Blogs Web Design

Client projects and tech blog posts about Blogs

Over the last year or so I've been asked to do an increasing amount of Facebook consulting. Most weeks I get a couple of emails asking for help and asking how this sort of consulting works so I thought I'd explain my experience.

First off: Facebook is not all that hard. Putting a great-looking Facebook page up to support your group, cause or school doesn't require any programming. But it can be confusing, partly because Facebook is always in-process. They keep adapting it and tweaking it. If you bought a book on Facebook campaigning a year ago, it would already be out of date.

My first job is to ask a few good questions about what you want to do on Facebook and then set up the beginnings of a site. I spend too much of my time already on Facebook but I also keep up with a lot of Facebook blogs and have recent copies of such wonderful tomes as "Facebook Marketing for Dummies." In most cases my job is to recommend a Facebook strategy based on best practices and then to start up a Facebook Page for you. There are certain flourishes I can give, such as picking a good icon or making a customized tab for first-time visitors. But the real value of Facebook is clients sharing information directly with their audience so my most important work is getting you excited about doing it yourself. I'm really just a cheerleader for you.

I typically spend anywhere from two to eight hours helping a client put together a Facebook page. If it looks like a project on the small end of the scale, I just charge the expected amount upfront. I do keep track of my time: if we go over a little bit, I let it slide; if we still have a bit of a balance then I'm there for ongoing questions. Facebook consulting is not the core of my business but it can be a nice break from a big six-month development project and it's helps with the cashflow. I'm also a naturally curious fellow so I like learning a little bit about the kinds of things.
Categories: Facebook , Practical 2.0
Tags: Best Practices, Consulting, Facebook, Page | Edit
One of the great things about Web 2.0 is the empowerment of average users. With Twitter and Facebook pages, individuals can now respond back to companies and organizations with a few strokes of the keyboard. Google's recently entered the fray with an intriguing project called Sidewiki. Once again, companies and nonprofits interested in managing their online brands need to be aware of the new medium and how to track it.

What is Sidewiki?
Google started its sidewiki project in September 2009. It's a sidebar that can attach to any page on the internet via the Google Toolbar. Users gain the ability to comment on any page on the internet. Google uses a ranking system based on votes and various algorithms to determine the order of the comments.

When a user of the Google Toolbar visits a page with Sidewiki notes they see a small blue button of the left side of the page with two white chevrons (see screenshot on the right). Clicking on this opens the Sidewiki sidebar. Here they will see comments left by previous visitors. They are be able to add their own comments.

Visionaries have long dreamed of a web with this kind of two-way communication but similar sidebar commenting systems have failed to gain enough momentum to become viable. If this were just another venture-capital-fueled attempt, it would be something marketers could ignore unless and until it became widely used. But with Google behind Sidewiki, it's a service we need to take seriously from the start.

Users Talking Back
When we put together websites, we get to control the message of our little corner of the internet--we have the final say on the material we present. If Sidewiki becomes popular, this will no longer be true. Fans, disgruntled employees and competitors can all start marking up our sites--yikes! But those brands that have embraced the Web 2.0 model will love another place where they can interact with their audience. Today's marketing goal is mindshare--how much of a user's attention span can you win over. The more you get visitors to think about your brand or your message, the more likely that they will buy or recommend your product or service. You need to be active on whatever online channel your audience is using.

Watching the Conversations
What's a good brand manager to do? The first thing is to make sure you have the latest version of Google Toolbar installed on your working browser (get it here) and that you have the Sidewiki service enabled (I've started a Sidewiki for this entry so if it's working you'll see the blue button in your browser).

Brand Management
Google allows website owners the first comment. If you are registered as the owner of a site via Google Webmaster Tools, then you get first say: when you post to the Sidewiki of a page you control, Google gives you the top spot. This is very good. Should you do it?

Probably not. At least not yet. I don't see people using Sidewiki yet. Most websites still don't have any comments. Even Google's projects often fail to gain traction and there's no guarantee that Sidewiki will take off. If your page doesn't have any comments, I wouldn't recommend that you make the first. If there are no Sidewiki entries, the blue button won't be there and visitors probably won't even think to comment.

If you notice that a visitor has started a Sidewiki for your site by leaving a comment, then it's time to log into your Google Webmasters account and leave an official welcome message. Even though you're second to the conversation, you will get first position thanks to your ownership of the website.

