GovGoByeBye: What Websites Would YOU Cut?

Home Forums Technology GovGoByeBye: What Websites Would YOU Cut?

This topic contains 17 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by  Steve Ressler 9 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
  • #132852

    President Obama and Vice President Biden announced the “Campaign to Cut Waste” yesterday and one of the key areas where they plan to reduce redundancy includes government websites.

    Want to start browsing a small part of the 2,000 websites on the list? Click here.

    Obama quipped that he’d cut the “Fiddlin’ Foresters,” which appears to be chopped already.

    So I’m wondering:

    Got a website that you absolutely KNOW is ready to be pruned?

    Got ideas for how agencies can decide what to eliminate or consolidate?


    Related Discussion: GovLaunch: White House Unveils “Campaign to Cut Waste”


  • #132886

    Steve Ressler

    I’m all for pruning but I think it’s pretty tough to pull off so will be fascinated to see how they do it.

    I see it at a super small scale at govloop. Should we do stuff as sub-domains like or full domains. Should our conference have its own or be a part of govloop

    I think there’ll be a number of websites that are clearly not needed but also some tough choices

  • #132884

    Don Pickerel

    I’m not sure the content needs to be eliminated as much as multiple servers do. For instance, the sites are going to Drupal which allows one installed instance of software to support, but as many virtual sites as is needed for all representatives. This eliminates a lot of overhead of servers, backups, and access lines.

    Then an advanced search engine can search across the sites based on similar or repetitive content, and that can be eliminated if necessary. Also any content that’s not actively maintained and updated can be put on a notification list so that it can be reviewed for relevancy. It’s easy to forget pages that quickly become outdated and misleading or harmful in the information it provides.

  • #132882


    Okay, after careful consideration……………

    There are some uses for this site…I can only think of 1 though… offense

  • #132880

    Steve Ressler

    How did you find that needle in the haystack?

  • #132878

    Tim Bonnemann

    The White House also announced that they plan to invite the public to “offer feedback”. Here’s a few thoughts I shared with the White House (if they’re reading it, that is): White House To Seek Input (Again): A Few Basic Tips to Make It Work

  • #132876

    David Fletcher

    I would not cut It is a site that I have used for years and has a legitimate use, much of its value being derived from the simple, straightforward URL. It can’t cost much at all to maintain because it never changes. Another site that I would not have cut is already gone:, a site that displayed the U.S. to the world.

    In trying to respond to this post, I found another one retired:

    I think we need to exercise care with just randomly retiring sites just because it’s something that we don’t support. The web is built on links and it can get frustrating when we just start breaking things. There are MANY ways to cut costs in government. I wish we would get all those data centers consolidated and virtualized before we start hacking through websites.

  • #132874

    Wendell Black

    I’ve been to the site, and I can’t agree with you more.

  • #132872

    I really like this answer, Dave. Seems like a band-aid when we need surgery.

  • #132870

    I like the government websites. It allows folks to data, information, and services provided by the government for citizen use. It is a channel or connection a citizen has to communicate with his government. I would not cut the government websites. I feel cutting the website is censorship.

    Warren Lunsford

  • #132868

    If you cut out the websites, you cut out citizen’s ability to offer feedback.

  • #132866

    Terrence Hill

    I would definitely get rid of the OMB Max website and just use readily available social media instead.

  • #132864

    Tim Bonnemann

    First victim? 😉

  • #132862

    Steve Ressler

    Some examples from a Tech Bisnow article today

    Every time there’s a new agency initiative, people think it needs a new website (,, and dolphinsafe.govare real examples).

  • #132860

    Erica Schachtell

    i’ve seen the Fiddlin’ Foresters play. They’re pretty good. and I can still sing the refrain from their poignant rendition”Cold Missouri Waters” even though it was years ago…

  • #132858

    Amanda Blount

    Yep – gotta go. There are many, many websites that do the same thing, but better.

  • #132856

    Denise Petet

    I’m torn. I can see that there are stupid sites out there. And I can also see the need to consolidate, perhaps having one person running several sites (many websites, once they’re up, are pretty easy to run…you just add more content or fix bugs). On the other hand, there is so much buerocracy and red tape already, i can see why some groups don’t want to consolidate. The beauty of a web site is ‘instantly’ putting info out there, but the more layers of red tape you add the less instant it becomes. And all of a sudden fixing a typo on a web site will require a committee meeting and 3 pages of forms to be filled out.

    I can also see the perils in consolidating too much onto the same servers…put more eggs in one basket and if that basket gets tipped, you lose it all. However, consolidating servers could result in less cost and with appropriate backups being made, those things can be taken care of.

    So I don’t think cutting is a bad thing, but I think care needs to be taken when using those scissors. And I also think consolidating could be a good alternative to cutting.

  • #132854

    Joy Gatewood

    So I am all for consumer safety. Its important – I want to be safe. Let’s all be safe!

    But do we really need all these websites in addition to ??

    Maybe we do need them to be really, really safe? What do you think?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.