Can a website be "useless"?

[Nippo]

If the site represents who you are and is made with your own creative passion then it has a purpose to exist.

[rugar]

that was such a fun discussion to read through!!!

i think melons non-dualistic philosophy lines up very well with zen buddhism, and that's more or less how i like to see both the world and the web !!

as for useless sites ! well I don't think they exist ?
it's kind of pedantic but everyone chooses to make a site for a reason ! it matters to them and it has use to them !
the web is a collective space, but each individual's site is born from their own wishes and serves it's purpose first and foremost to them

(I guess even a bot generated site is useful.... for the companies harvesting clicks -_- )

[starbreaker]

Anyway, I'd like to know everyone's thoughts. Can a site be useless, and if it is, does it deserve to exist?

The most useless websites I've ever seen have all been corporate-owned, like threads dot net (which is just a QR code and a looping animation), and those do not deserve to exist. Nor do the corporations that operate them.

Your personal website doesn't have to be "useful" to anybody else. It doesn't even have to be "useful" to you. All that matters is that you had fun making it and that it still gives you good vibes.

Furthermore, I would suggest that those most obsessed with the need for things and people to be "useful" to others are projecting their own fear that other people will confirm their opinion that they themselves are worthless.

[Tommie ΘΔ]

I think websites can be useless, but thats part of the fun!! Making random websites that do nothing and have no purpose are so freeing :3 So, in reality, useless websites are more like "freedom sites" if that makes sense. They exist because webmasters are sharing their creativity online. No matter how useless it seems, all websites are important in their own way. 

Plus, for the purposes of web archiving, i dont think any websites should be deleted just because someone deems them "useless"

[dirtnap]

i could translate this thread into ancient greek and carve it into clay tablets and archeologists would be vehemently convinced they were a record of a real discussion between plato and socrates right up until the carbon dating came back.

[dirtnap]

to give a reply more directly addressing OP (but which is not any more serious than my previous one):

i spend a lot of time not doing something out of fear that it will ultimately not have any value.

this thread had a flurry of lengthy, in-depth, and interesting replies in which two people tried to understand each other, tried to get each other to understand themselves, and shared a lot of thoughts and opinions in a public space in the process.

i derived great value from reading that exchange.

i could philosiphise on the usefulness of things and whether someone making something automatically renders the thing they made useful because its use was in them actually making it; but here we have a discussion that might not have happened if melooon had been "a good admin" and beaten it back as off-topic.

i remember forums where that happened often and it always killed whatever discussion was happening, even if someone tried to revive it in another thread where it would be "on topic".

i don't want anyone to be the arbiter of "useful" or "valuable". i if anyone tries to be, they cut off something that someone else finds useful.

[emeowly]

i dont think any website is particularly "useless" unless its just squatting on a domain and never to actually be used for example. one of the biggest appeal to personal sites and neocities for me was the ability to make *anything* i wanted and put whatever i liked with no obligations to anyone else or the expectation to be socially interactive constantly and active all the time to have it unlike social media. my site may not be useful to other people or have anything to offer except stamps, but it's not really FOR other people, it's for myself mostly

the attitude expressed in that blog is part of what i was trying to get away from on social media the gatekeeping and trying to control other peoples online experience and presence based on your own idea of how something *should* be, having your own expectations or rules for others personal space. its very tiring and made social media unfun for me

i think creating personal sites is something everyone should try if they know/are interested in learning HTML and making their own spot on the internet! it shouldnt be reserved just for those deemed interesting enough to have one or people who have something to offer others. what's interesting or useless is extremely suggestive and just because you cant see the passion doesn't mean its not there(generalized "you", not directed at OP!)