The introductory note should briefly welcome visitors. It will appear alongside your website so there's no need to repeat your mission statement, but it is a place where you can give helpful navigation tips and stress any actionable items that the casual visitor might miss. You might consider inviting visitors to sign up for your site's email list, for example.

The Future
Users can tie their Sidewiki comments into Twitter and Facebook accounts. They can leave video comments. If the service takes off there will surely be a mini-industry built around comment optimization. Spammers will get hard at work to game the system. But none is really happening now. Despite a bit of fear-mongering on marketing blogs, Google Sidewiki is a long ways away from being something to lose sleep over. 

More Information:


Categories: Practical 2.0
Tags: Algorithm, Attention Economy, Brand Management, Brand Manager, Comments, Competitors, Conversation, Facebook, Fans, Google, Google Toolbar, Google Webmaster Tools, Marketing, Mindshare, Sidewiki, Techcrunch, Twitter, Web 2.0, Wikipedia | Edit
ReadWriteWeb: Technology is Great, but Are We Forgetting to Live?I usually describe myself as a "Web Developer," but often the technical aspects of my job are the least valuable service I provide. Above it I would rank what you might call my experience as a web citizen and online publicist. I put my first website together years before upstart sites like "Google" and "Myspace" came along and I published what I later realized was a "blog" the same month the word "weblog" was coined. I help clients connect with their audiences with a mix of print content, podcasts, pictures and videos, whether delivered through the open web or specialized services like Twitter or Facebook. A better job description might be Technology Lifestyle Guru.

So it was neat to be quoted last week in ReadWriteWeb, a top-twenty blog with hundreds of thousands of readers and a syndication deal with the New York Times Technology section. The article was "Technology is Great, but Are We Forgetting to Live?" by Sarah Perez. In a section called "When Should You Disconnect?" she wrote:
The fine line between what's worth documenting and what's not is a hard one to define. We immediately assume that the most important, the biggest, the most incredible moments are those that should be recorded. But it's these very moments that are best to experience live, with our full focus. As religious-focused blogger Martin Kelley notes, "there are times where our presence is much more important than any documentation." (He had just surprised himself by reviewing the grainy, blurry photos he felt it necessary to take while watching a bride walk down the aisle. In retrospect, this was exactly the kind of moment that could have gone unrecorded.)
It's a bit ironic that for all of the tech writing I do I was cited for my personal blog, but this blurring of the line between identities is becoming more common with the web. Thanks to Sarah and ReadWriteWeb for the mention!
Categories:
Tags: Lifestyle, Nytimes, Readwriteweb, Technology | Edit
screen-shotMy Twitter followers will know I've been slightly obsessed by Google's new browser, Chrome, since word leaked that it was going to be released today (Tues, Sept 2). I've been hitting reload on the download site fairly obsessively. A few minutes ago my persistence was rewarded and I'm writing to you all from the new browser (here's the official release announcement).

Why a New Browser?!?

Before I begin, let me recommend the Google Chrome online comic book for those with tech interests. Google does a good job explaining why they've joined the browser wars. At first glance it seems a needless move: they already fund much of the development on the open source Firefox browser. But Firefox, like Microsoft Internet Explorer and every other browser, is built around certain assumptions about how browsers process applications. Google is starting from scratch and thinking about the browser as an operating system running increasingly sophisticated applications (like Gmail). Chrome separates memory process and internet permissions in new ways.

Obviously, Google is going after Microsoft (the initial release of Chrome is Windows only)--not just its browser but its Vista operating system as well. With the expansion of high speed internet access and so-called "cloud computing," functions that used to require stand-alone clients can now be handled inside the browser. Email has probably become the most widely adopted browser applications but you can also do things photo editing and video recording through the browser. Google knows that once an application is running inside a browser, the operating system doesn't matter. Gmail works equally fine from Vista, Mac OS X, or Linux.

It is in Google's strategic interest to advance the state of browser technology and they do that with Chrome. But it is in the interest that everyone have access to these latest innovations and that all browsers can run the most sophisticated applications Google engineers can put together. So Chrome is open source and Google invites other browsers to incorporate many of its features.

First Thoughts on the Product:

The download was quick and easy (of course).

I was surprised that when installing it only offered to import my MS Internet Explorer bookmarks. My most complete and up-to-date bookmark list is in Firefox (synced among my operating systems by the excellent Foxmarks extension).

