FWIW, internet weekly or some other trade rag used to do this a couple years ago. they'd match up sites like amazon.com vs barnesandnoble.com, wingspan.com vs etrade.com, zdnn.com vs news.com(when they were seperate), etc.. and rate them in a couple different areas, not just design. the two people would say what they liked and didn't like about each site, and it was pretty cool. what would be cooler is if we did it and people commented on the 'article' with what *they* thought. and maybe for the next review, two people that had nice comments or something were choosen to review the next set of sites. it would be a huge community builder IMO. it would take a small group of people, or a single one, to do it though(picking the sites to compare, picking the people to do it, getting them in gear to make it a by-weekly thing, etc.). this also ties in with a lot of what mahdu said(and i'm still reading, very good stuff.) - giving 'sections' away to a person or group of people. at one point early in the days of evolt, we actually tried to do it this way. at the time it didn't work out cus there were only about 20-25 of us. i think *now* however, it could work out, and would be a huge benefit to evolt in terms of community development and pride. there are so many cool ideas floating around this list! it does remind me of the 'early years' of evolt because of that, and its awesome to see(and tough to keep up with :) keep up the *awesome* work everyone! .djc. On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Ben Dyer wrote: > I had kicked around a similar idea before: What if you gathered together > sites with similar ideas/organizations/industries/etc. and then compared > them on a design level? For example, you could compare the sites for > Ford/GM/DaimlerChrysler/Honda/Toyota/etc. or MOMA/National Museum of > Art/Guggenheim/Louvre or NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL or whatever and see who turned out > to be the best in different areas.