[OneMillionFurries]

I remember reading that blog when i first joined neocities back in the day and i haaaaaaaaated it. don't get me wrong, as others have said there are some good points in it. but my god. just. i might have an extremely liberal view of "art", but i really do believe that slapping together a website with a bunch of stolen gifs right out of the 90's that just sort of just serves as an "about me" page IS art! it's an expression of yourself! and it's an expression of the time it took to actually DO that in the first place! it has value in the fact that it lead to you learning how to code that and put it out there!

god sorry for that wall of text ramble. im very not good at getting my thoughts out onto paper, and most people here said what i already had in mind tbh. im honestly just really glad that y'all are saying this, because i remember that blog post use to get passed around a bunch when i first joined and it honestly put a sour taste in my mouth, so its good to see that others also have a big problem with it.

[wygolvillage]

I agree, any form of self expression is art. Including "bad" websites or sites with nothing on them.

Whether a website needs a "use" is kind of the wrong question because it presumes that your site is for other people rather than yourself. And obviously there is some value to making sites for use by other people (like providing resources or information, fan wikis, etc) but that doesn't mean that a website only really being for yourself is some kind of failure. Most of my drawings I do are mostly just because I like how it feels to draw and doodle.

And yeah those articles suck a lot  I think tearing down other people's art over whether it's "earned" its own existence goes against everything I love about independent web spaces.

[Kallistero]

Im not making a binary statment, Im making a paradoxical statment! Nothing matters and everything matters. Economics are obsolete and we need them. Humans don't matter and we do. You're clinging to this idea that things have to be one or the other but Im saying they are both.
Why would you assume that existence is right or wrong? It's neither, it simply is. Nothing matters, you came from nothing and you'll go to nothing; yet everything matters, the stars could not exist if you were not here (because you are part of this universe and without you this universe would not be this universe). Nothing matters and everything matters, in a loop forever. That doesn't mean you should not enjoy your lunch, it just means that like you, your lunch is everything and nothing.

Purpose is a social construct. That's how I square these seemingly paradoxical ideas, and that's sort of the basis for my answer to this year-old thread.

A website can be useless in the same way ANY creation can be useless. The impression I get from the article writer is that "useless" means "useless to me," but people generally don't create their sites to be useful to the article writer. The site has meaning to the person working on it, and that gives the site a use, just not to you. As long as it matters to someone, that is actually all it means for something to matter.

On the assertion that the entire universe doesn't mean anything, the question that follows is what does it MEAN to mean anything? My own answer is that meaning is socially constructed, a relative value like kinetic energy or angular momentum, and the non-existence of a universal reference frame for all of these things doesn't suddenly mean that they don't exist. It's like being asked where the bathroom is before concluding that it has no definite position because it's technically moving through outer space at breakneck speeds on a pale blue dot, suspended in a sunbeam. That's generally not what someone means when they ask where the bathroom is. The location of the bathroom is defined relative to the reference frame, the same as beauty, inertia, and, of course, meaning. You know what they say about one man's trash! 

Now, if a creation's purpose isn't to be used by others, then its purpose is often to receive the efforts of its creator. If it's not FOR you to use, of course you could call it useless! That just doesn't make it useless in general, because usefulness depends on your frame of reference. That's where I was going with that. 

[Melooon]

If it's not FOR you to use, of course you could call it useless!

- This is overall a great reply!

I think I'm coming around to the idea that its use, is its own existence (I cant remember what I wrote a year ago, maybe it was that  ) - I had a discussion recently with someone about art galleries; we were in an art gallery and a big video was announcing that the gallery was remodelling to "become a space that serves the community" - but it was pointed out to me that the idea of a gallery servicing the community is already outdated; if a gallery's primary goal is to service the community, then art is a public service too - this diminishes the idea of art and turns it into a consumable product 

Anyway I came here to add a little quote I read today related to that encounter! "[artists are encouraged to make art useful] 'usefullness' if it turns out to be useful, is mainly for the assimilation of art into the neoliberal [(The philosophy that everything should be monetized)] ideal of artists as service providers" - I believe this applies to websites and homepage crafters, just as much as art!

So websites should resist being useful at all costs 

*the quote is from "'Art, Misuse and Technology' from the System Interference show 2022"

[Kallistero]

"[artists are encouraged to make art useful] 'usefullness' if it turns out to be useful, is mainly for the assimilation of art into the neoliberal [(The philosophy that everything should be monetized)] ideal of artists as service providers" - I believe this applies to websites and homepage crafters, just as much as art!

