** VOTE FOR eGullet.com in the TOP 100 Culinary Sites! **

[Bux]

It seems like only yesterday that we were on page four and worried about getting dropped. Now we're on page two and although page one is probably going to take longer, psychologically it seems much easier to achieve.

[Andy Lynes]

49 and counting. We need approx. as many votes again as we have already achieved to get to page 1, but that should take less than a month I would think.

[tommy]

so can i assume that acceptance speeches are being prepared as we speak?

[Andy Lynes]

Well, so far I've got "I would like to thank my manager, my agent, my lawyer, my mother, my father, my cat, my dog, his holiness the pope, God almighty........."  how's that sound?

[Bux]

I haven't really been watching the count on sites far ahead of us, but my assumption is that many of the leaders are still collecting votes at some good rate. Maybe not, but if they are, it means we will pass them as a slower rate that we passed the guys behind us. I may have to start voting for more sites along the way. Suvir Saran's sight is next and he's contributor here. I don't mind passing him, but I'd hate to leave him in the dust. We should support member's sites, assuming they are on the list and deserving of support. They can ride our coat tails, or is it apron strings?

[jhlurie]

I may have to start voting for more sites along the way. Suvir Saran's sight is next and he's contributor here. I don't mind passing him, but I'd hate to leave him in the dust. We should support member's sites, assuming they are on the list and deserving of support

The exception would be those ahead of eGullet in the ranks, correct?  There is certainly no problem with people from those sites coming here to participate as a result of our involvement in chef2chef, but if our goal is to get to number 1 (okay... number 2!) then I think we have to be slightly more generous to those we pass than those we've yet to pass.  I'll definitely vote for Suvir--although I have to confess I'm likely to give him 4 stars for every time I give eGullet 5 stars.

Of course, to be realistic for a minute, its probably much better for eGullet to maintain good relations with other sites than to get to the top of a ranking system that (as far as we know) nobody sees except the participants.  

We don't want war... just victory.

We should be at #46 now, by the way.

(Edited by jhlurie at 10:42 am on Jan. 11, 2002)

[Fat Guy]

It's amazing how something like this can take on a life of its own.

[HubUK]

I think it is wrong to criticise any site to do with food or chefs merely for its design. It is the content that is important - you don't have to be a web design genius to have something interesting to say about food or great recipes. Some of the best recipe sites out there would not win prizes for design but they are first rate in terms of content.

As to voting - most people can vote whenever they go online so it does make it rather meaningless in terms of being a judgement. However it is another link to a site and someone new will find the sites through it - I average 50 new visitors per week from it so that gives you some idea of its value.

And this is for the Fat Guy (whose logo I love) . . . I am always looking out for food articles to include on Hub-UK if you are interested in becoming a contributor. For starters I have had a quick look at the article called 'Balsamico' which I would like to reproduce. You get full credit and links back to your web site - sorry that is all I can offer anyone as the site has yet to earn me a bean and is run out of my own pocket.

This applies to anyone else who is interested in contributing . . . if you don't have your own site you can always specify a link back to eGullet.

The site currently averages around 2,000 page requests per day.

(Edited by HubUK at 3:30 pm on Jan. 12, 2002)

(Edited by HubUK at 4:33 pm on Jan. 12, 2002)

[Bux]

I think it is wrong to criticise any site to do with food or chefs merely for its design. It is the content that is important - you don't have to be a web design genius to have something interesting to say about food or great recipes.

I don't think food sites are any different from any other site, with the exception of those sites designed as destination entertainment sites. Information is central to the reason for the visit and design is the means to get that information to the user. By "design" I'm not referring to the esthetic or decor of the site, but the structural layout and ease of navigation as well as clarity of what's on the site. If a site is pretty or ugly, I'd certainly feel free to offer my subjective opinion, but if a site is designed in such a way that I can't find what I want, it should well be criticised. I suppose you may feel I'm twisting your words, but sometimes I think people have the wrong idea of what design is all about--and designers are among the most confused. There's nothing worse than a pretty site that's poorly designed. ;)

[jhlurie]

Quote: from HubUK on 3:28 pm on Jan. 12, 2002

I think it is wrong to criticise any site to do with food or chefs merely for its design.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the design of a site.  I'll go even further than Bux and say that even criticizing the esthetics of a site would be alright.  

