Personally, I find their site next to impossible to use, and finding any logical navigational content on their main page (lockergnome.com) is painful at best.

What I want is content, not flair, not fancy schmancy this or that. I weigh a site more by what I read (i.e. content), than necessarily how it looks.

In the case of lockergnome, I eventually got to the point where even their newsletters were a struggle to find the content intermingled between the ads, branding and seemingly endless navigation. Eventually I go frustrated to the point where I didn’t even want them in my mailbox. I’ve since unsubscribed from all of them, save their OS X one.

And tables? C’mon … there better be a very good reason why you’d want to go back to mid-90′s markup when it’s been proven a well-thought out (x)HTML/CSS recipe can be successfully implemented – just look at Wired.com

The best advice I can give Chris Pirillo and company is this: “Sometimes less is more.”

“the site rendered exactly the same as it did on IE 6 in XP Pro and Safari on OS X”

This is the most revealing phrase in the post. I guess an ongoing inability to maintain (thanks, no doubt, to a lack of knowledge on working with standards-based code) is what spurred this move. What a collosal waste.