I don't think I did. The homepage is the only thing that's unique about the design. Had you arrived on any page besides that, you would think this is a bog-standard developer's blogsite, one skinny column amid a sea of white space.
It's possible to have an ugly site that's still easily navigable and visually interesting, even if the author is the only user.
Respectfully, to the author's point, none of that matters and neither does anything in your previous post. The author likes it, and has fun creating it and enjoys molding and re-shaping it to their own changing desires over the years. That's what they find important to them, not anything that you've mentioned. As the author writes...
>Somebody with good taste could’ve made my website, but then it wouldn’t be mine.
>To bake bread, many feel compelled to grow wheat, mine salt, culture yeast, etc. Not me. My puerile palate yearns for buckets of Olive Garden breadsticks.
>That’s okay. Your “mine” is not my "mine."
... and...
>Soon it will become something else entirely. Because it’s my website and I’m perpetually becoming somebody else.
>You’ll change too. Your passions and values will pollinate; your ugly thing – whatever it is – will come alive again and again.
They've created something that is authentically "them", in a way that is authentically "them". And they love that. Not having images, or icons, or categories, or being easily navigable, or having a blog post section that looks "bog-standard" to you or anybody else are all completely irrelevant.
Hell yes, more power to them, I say.
I guess the question is if I create something that's extremely derivative and standard/boring but I say that it's uniquely myself then is that true? I suppose it could be if I'm calling myself boring.
We're all just an amalgamation of our experiences. As long as you're creating whatever feels true to you, and you're happy with it, then awesome!
Boring? I guess I don't really care - internal joy and contentment will always supercede "boring".