Ineffective websites

Today, I went on Google and typed in "health" for search and looked at the top 50 sites that came up. The good news is that most of the sites (particularly those in the top 30) are very effective in terms of appealing to the audience seeking information about health topics and concerns. They are generally visually appealing with good use of pictures and graphics, and well-written and easy to read. I found them interesting and relevant - often with updated current information on swine flu or other concerns. Many are interactive with multimedia presentations and the ability to get personalized information.
There are several sites (mostly in the 31-50 group) that are ineffective. Here are three:
#34 Health Affairs, The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, at http://content.healthaffairs.org/index.dtl is a website geared to health policy wonks. However, that does not mean it has to be unattractive. There is no effective use of color, no use of pictures or graphics. There is nothing interesting or entertaining about the site. It's just about "the facts".
#49 CDC - National Center for Health Statistics, at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ is a government website geared to health statisticians. Statistics are important to guide policy decisions that affect real people. They could be presented in an interesting way. This site does not do that. The site is not particularly inviting, does not use color well, does not use pictures or graphics, is kind of cluttered and contains nothing out of the ordinary. It's just reams of data.
#50 Washington State Department of Health, at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ is another government website, this time at the state level. However, the audience for this website is much broader, including the general public. The site is visually unappealing, has poor use of color, limited use of photos and graphics, and is cluttered. It is a typical government web site, but that is not a valid excuse.