It is two things. One, it is very subjective. Hence the “get that Good Web seal of approval from your self”. It is how a project relates to ones own process, voice and point of views as a web creator. Hence it always changes.

Secondly, it is also objective. Sites that are “Good Web” tend to get the nod of approval from more people. Much of what makes up a strong voice and point of view is larger than one persons individual preferences.

Making Good Web “more” than that is IMHO taking it in a less beneficial direction, moving it away from what it is – a complement and an alternative gage to those things that are fully measurable. It is a last step before completion and the ability to wrapping up one project satisfactorily before moving on to the next.

Maybe I will develop Maslow’s Good Web Beta. Meanwhile, consider it open source, Creative Commons, file-for-sharing and not IP of a large media company, or something. :) And it is there as a map.

Now that we have established that Good Web comes after all the other steps, let’s see how you tried to define what is Good Web.
You didn’t. You described a set of actions you do, in order to establish if this is Good Web or not.

At the end of his life, Maslow talked about “Self-transcendence”, which was a level above Self-actualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcendence). This level is of course controversial, some people having the approach “When the devil becomes old, he gets religious”.
But he “estimated that only 2% of the population will ever achieve this level of the hierarchy in their lifetime, and that it was absolutely impossible for a child to possess these traits.”

To return to your approach to Good Web or rather, my initial question.
What defines a masterpiece? While every definition is coloured by its cultural context, within that context it is sometimes judged a piece of art. But, regardless of if we talk about Self-actualization or Self-transcendence, one thing we can agree on is that this is a level which defies ordinary, quantifiable measures. So we have to reach for expressions like ‘feel’, ‘look’, ’sensation-slash-experience’.

We have all the previous steps well established, we even did several iterations _with user testing_. The concept is right there. Now, do we have the skills to lift it to Good Web? Not a da Vinci or a Turner, but, Good Web? Are skills what we need, or enough? Talent? Intense collaboration between several disciplines? Are only 2% of all Web sites and apps ever able to reach the height of Good Web?
You didn’t define Good Web, because it can’t be quantified and defined in that way. So there is no magical formula to create magical ones. But how can our team get there? :)

You nail it perfectly when you highlight that essentially Good Web can not happen before everything else is in place.

I very much like your outline for a “hierarchy for interactive media” as it is essentially a clear-cut guide to what sets mediocre sites and apps apart from the magical ones, and how those things relate to each other.

And Maslow’s Good Web is a nice name for it, beta tag and all :D

Just as Maslow helped us define the hiearchy of needs*, we can create a similar hierarchy for interactive media. I think. This popped up when reading it, so call the concept of “Maslow’s Good Web” a real beta. :)

At the foundation is Technical stability followed by Technical operability. The latter differs from the former that not just are the systems up and running, but they allow us to interact, use applications, or develop it.
Next comes Interoperability, the step where we find design. Information architecture, interaction design and graphical design.
Next level is Interactivity, and this is the level where the usability of the thing is measured.

The final level is what you are talking about. Not just functional design, but sort of when “the web achieves self-actualization”. An experience, as you say, beyond measurement. Of course an individual experience, but hopefully, our team will not be the only ones experiencing it.

However, just like in Maslow’s theory, this level can not be achieved without the previous requirements being satisfied.

The worst approach a designer (of any kind) can have is what I sometimes call “The New Ager Approach”.
Zen monks sit and meditate over a grain of rice for decades.
Well, some of today’s spiritual seekers have no time to spend decades in hope for enlightment, so a weekend course in miracles will do. And when the emotional kicks of feeling like everything is explained to me wears off, there is always another weekend course to join.

Design, Agile, Zen, it doesn’t matter. And we all know about project budget restraints. But when we try to do the light version or take shortcuts, we may get a result. But not a Good Result. For that, we need to climb the entire ladder.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs