Scary!

The first shocking omission is that the content is not mentioned at all. The most important question is – what does this new web site do? Who can use it? Who does use it? How well is it accepted by the users (in percentage of the target market perhaps)? Does the user rate grow, and if so at what rate?

They just did not get to the real reasons a web site is worth (an award). All their points are based on the looks. That reflects the lack of understanding that web is not the static HTML, were sites looked good (or bad). The interactivity of the Web 2.0, and of web is missing there at all. Try to score Google Earth by those scores, and see the result. Or Digg? Or Ico? Or LinkedIn? Kind of does not work, does it? Now try Ryanair’s web site, and this is where the show really begins!

Golden Globe is almost like ‘made’ for an Advertising or Media Agency web site. A brochure. NOTHING ELSE!?