html file, so you are right on that point. He still kept his page to modern standards, even though he wasn't required to (HTML 1.0 still works!).
> A site like Ian's Shoelace Site is not representative of its time any more than it is now
It very clearly is, though.
You missed the most important part: the site provides something for free.
There's no "if you want to keep learning check my book/course". It's not a funnel entrance, it's not adversarial to you as a reader.
I really really miss being able to enjoy content keeping my guard down, not wondering what is a scam, astroturfing, political propaganda...
I would totally buy his book, even if it was only an offline copy of his site.
You’re in luck, he has a book.
https://www.amazon.com/Laces-100s-Ways-Pimp-Kicks/dp/1402752...
> I'd prefer it had no Google ads
The good thing about those ads is, it's your choice if they're allowed to run on your machines or not. Assuming your "user agent" isn't really an "ad industry agent".
Yes, Ian doesn't do any bullshit with ad block detection or blocking. The site works fine with ads blocked. I'm reminded that there should be a tiered ad block tool. I would like to be able to not block traditional ad banners (an img tag and a link, maybe with an affiliate ID), like the ones on the sidebar of Ian's site, while still blocking the surveillance ads like Google serves. I know traditional ad banners don't perform all that well, but, as a user, they don't bother me at all...and, I'm far more likely to click them if they're really relevant to the site I'm looking at.
Honestly, the old way of doing ads was also The Good Internet. No surveillance, the people placing the ads needed to actually think about where to spend their money, the sites had to decide personally whether the ad fit their audience and ethics. The ad surveillance networks launder all the ethical questions into a wash of hateful attention stealing and tracking user behavior.
> I know traditional ad banners don't perform all that well
I’m not sure that’s always true. We have our own homegrown adserver that’s almost 100% context based (a few ads for stores do rudimentary IP geo-targeting, all purely first-party though), and it does well with both banners and text based ads. It’s in the digital photography niche. I’d assume generally places that are strongly oriented towards a niche can do a lot with context based advertisment. CTR is much better than for Google ads (that we also run).
1 reply →