I went pretty immediately to Gmail. Google says they've rewritten a lot of the background rendering code from scratch and I was expecting to see instantaneous loading. Frankly, it seemed to load as quickly as it does in Firefox. Any apparent speed increase isn't immediately obvious (this is a testament to how fast they've managed to get it to load in all browsers).

speed-dialThe interface is very simplified: few buttons, tabs up top, no status bar. There's a lot of surprises here, like an automatically generated page with thumbnails of your most frequently visited sites (see image, right), an idea borrowed from Opera browser's "Speed Dial" feature (available through to Firefox users through the Speed Dial extension).

gmail-as-app You can also "Create application shortcuts" which turn services such as Gmail into client-like applications that sit on your desktop (screenshot right). Open them up from here and the normal location bar and browser buttons are gone.

There's a lot more to explore here. It's obvious that Google has put a lot of thought into this. I'm not going to dismiss any feature or oddity too quickly. They helped a lot of us rethink how we organize email using a single "Archive" folder instead of the elaborately-maintained folder hierarchy. Google actually have put out a number of half-baked and under-supported services (Froogle and Google Checkout come most immediately to mind) but it's clear that the Google Chrome browser is a very serious initiative by the company.

Will I Use It?

The big question, right? Actually, I won't use it much for now. For one thing, I'm a Mac user. I have a Windows XP virtual machine running most of the time courtesy of VMWare's Fusion. I'm sure Google has set a high priority to make Mac OS X and Linux versions of Chrome--they're whole strategy rests on this being woven into the browser lingua franca that keeps Microsoft's Vista at bay, remember?, but until that time Chrome won't be my natural first choice.

But I'm also going to miss my Firefox extensions. I forgot that the web has lots of ads (Adblock Plus). And I don't like the extra clutter of Gmail without Better Gmail 2 (just the "Folders4Gmail" feature of the latter saves my eye more scanning time than any speed tweak Chrome delivers). And these days the Web Developers Toolbar, Lastpass, FireFTP extensions are pretty essential to my work day.

But if a native Mac version was released? And if Firefox extensions started being rewritten for Chrome? I just flipped back to my regular browser to check something and even after an hour with Chrome, Firefox felt so heavy and clunky. It is possible to see Chrome could a serious contender for my attention.
Categories: Practical 2.0
Tags: Bookmarks, Browser, Firefox, Fireftp, Gmail, Google, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Lastpass, Linux, Mac Os, Opera, Twitter, Vista | Edit
This is part of my Beyond SEO series where I look at the myths and realities behind search engine optimization, with practical tips about publicizing your site and building your personal brand. Read all of my Beyond SEO articles.

The Google blog asks for user input into what makes a good SEO and reports that they've just rewritten their page that warns against rogue SEO artists and gives recommendations about what to look out for. It starts with their definition
SEO is an acronym for "search engine optimization" or "search engine optimizer." Deciding to hire an SEO is a big decision. Make sure to research the potential advantages as well as the damage that an irresponsible SEO can do to your site. Many SEOs and other agencies and consultants provide useful services for website owners.
The blog asks "how would you define SEO? What questions would you ask a prospective SEO?" I've been doing a lot more optimization for clients lately. What's particularly fun is running across the work of the SEO scam artists their competition have brought in. I've seen many instances where the other SEO firm has stepped over the bounds of fair practice and been penalized by Google.

Google's job and our job

I've always taken the approach that it's Google's job to give people the most useful and relevant return for their search and our job to make sure we have useful and relevant material and arrange it in such a way that Google can access it.

SEO is important but only in the context of smart web design and a coherent and well thought out internet marketing strategy. Firms that claim to do SEO without checking the analytics data and consulting with the client about their business strategy will not help the site in the long run.

