I do think though that the simpler, non-professional look works great in some genres, and I’ll stick to those when it’s appropriate. Not all sites need to have that business look about them. Some work better when they look a bit “homemade”. But there is a line to be drawn between homemade and ugly. 😉

For some reason I’m stuck on getting into the heads of people when viewing an ugly versus aesthically pleasing site. Do they see an ugly site and figure “this is a rela person who doesn’t have a lot of time to spend on the puffery of layout – they just want to get the information disseminated”, and therefore the blogger receives some benefit fo the doubt for site ugliness?

For some reason I’m skeptical that people get that involved in their thought process, even if all of that would only take a fraction of a second.

Is it instead that viewers get visually confused and can’t tell what’s navigation and what’s advertisement? I’ve watched my parents surf, and I have to say, it’s a possibility.

And what business model does the ugly site work better for? Does the one-hit-and-they’re-gone model work better with an ugly site, versus getting return visitors for good content plus good layout? My gut says yes, but my heart’s been whispering in my gut’s ear. Maybe ugly works better for both. Maybe fire engine red and sapphire blue on white, three columns, no bells or whistles is the key to financial freedom.

I hope not, because that’s one more possible advantage pulled from my tool belt.

I look forward to updates.