Forum Moderators: phranque
I've tried to imform them that content should rule and pizazz should take a back set. If they wanted to rank in the SE's they need to re-consider. So now I've gotten myself invited to a "meeting" to discuss the situation.
Anybody have any helpful hints on how to explain to these "no it alls" what the done falls could be?
Thanks.
I've personally found that listening to the Boss' reasons for what he wants helps. He just wants to feel like he was heard. After his monolog I politely address each issue.
If worse comest to worse - get a copy of your web logs and save them. Then track how well/poor your website does after the alterations have had time to take effect. View the weblogs and use them to demonstrate your claims.
Tell them they want a site wich is incompatible with the media. Just like producing a high resolution TV commercial that no one can air.
Get all the PPC figures for each keywords and tell them each visitors will cost you XX.XX$ with the pizazz.
Offer cloaking as an alternative. Tell them about potential risks.
Try to be as honest on the figures and market share you can. Listen to them and be flexible.
I hadn't even gotten to the money issue, with the exception of them saying "we'll perhaps we should outsource the building of the web along with our brochures". I mentioned that they were already going to spend thousands of dollars on brochures, and adding a website to the mix, well lets make that 10's of thousands of dollars, because I know how they think.
Lorax, that's a good idea about W3C and O'Reilly handn't thought of them.
Macguru, yes I was planning on discussing the different media types that will be reading the site, ie PC's MAC's Cell Phones, and those Palm things (eventually I'll have to get one just to see what the hoopla is all about). Also I've never done cloaking, I had always heard that it wasn't such a hot thing to do.
Keep the ideas coming....and I'll explore these avenues.
Thanks
That's what I always do ;)
Nick
JavaScript is disabled by an estimated 10% of users (from what I have read) and Flash is not perfect. In fact it crashes my machine so often, that I have uninstalled it and disabled it.
I have spent a good portion of today looking up sites for keyword phrases I think they want, and boy I was amazed at how many sites whom choose to have keyword meta tags, do not come up in a search for their keywords. It was truely unbelievable. A very reknown manufacture in the aerospace business, whom even incorporates their name with the word "aerospace", could not be found in the first 300 SERPS on google. There front page is none other than "flash".
I think I will offer them this....
If you want flash and bells and whistle, you may have them but you will suffer from not being found or listed highly.
OR
We can make it so you are easily found and have a nice clean conservative looking site.
You can spend you money on the effects or you can spend your money on getting listed. If it were my company, I spend the money on getting listed, and what for the search engine technologies to advance to read "flash".
How's that sound?
Flash can be used - I just wouldn't use if for navigation or content presentation. I've seen very well executed uses of Flash so subtle that you the ordinary viewer wouldn't even notice it but the effect it gave enhanced the viewers experience.
And as you would expect (and as gsx experiences) there are a LOT of bad executions of Flash. Way too many. But don't let that color your view of the abilities of Flash. It has it's place but it's not on every website. Choose wisely.
Javascript on the other hand - I've come to loathe.
The guy that is calling this meeting for "MIS to voice their opinion of what our website should look like". He's just one of those people that like to KA, anything to make it look likes he's on top of it. The email's he sends are so condescending....I may not know everthing there is to know about the internet, surfing, search engines, etc. but you know, I know how to turn my machine on!
I'll keep you posted, cross your fingers.
Javascript is client side which adds page weight. 98% of all the javascript I've run into is bloated, locks up my browser, or is useless other than as a neat trick. SE do not follow javascript driven nav menus. And lastly, it is so overused and abused. I've been to too many websites where they've intentionally/unintentionally disabled the back button, opened up multiple popups, had a counter that was so outdated it was calling for a website that didn't exist anymore, or they simply changed something in thier code that caused an error when the page loaded but they didn't bother to check the page after they edited it.
I could go on and on but you get my point. ;)
I have designed very successful sites combining Flash and the seo tactics learned at WW. These sites are ranking quite nicely and look equally attractive.
I believe that for a commercial site some 'flash selling' is almost mandatory to compete.
Feel free to drop me a stickynote and I'll give you a site or two to take a look at. I think this will bridge the gap between you and your management.
have to agree whole hartedly with Mac, speak MONEY, then introduce concepts of very simple SEO to achieve results > do not blind them with tech-seo, even Brett's 26 point google ranking strategy could be a little heavy for people who think a web page should be 300k of flash and JS.
Its the money that will win the day.
I would go along the lines of:
Certainly at a commercial level the maximisation of ROI > Dictates that the lowest common denomenator of users (in all possible contexts) should be able to buy / find the products that your company sells, anything that steps in the way of this will reduce the maximisation principle and lead to a decrease in sales, and to a less profitable website venture.
Hence: Due to the technical capabilities of the search engine algorithms/hueristics, their page reading abilities are not capable of indexing PROPERLY flash or JS, blah, blah, blah.
Using threads from here, that debate ROI against Client side technology, are useful, but also if you can find article's that back this up from media that you know they respect (what they read), this will also help paint a stronger picture for backing up lowest common denominator principle, and an SEM/SEO site strategy, that you have developed.
They still want javascipt navigation, even though they've been told that the script can not be indexed. So I told them they only way they could get the navigation indexed is to include text links as well. So they've agreed to include the same script navigation links as text links.
Let me tell you some of the sites my nemisis pulled up to show as examples were hidious, I mean UGLY! There was a site that was nothing but flash, pure flash, it had a strobing eye going in and out about 100 mph, it made me sick to watch it. But he said it was his favorite site. (Barf!)
Thanks to every one who has helped out me through this trial and tribulation (little drama there). You've all been very supportive and that is why I really enjoy WW.
My hat is off to all of you that make WW what it is.