What your SEO expert should be doing

I would agree with most of Google's recommendations of what to look out against. But what to look for? A quick list would include:

  • A SEO consultant that looks at analytics data before making any changes. If the client doesn't already have Google Analytics running on the site I install it and wait a month before doing anything. I do that because you want:
  • Quantifiable results. You should be able to see shifting use patterns if the optimization is working. The internet gives us precise figures and it's often very easy to demonstrate the value of the work you've done. Clients should have full access to the analytics and be trained enough to be able to independently verify the results.
  • A consultant that frequently answers questions with "Hmmm..., I don't know." No one knows what Google is doing. You try something, then you try something else. Anyone who claims to know everything is scamming you.
  • Someone who looks at your entire business model and asks hard questions about your internet strategy. What do you hope to accomplish with your site. Are there specific goals that we can measure?
  • Think about your Inbound and Outbound strategies. Google will send people your way if you have useful material so think about what compelling content you can offer the universe. And once people come to the site you have to make it compelling for them to stay a while, subscribe, etc.
  • The SEO consultant should make you sweat: anyone who says they can significantly boost your site without you having to lift a finger is fooling you. You will almost always have to add compelling content and it will take you committing staff time to the project (a good development team will look for ways to make this fit into your existing staff routines so that it's as painless as possible!).
Any others suggestions for what to look for in potential SEO consultants?
Categories: Beyond SEO | Edit
I was recently working with a client who has a large Google Adwords campaign, with an annual ad budget in the low six figures. He's been very careful about the keywords he's chosen and we've both poured over the Google Analytics figures to see how the campaign progressed.

It took a third party keyword tracking system to discover that many of the ads were being served up to wrong keywords in the Google searches. I want to keep the client's identity private, so let me use an analogy: say you're a boomerang maker and you've bought a campaign intending ads to show up for those who search "boomerang" in Google. What we discovered is that Google was serving up a large percentage of these ads for searchers of "frisbees" -- close, but not close enough for searchers to care. Few people clicked on the misplaced ad. We're talking serious money wasted on ads served up to the wrong target audience.

How did a carefully constructed ad campaign get on so many poorly-targeted searches? Google allows fuzzy matching under their broad match guidelines:
For example, if you're currently running ads on the broad-matched keyword web hosting, your ads may show for the search queries web hosting company or webhost. The keyword variations that are allowed to trigger your ads will change over time, as the AdWords system continually monitors your keyword quality and performance factors. Your ads will only continue showing on the highest-performing and most relevant keyword variations.
You can disable these broad searches using negative keywords (i.e., "-frisbee") and with specific keywords ("boomerang").

But Google does not make it easy to see just where your ads are going. You have to set up a special Search query performance report. It's really essential that anyone doing a large Google Ad campaign set up one of these searches and have it automatically emailed to them every month. Google clearly wasn't tracking the "performance" of its broad search on this client's ad. I'm particularly disturbed that we didn't see these misdirected keywords listed in the Google Analytics tracking reports. It is dangerous to use the same company to both sell you a service and to report how well it's been doing.

Credit where it's due: it was the excellent long-tail blog content service Hittail that gave us the information that Google was misdirecting its ads. See my previous Hittail coverage.
Categories: Analytics , Beyond SEO
Tags: Adwords, Analytics, Hittail, Performance, Report, Search | Edit
AmyOutlaw.orgThis is a fairly standard Movable Type blog for a Friend (Quaker) based in the West-Philly neighborhood of Philadelphia, PA. The most unusual element is that the client wanted two separate blogs: one meant for daily posts and the other for more weekly posts (it's all set up in MT via categories). This also shows the use of Slidoo for a photo banner head. The pictures are all pulled from a particular set of her Flickr account. Visit site.
Categories: Client Sites , Custom Design , Journalists & Artists , Movable Type
Tags: Categories, Flickr, Movable Type | Edit
Martin Kelley's work has been featured by top newspapers and tech blogs. He has given workshops and presentations on educational and Web 2.0 themes. He is available for speaking engagements and freelance writing.


Publications/Media

ReadWriteWeb (republished on NYTimes.com), Technology is Great but Are We Forgetting to Live?, January 22, 2009. Quote and citation. Read more.

Web 2.0 Mashups and Niche Aggregators, published by the O'Reilly Media Shortcuts Series. Commissioned author.

Quakers in the Blogosphere (PDF), Western Friend/Friends Bulletin, February-March 2006, editorial features Quakerquaker.org.

FGConnections, The Witness of Our Lost Twenty-Somethings, Spring 2005. Author.

Friends Journal, "The World Is Hungry for What We've Tasted," October 2006. Author.

Beliefnet.com, "Best Spiritual Blogs," August 2006. Cited QuakerQuaker.org.

Waging War on War, Washington Post, profile of a number of peace groups including Nonviolence.org.

Not Your Father's Antiwar Movement (subscription required), Atlantic Monthly, cited Nonviolence.org.