What shouldn't be done is to elevate the importance of those esthetics.  Or the importance of the person doing the criticism.  It's just one opinion, and the esthetics are only one element of many which make up the site.  If the site is ugly, but provides good information... well great.  If the site is pretty, but provides good information... well that's even better.  

Of course, as Bux says, the elements of design realted to ease of navigation are something else entirely.  Food sites shouldn't get a "free pass" just because they are about food.  

That's NOT saying that food sites have to be ultra sleek and complicated... a good design can be simple as well.  It's not unfair to wish that a person keep it simple if they can't make a complicated design look good.  "Wish" is the operative word there, since nobody is claiming for even a second, I hope, that a criticism is somehow eliminating someone's freedom to run a site exactly how they want to.

[Rail Paul]

4302 votes so far, moving up nicely. Please continue to vote early and often.

There's a cluster of sites which can be demolished quickly, which will put eGullet at 41

Rosie's increasing her lead in the 11 position.

[Steve Klc]

I'm so with Bux and jhlurie on this one--criticizing the design, layout, flow, logic and aesthetics of a website is fair game--and just because a site has something to do with a chef or recipes doesn't give it a free pass.

That's like saying it isn't fair to criticize the presentation of food at a restaurant--denying that one eats visually, with their eyes, first.  Duh...we do.

To carry that anaolgy a bit further--say a dish is presented well--and then when we bite into it with a fork it is impossible to eat well, squishing and squeezing out all over the place, falling apart and spilling sauce on our trousers.  Wouldn't we rightly criticize the construction--the logic--of that dish and ultimately be dissatisfied with our experience, even if it initially seemed promising after reading the menu, saw that it was composed of quality ingredients and then again looked great when it was served?  Of course we would.

Also, we have too many recipe sites.  Collecting recipes is not developing content.  It's not about recipes anyway--or even amounts--but about appreciating ingredients and understanding the science and techniques involved.  Recipes are so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.  (Yes, I realize I'm a pastry chef writing that.)

I'm curious what recipe sites HubUK would put out there as having great content?

[Niall]

Now at 45...  with 4357 votes..  thats an average of 4.92....  that has to be one of the highest average scores!!! Even the mighty number one has a paltry 4.31 average.

[Kristian]

One (more) thing bothers me in this ranking list. As far as I can say, they have NOT removed the 25 lowest ranking sites from the end of the list during this time that we have been voting. Weren't they supposed to that every month?

[Matthew Grant]

Surely that would mean that there would be no list left after 4 months?

[Kristian]

Ah, I meant they are supposed to clear up the slots from 75 to 100 every month for new applicants. It does not seem to have happened, though...

[Catseye]

from Andy Lynes on 9:08 am on Jan. 10, 2002

Well, so far I've got "I would like to thank my manager, my agent, my lawyer, my mother, my father, my cat, my dog, his holiness the pope, God almighty........."  how's that sound?

A good beginning.  But you forgot:  "... and last but not least, all my wonderful fans out there.  You're the best.  Rilly.  I love ya.  Rilly."  And then you blow kisses.

Cats

[Andy Lynes]

I'm getting this all down. Now, what am i going to wear!!

[Rail Paul]

...remove the bottom 25...

Perhaps there are no more nominations?

[Rail Paul]

now at 4603.

with 600 more votes, eGullet wil be at position 40

[jhlurie]

Quote: from Rail Paul on 5:19 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

with 600 more votes, eGullet wil be at position 40

Really the only important current goal is to beat the stuffing out of FOODTV.com.

Die Die Die.

Okay... I'm alright now. :)

BTW: I'm only kidding.  If I don't put a disclaimer on this SOMEBODY is going to think I'm serious.

(Edited by jhlurie at 5:43 pm on Jan. 17, 2002)

[macrosan]

eGullet continues its inexorable rise in the charts.

But poor Rosie is under serious threat !!! Whilst she is inching up towards #10, her lead over #12 is being gradually eroded. Will eGullet not protect one of its own ?

Come on people, when you vote for eGullet, while you're over there in the polling booth, cast a vote for Rosie too :)

[Rosie]

THANK-YOU! Just to set the record straight. I have no problem with eGullet passing me by. I will be content to be #2. It would be an honor to be under eGullet! ;)  

[Blue Heron]

Next person to vote will put egullet above foodtv.com.  we're at 4844 after my vote gets counted this morning.  foodtv has 4848.

[Rosie]

I think we should be able to get to 41 today.