[Xurinos]

I agreed with your first post. I am also holding out for the thought that there are exceptions. Interestingly, this comment stood out to me: "That is mostly because eBay is a generally badly designed site. They have one of the most averse-to-change user bases on top of it, so bad decisions stick for a longtime." But they have a huge userbase. Transactions are happening. This is where my confusion kicks in... People claim a site has bad design, but a ton of users actively use the service. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of those users are not tech-savvy.

So what is the measure by which we are able to claim that some site's design is "bad"? I provide the counter: large, active userbase and a lot of money moving through ebay. Perhaps not enough money goes there? Do we think someone could create a competitor to ebay with a "better" site design and steal ebay's crowd? What role does site design actually play here?

[bicknergseng]

I think you bring up some interesting points, but I just want to address the "Do we think someone could create a competitor to ebay with a "better" site design and steal ebay's crowd?" line.

eBay isn't successful because of design or lack of design. It's successful because it's where people go to sell or buy in an online auction format. Same thing for Craigslist.

Yet look at Apple, specifically the iPhone and iPod. The smartphone and mp3 player were not new innovations, but Apple's design and marketing built the world's richest company on them.

TL;DR: Design makes all the difference. Design makes none of the difference.