USAToday, Missiles Aren't the Answer, featured Op-Ed, November 16th, 1998. Author.

Iraqi Crisis Increases Activity on Peace Network, a major New York Times profile of Nonviolence.org, February 21, 1998.


Fellowships

Friends Institute Fellowship, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, for work on Nonviolence.org (1996).

Pickett Endowment for Quaker Leadership, helped support 2005-2006 activities that led to the creation of QuakerQuaker.org.

Categories: Martin | Edit

Martin has given workshops and panel presentations on tech issues and on renewal movements in the Religious Society of Friends.

Biographies

TECH:
Martin Kelley is a Philadelphia area web designer who has been building online communities since 1995. An early adopter of user-created media, he was blogging in 1997 and picks up every social media service. In 2008 O'Reilly Media published "Web 2.0 Mashups and Niche Aggregators," his first published tech publication. A professional web developer and consultant, he builds sites and writes about tech issues on MartinKelley.com.

QUAKER:
Martin Kelley is a Philadelphia-area Friend with a love out of outreach and ministry and a passion for looking afresh at Friends' testimonies, language and practices. He is editor of Friends Journal, a monthly Quaker magazine, and publisher of the online community site, QuakerQuaker.org. An early adopter of user-created media, Martin has been building online communities since 1995; in 2008 O'Reilly Media published "Web 2.0 Mashups and Niche Aggregators." He writes about tech issues on MartinKelley.com and spirituality at QuakerRanter.org.

Upcoming Speaking Engagements:

Past Workshops and Presentations

2011:

Speaker, Abington Friends Meeting, "Lessons on Vocal Ministry from Early Friends," talk given at First-day school adult class. Jenkintown, Pa., November 6, 2011.

Class guest, Earlham School of Religion. "Writing for Today's Media Market" taught by J Brent Bill. May 24, 2011. Richmond, Ind. via video.

Panelist, Pacific Northwest Quarterly Meeting, "Simplicity, Integrity, Clarity: What is Plain Speech Today?" Washington State via video. April 16, 2011.


2010:

Speaker, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, "Finding Fellowship Between Friends Through the Internet," part of the "Friends 2.0: New Tools for Our Faith" speaker series. Arch Street Meetinghouse following Interim Meeting sessions, Philadelphia, Pa. September 11, 2010.

Panel Speaker, Writer's Conference sponsored by Quakers Uniting in Publications. Richmond, Ind., via video. April 2010.

Associate Teacher, Pendle Hill, for a weekend workshop "Convergent Friends and the New Monastics." Pendle Hill Conference Center. Wallingford, Pa. May 2010.


2009:

Speaker, "An Introduction to Convergent Friends." Salem Quarter Meeting. Greenwich, N.J. September 13, 2009.

Facilitator, "Friends Testimonies, What Canst Thou Say?" Two-part session. Young Friends Summer Gathering (Philadelphia Yearly Meeting). Camp Onas, Ottsville, Pa. August 25, 2009.

Co-leader, "Reclaiming the Power of Primitive Quakerism." Weekend workshop. Ben Lomond Friends Center. Ben Lomond, Calif. February 2009.

Presenter, "Friends Schools and Web 2.0" (video). Panel discussion for Friends Council on Education. At Germantown Friends School, Philadelphia, Pa.. January 2009.


2007:

Presenter, Religion and Technology Teachers Peer Network (Friends Council on Education). Center City Philadelphia, Pa., December 2007. Also available as Google Slideshow Presentation

Co-presenter, with C Wess Daniels, for a panel on the Convergent Friends movement. Ohio Yearly Meeting annual sessions. Barnesville, Ohio, August 2007.


2006:

Teacher, "Quakerism 101". four-session course for Moorestown Friends Meeting. Moorestown, N.J. October -November 8, 2006.

Co-faciliator, On Fire: Renewing Quakerism Through a Covergence of Friends. Interest group, FGC Gathering. Tacoma, Wash., July 3, 2006.

Invited Guest, Quakerism classes, William Penn Charter School. Philadelphia, Pa.. April 2006.

Leader, Food for Fire weekend workshop, New York Yearly Meeting's Powell House conference center. Old Chatham, N.Y. February 2006.


2005:

Co-leader, Strangers to the Covenant (five sessions), workshop for high-school Friends, FGC Gathering. Normal, Ill., July 2005.


2004:

Teacher, Quakerism 101 (six sessions), Medford Friends Meeting. Medford, N.J. September-November, 2004.


