Do poorly designed sites convert better?

[CasinoMack]

Just curious if anyone is wondering the same.

[jdwanchalk]

I don't think a site is poorly designed if it is converting better, that wouldn't make any sense. If you only focus on aesthetics, however, that is certainly a possibility. I guess you have to define how you are using the word "designed."

[TheDonk]

Haha, well...although it wasn't on purpose, I'd have to say my crummiest looking sites have generally converted better than the good looking ones. In fact, it kinda sorta helped me create more and more plain looking sites.

Maybe 'poorly designed' is the wrong way to say it. Maybe it would be better to say 'plain & simple'? It makes sense that sites with fewer bells & whistles to distract a visitor should convert better. On that note, one that isn't nice 'enough' could look shady and untrustworthy.

Edit: After some more thought...it seems to me that sites which rank for converting kw's should do better, and sites that base their earnings off of generating loyal, returning visitors should have a big effect on how you design and the features you offer. If you're trying to build a site with lots of returning visitors, then design better and offer more features/tools. If the idea is to convert people now...give them a simpler design and fewer distractions. This is an interesting topic.

[superiorword]

It is the content that makes the difference, and calls to action. Playwinningpoker and Poker-babes are not the best websites in terms of design- very simple and archaic design. But it's the quality content that made them highly successful.

[CasinoMack]

Well yeh I guess the content in those cases were what made the site.

Its been awhile since I checked out either playwinningpoker or pokerbabes, but I don't remember seeing too many calls to action. Again, I just don't remember, they may have been everywhere.

[CasinoMack]

Haha, well...although it wasn't on purpose, I'd have to say my crummiest looking sites have generally converted better than the good looking ones. In fact, it kinda sorta helped me create more and more plain looking sites.

My experience as well.

[superiorword]

Its been awhile since I checked out either playwinningpoker or pokerbabes, but I don't remember seeing too many calls to action. Again, I just don't remember, they may have been everywhere.

In their case, it's the content mostly

[leporello]

PlayWinningPoker could definitely have been optimized better. I couldn't even read an article there the site was so ugly looking.

Clean and simple designs with stand out call to actions that are focused based on what the reader of that page needs. That's all you need imo.

[GregW]

I guess you have to define how you are using the word "designed."

Yeah. You can either look at "design" from an artistic point of view or from a content delivery point of view.

A snazzy design and the ability to display content in an easy to read fashion (I'm sure there's a word for this) aren't mutually exclusive. However, generally speaking the focus of the simpler designs is the content and not the design, which probably helps the visitor find what they are looking for and convert.

[Prenut]

The proof is in the pudding. PWP made massive income for years, and I'm sure the owner was more than happy with the sales price. I assume that you could hypothesize that it could have made even more, but that's all a guessing game at this point. That site was/is a great example of a great way to build a poker site.

PlayWinningPoker could definitely have been optimized better. I couldn't even read an article there the site was so ugly looking.

Clean and simple designs with stand out call to actions that are focused based on what the reader of that page needs. That's all you need imo.