This feels like the product of a basic coding test. Which is fine, and if so well done. But I was hoping for something more.
I clicked four times, hoping that it would get better. Three of those four were distinctly un-awesome, and felt a bit dated - “ihasabucket.com”, really? Hello 2008 - and one of them wouldn’t load.
It would probably have been more interesting if you said what criteria are used to determine the “awesomeness” of the sites, and what more - if anything - there is to this than randomly selecting from a pre-populated list.