2003:

Teacher, "Living in the Light" Quakerism 101 course (one session), Central Philadelphia Friends Meeting. Philadelphia, Pa. March 2003.

See also: Publications and Media List

Contact

Email: martink@martinkelley.com
Phone: (609) 365-0123

Categories: speaker | Edit
It's not necessary to develop your own Web 2.0 software infrastructure to create an independent Web 2.0-powered community online. It's far simpler to set a standard for your community to use on exisiting networks and then to use Yahoo Pipes to pull it together.

I decided on about a dozen categories to use with my DIY blog aggregator (QuakerQuaker). I only want to pull in posts that are being generated for my site by community members so we use a community identifier, a unique prefix that isn't likely to be used by others.

This post will show you how to pull in tagged feeds from three sources: the Del.icio.us social bookmarking system, the Flickr photo sharing site and Google Blog Search.

Step 1: Pick a community designator

I've been using the community name followed by a dot. The prefix goes in front of category description to make a set of unique tags for the aggregator. When someone wants to add something for the site they tag it with this "community.category" tag. In my example, when someone wants to list a new Quaker blog they use "quaker.blog", "quaker" being the community name, "blog" being the category name for the "New Blogs" page.

Step 2: Collect the community prefix and category name in Pipes

You begin by going into Pipes and pulling over two text inputs: one for the community prefix, the other for the specific category.

Step 3: Construct these into tags

Now use the "String Concatenation" module to turn this into the "community.category" model. The community input goes into the top slot, a dot is the second slot and the category input goes into the last slot.

Now, when you have a tag in Flickr with a dot in it, Flickr automatically removes it in the resultant RSS feed. So with Flickr you want your tag to be "communitycategory" without a dot. Simple enough: just pull another "String Concatenation" module onto your Pipes work space. It should look the same except that it won't have the middle slot with the dot.

Step 4: Turn these tags into RSS URLs

Pull three "URLBuilder" modules into Pipes, one for each of the services we're going to query. For the Base, use the non-tag specific part of the URL that each service uses for its RSS feeds. Here they are:

Del.icio.ushttp://del.icio.us/rss/tag
Flickrhttp://api.flickr.com/services/feeds
Google Blog Searchhttp://blogsearch.google.com

Under path elements, put the correct tag: for Del.icio.us and Google it should be the community.category tag, for Flickr the dot-less communitycategory tag.

Step 5: Fetch and Dedupe

Fetch is the Pipes module that pulls in URLs and outputs RSS feeds. It can also combine them. Send each URLBuilder output into the same Fetch routine.

Since it's possible that you'll might have duplicate posts, use the "Unique" module to deduplicate entries by URL. Through a little trial and error I've determined that in cases of duplicates, feeds lower in the Fetch list trump those higher. In the actual Pipe powering my aggregator I pull a second Del.icio.us feed: my own. I have that as the last entry in the Fetch list so that I can personally override every other input.

Step 6: Sort by Date

With experimentation it seems like Pipes orders the output entries by descending date, which is probably what you want. But I want to show how Pipes can work with "dc" data, the "Dublin Core" model that allows you to extend standard RSS feeds (see yesterday's post for more on this).

Google Blog Search and Del.icio.us feeds use the "dc:date" field to record the time when the post was made. Flickr uses "dc:date.Taken" to pass on the photograph's metadata about when it was taken. Pipes' "Rename" module lets you copy both fields into one you create (I've simply used "date"), which you can then run through its "Sort" module. Again, it's a moot point since Pipes seems to do this automatically. But it's good to know how to manipulate and rename "dc" data if only because many PHP parsers have trouble laying it out on a webpage.

Update: it's all moot: according to a ZDNet blog, "Pipes now automatically appends a pubDate tag to any RSS feed that has any of the other allowable date tags." This is nice: no need to hack the date every time you want to make a Pipe!

Step 7: Output

The final step for any Pipe is the "Pipe Output" module.

In action

You can see this published Pipe here, and copy and play with it yourself. The result lets you build an RSS feed based on the two inputs.

Categories: Practical 2.0 , RSS Syndication
Tags: Category Description, Delicious, Flickr, Google, Photo Sharing, Social Bookmarking, Yahoo | Edit
Whenever I talk with fellow web designers, the issue of "SEO" invariably comes up. That's techie slang for "search engine optimization," of course, that black science of making sure Google lists your site higher than your competitors. Over the years a small army of shady characters have tried to game the search engine results.

