The whole conversation has been a bit sloppy about the differences between design and looks (and the difference is not entirely clear most of the time) but suffice to say: If you intent for your page to do x and you accomplish that because of and not in spite of the design, then, by definition, the design is good (and it might even be great).

> If the intent is to earn money through your website and you are earning a ton of it, then you've succeeded

Sure, but just as that does not mean your code is great, it doesn't mean your design is. "Earning a ton of money" is not exactly a well defined company goal. For example, if a better design (or code) could yield 2x what you make, even if 1x is "a ton", you might reconsider your stance on either. Or you maybe you wouldn't. Who am I to say.

>"Earning a ton of money" is not exactly a well defined company goal.

Well, okay, but you'll have to agree that at-least it is easy to quantify, "Good design" OTOH isn't, but again I'm not a designer so I see things differently. "Good design" "good code" in the abstract does nothing for me personally. The older I get the more I care much more about results, and the less I care about purity/aesthetics of design/code, etc. I'm around purpose-built biotech software all the time and to any UX person its going to look like ass. Janky, confusing menus, clusterfuck of various icon styles, seemingly random buttons littered everywhere etc, etc. No cohesive UX flow. But then this is expert software and is used in many aspects of vaccine r&d/production, and supports the production of high quality life saving products. I respect that, and therefore I respect the software as well.