> Maintenance cost is effectively zero...
His estimates[1] of ongoing costs seem different:
> I spend probably 60 hours a week continuously improving this website, answering visitors' questions, solving their shoelace problems – even granting permission for my material to be re-used by other educators.
> All of this effort earns me less than 1/5 of the Australian National Minimum Wage.
> I'm thinking of calling this my “Million Dollar Website” – not because it's worth a million dollars but because it has cost me a million dollars compared to what I could have earned at a regular job (based on an average Australian annual wage of $50,000 × 25+ years).
Granted it seems like you're commenting just on the cost of maintaining the site's HTML/CSS, and I agree that making the website simpler reduces those costs. But even with more complex websites the development costs are often less than the cost of developing good content, attracting people to your site, paying for hosting, etc.
It could've been a two-million-dollar website if he'd tried to roll his own CMS and Javascript framework, for zero benefit over the one-million-dollar website he actually built.
But, I don't see how a static HTML site could be a struggle to keep running. It costs almost nothing to host something like that, even with a lot of traffic. I guess if one wanted to make a living off of it, it'd be a struggle.
To me, it is not that these sites are rarer today than they once were. In fact, I think they are more of these today. It is just that the internet today is way bigger than it once was, and a lot of crap came with it. In fact, the web page dates back from 2000, and believe it or not, what is now known as enshittification was well on its way, though it was more Flash than Javascript. It was the peak of the dotcom bubble after all. The time such websites were "most of the internet" was more of a 1990s thing.
A site like Ian's Shoelace Site is not representative of its time any more than it is now, in that it was, and still is unusually good.
> Also, because it uses core/standard web technologies exclusively, he has never been required to change it to keep it working or update a bunch of stuff for security reasons.
On the client side, sure. On the server side, there is still maintenance to be done, especially with https where you have to manage certificates and their expiration, even though certbot make it simpler. But arguably, that's his host job and he just has to upload a bunch of html file, so you are right on that point. He still kept his page to modern standards, even though he wasn't required to (HTML 1.0 still works!).
It very clearly is, though.
There's no "if you want to keep learning check my book/course". It's not a funnel entrance, it's not adversarial to you as a reader.
I really really miss being able to enjoy content keeping my guard down, not wondering what is a scam, astroturfing, political propaganda...
The good thing about those ads is, it's your choice if they're allowed to run on your machines or not. Assuming your "user agent" isn't really an "ad industry agent".
Honestly, the old way of doing ads was also The Good Internet. No surveillance, the people placing the ads needed to actually think about where to spend their money, the sites had to decide personally whether the ad fit their audience and ethics. The ad surveillance networks launder all the ethical questions into a wash of hateful attention stealing and tracking user behavior.
I’m not sure that’s always true. We have our own homegrown adserver that’s almost 100% context based (a few ads for stores do rudimentary IP geo-targeting, all purely first-party though), and it does well with both banners and text based ads. It’s in the digital photography niche. I’d assume generally places that are strongly oriented towards a niche can do a lot with context based advertisment. CTR is much better than for Google ads (that we also run).