I've always thought such tricks were pathetic and bound to lose over the long term. Search engines want to feature good sites. It's in their best interest to make sure the sites listed are the ones people want to see. A search engine that returns unsatisfactory results quickly becomes a has-been in the search engine competition. So as soon as a site such as Google notices some new SEO trick is skewing the rankings they tweak their secret search algorithm to fix the SEO loophole.

Just Give Google the Content It Loves

In theory it's easy to make Google, Yahoo, MSN and the other big search engines happy: give potential visitors site they'll want to visit. Forget the tricks and spend your time putting together an amazing site. Search engines like text, so write, write, write.

I'm looking to join a web design house, which means I've been interviewing with slick web developers lately and whenever they ask me the best way to increase SEO for their clients, I tell them to start a blog. They look at me like I'm an idiot but it's absolutely true: two blog posts a week will end up being over 100 pages of pure content. All of these sites full of Flash animation get you nowhere with Google.

Just a note that any kind of text-rich web system can achieve many of the same results--blogs are just the easiest way yet to get content on your site.

Presenting What You Already Have: Blog your Water Cooler Chat

When I talk to people about starting a corporate blog they quickly start telling me how much work it will be. Bah and Humbug--your company's life is probably already filled with bloggable material!

I used to work in a bookstore where I did most of the customer service, much of it by email. About two or three times a week I'd get a particularly intriguing query and would spend a little time researching an answer (mostly by looking through the indexes of our books and searching the arcane sites of our niche). This research didn't always pan out to a book sale, but it marked our bookstore as a place to get answers and gave us a competitive advantage over Amazon and its ilk. Each of my email answers could have easily been reformatted to become a blog post. By the end of a year, I'm sure the volume coming from these obscure searches would be quite high (see yesterday's Long Tail Strategy post on the HitTail blog for an account of how attention to search engine's one-hit-wonders helped achieve a widespread keyword dominance).

Whenever something new happens that breaks you out of your routine, think about whether it's bloggable. At the bookstore, a new book would come in and we'd spend ten minutes talking about it. That conversation reached half-a-dozen people at most. In that same ten minutes we could have written up a blog post saying much the same thing.

Last Spring a controversial article appeared in the local newspaper that tangentially involved my employer. That morning my workmates gathered together in the reception area for the better part of an hour trading opinions and wisecracks. After about five minutes of this, I slipped back to my office and wrote my opinions and wisecracks down into my blog. I hit post and came back to the reception area--to find my workmates still blathering on, natch. My post reached hundreds and took no more time out of the work day than the reception pontifications.

Humans are social animals. We're always blogging. It's just that most of the time we're doing it verbally around the water cooler with three other people. Learn to type it in and you've got yourself a high-volume blog that will add invaluable content and SEO magic to your site.

Mix up your content: Tag Your Site

Lastly, a point to webmasters: it usually pays to think about ways to re-package your content. My most recently experience of this was tagifying my personal blog over at "QuakerRanter.org." Every time I post there a Movable Type plugin fishes out the key words in the article and lists them afterwards as tags. These tags are all linked in such a way that results send the term through the site's search engine to give back an on-the-fly index page of all the posts where I've used that term.

Tags are like categories except they pick up everything we talk about (when we use them aggressively at least, and especially when we automate them). We don't necessarily know the categories that our potential audience might be searching for and tagifying our sites increases our keyword outreach exponentially. My personal blog has 239 entries but 3,860 pages according to Google. It's the parsed out and re-packaged content that accounts for all of this extra volume. This doesn't increase traffic by that nearly that much, but last month about 30% of my Google visits came from these tag indexes. More on the mechanics of this on my post about the tagging.

Categories: Beyond SEO
Tags: Google Yahoo, Loophole, Search Algorithm, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Results, Search Engines, Seo, Yahoo | Edit
Every web designer under the sun talks about search engine optimization (SEO), but it amazes me to see how often basic principles are ignored. I'm in-between jobs right now, which means I'm spending a lot of time looking at potential employers' websites. I've decided to start a series of posts on SEO myths and realities that will talk about designing for maximum visibility.