So websites should resist being useful at all costs 

*the quote is from "'Art, Misuse and Technology' from the System Interference show 2022"

Okay, so here's a thought experiment: if someone were to create a Web site that does absolutely everything that Photoshop does but offers it entirely for free, it divides that author's use of "usefulness" into two parts. Such a site, in its direct usage, would be useless in their definition of the neoliberal sense, but the utility is still intact!   

If a Web site should resist being useful, I think the former sense (with monetization as an ultimate goal) is noble to resist, but the latter sense (being a medium through which to experience & create) can remain without the need for this framework. Making a site that's just to teach people or to help others to make their own art, it's useful in the latter sense without being monetarily driven, and I would argue that a person doing it for PASSION can offer it with entire dimensions of higher quality than a person who's doing it for money. A useful site can be useful and free, which might not be useful for (or might even be destructive to) the higher ups, but the separation of monetary usefulness and utilitarian usefulness can be useful in itself!

I do believe that more people should be exposed to that separation now, as sentiments like "I can't make videos if I don't get monetized" or "I need your [monetary] support to keep making art" have become more understood as THE ultimate way to do things, as opposed to being ONE OPTION FOR the way to do things. There are many types of "useful" out there, and those other types should probably be better represented, to resist the common lexicon's motion towards equating "usefulness" with monetary potential.

[Melooon]

Making a site that's just to teach people or to help others to make their own art, it's useful in the latter sense without being monetarily driven

I do have something to add that might be a useful discussion point for others to build upon - monetization in its most obvious form is about money; but its really about "value", and value can be so much more - power is value, influence is value, sharing ideas is value, money is value too, and even positive things like passion or comfort can be forms of value.

To be truly useless in this monetization context - a website would have to have no value at all. In reality, everything has value to someone (as you said, one persons trash) - but I think its a super interesting idea.. can you create something that has no value, and should you?

From a creative stand point, answering the question is worth it! (But then it has value again )

It looks like another damed loop to me (everything ends up as loops with me ) but maybe someone else can pick this one apart - the web revival is about escaping this monetised utilitarian idea of the web; so how do we make things that escape value?

EDIT: Added thought; we want the web to be more "human" and "kind" (at least I tend to, and its in the melonland goals).. what is more human and kind then being able to accept and appreciate someone who has no value to us other than their presence.. maybe the answer is simpler than it seems 

[Icey!]

Would it be wrong to feel bad for demo in this topic? Not sure how well he would take his blog post being dissected in a forum topic like this while being criticized. After all he would not have expected this if at all.

[Guest]

I feel it might be good to point out that Dokodemo wrote that original blog post in 2018 and has since clarified his point in another blog post where it seems his issue is not "oh this site isn't useful enough or well-made enough", it's that he feels some people aren't allowing themselves to actually follow what they're passionate about when making their sites and instead try to emulate the whole "old web" aesthetic because they see other people doing it and they think "well that's what people want to see so I'll do that instead of what I actually want to do". Like, for example, I have a page on my website about my pet stick insects. It's not terribly useful, there's not even much of a purpose behind it besides "hey here's this thing I love and I am going to talk your ear off about it", but it's something I'm passionate about. I think the issue is that in the first post he used the word purpose when what he really should have been phrasing it as was "make a website you're passionate about rather than trying to do the exact same thing everyone else is doing." Saying "your website should have a purpose" makes it sound more like the whole social media thing of "you need to provide Value for people to pay attention to you and the stuff you make" when I think he was trying to argue the exact opposite, except not super well-written, which it seems he's improved on since.
TL;DR: I think the original blog post did not articulate the point in the best way, but ultimately, it seems his argument is "please make things you're passionate about rather than trying to fit in with what everyone else is doing." Of course, I don't know him and all these thoughts are just from reading through the original blog post and the follow-up post.