Now, it is all well and good to have information and forms presented easily along with the basic functions that the sites are trying to fulfill. The trappings (the shingles on the roof if you will) on many Web 2.0 sites seems to be the content (rather than it being the core) or if they do a good job on the content they decide to slick up the site. This can muddle navigation, and also put users off. Who are you going to trust with your money, services, or membership on the internet anyways? Are you going to trust a website that looks like a MegaCorp built it, and it is designed to suck your wallet until it slowly shrivels up and dies? Or are you going to trust the site that looks like an amateur webmaster with better things to do (like running a brick and mortar business that you could actually go to) designed over the course of a few classes in 1998 – and has remained nearly unchanged in styles since? Personally, since most of these home-grown sites also have real business locations I would be inclined to set up shipping or dealings with them. In the case of sites that are functionally set up for memberships like forums or social networks, a simpler site more focused on the purpose of the community always does better than a slickened forum or site that has way too many graphics, gradients, and goo. MySpace might be the bane of existence for many, but because it lets the users make their themes it is popular. The basic MySpace blue page is simple to understand, and the site is easy to learn.