I'm not going to focus on any of the underhanded tricks to fool search engines into listing an inappropriate page. Google hates this kind of tactic and so do I. You get visits for having good content. Good search rankings are based on good content and the best way to boost your content is to present your page in a way that lets both humans and search engines find the content they want. Part one is on website analysis and tracking.

Don't assume that your website is easy to navigate. One of the neatest things about the web is that we have instant feedback on use. With just a little tracking we can see what pages people are looking at, how they're finding our site and what they're doing once they're here.

Javascript Trackers:

My most advanced sites are currently using four different tracking methods. Most utilize javascript "bugs," tiny snippets of code that send individual results to an advanced software tracking system. I put the code inside a Moveable Type "Modules Template" which is automatically imported to all pages. Installing a new system is as easy as cutting-and-pasting the javascript into the Template and rebuilding the site.

AXS Visitors Tracking System
This software installs on your server but don't let that scare you: this is one of the easiest installations I've ever seen. AXS gives you great charts of usage: you can narrow it specific pages on your site, or even particular search engines or search phrases.

There's also a option to view the lastest traffic by visitor. I love watching this! You can see how individuals are using the site and where they're navigating. I've been able to identify different types of visitors this way and understand the complexity of the audience.

It doesn't seem like AXS is not being developed anymore. The latest stable version came out over two years go, which is a shame.

HitTail
This service watches search-engine links and makes recommendations for new keywords. I wrote about this service yesterday in Blogging for the Long Tail.

Reeferss.com
This is a simple simple bit of software. Like every other tracking system it keeps track of referrers: search engines and websites that bring traffic to your site. But unlike the others that's all it does. Why care then? It provides a real-time RSS feed of these visitors. I bring the feed into my "Netvibes" page (a customized start page, see below) and scan the results multiple times a day.

Google Analytics
The internet's gatekeeper bought the Urchin analytics company in April 2005 and relaunched the product as Google Analytics shortly thereafter. This is becoming an essential tracker. It's free and it's powerful, though I haven't been as impressed by it as others have. See its Wiki page for more.

Internet Trackers:

It's easy to find out what people are saying about you online.

Technorati
This service tracks blogs but you don't need to have a blog to use it, for Technorati will tell you where blogs are linking. Give it your URLs (or those of your competitors!) and you'll know whenever a blogger puts in a link to you. You can also give it keywords and find out when a blog uses them.

Google Blog Search
Google can also let you follow blog references or keyword mentions on the blogs. Google will also track beyond blogs of course. Type "site:www.yourdomain.com" into the main Google search page and you'll see who's linking to your site (or to the competition). There are lots of other services that track blogs and mentions--Sphere, Bloglines, etc. They all have different strengths so try them and see what you think.

Feedburner
The best RSS massager has always focused on ways to track your RSS feed. They've recently introduced page tracking software too. It looks great but I just installed it this week. I still have to see if it's as good as Feedburner's other offerings.

Keeping on top of this flow of data:

It's easy to get overwhelmed by all of this information. Most of the tracking services provide RSS feeds (See The Wonders of RSS Feeds for an intro). I use Netvibes, a customized start page, to pull these all together into a single page that I can scan every morning. Here's a screenshot of part of my Netvibes tracking page--the full page currently shows fourteen tracking feeds on one screen:

So why is tracking important to SEO?

With tracking you find out what people are looking for on the internet. This helps you create pages and services that people will want to find. You might be surprised to see what they're already finding on your site. Some examples:

  • Analyzing one site, I noticed that few pages I thought were obscure were bringing in high Google traffic. I looked at these pages again and realized they did a good job of describing the company's mission. I consequently redesigned the site homepage to feature them and I made sure that those pages contained direct links to its most important services.
  • When I started work for another client I looked at their site and suspected that they're most important articles were not being seen--visitors had to click through about four times to get to them. Six months of tracking confirmed my hunch and gave me the hard data to convince the executive director that we made some small modifications to the design. Having this strong content linked right off the homepage helped bring in Google traffic.
Categories: Analytics , Beyond SEO
Tags: Design, Google, Maximum Visibility, Myths And Realities, Search Engine Optimization, Seo | Edit
A look at the new class of "Single Page Aggregators."

Way back in 1997 I was one of dozens of lots of web designers trying to figure out how to bring an editorial voice to the internet. The web had taken off and there pages and links everywhere but few places where they were actually organized in a useful manner. As I've written before, in December of that year I started a weekly updated list of annotated links to articles on nonviolence, a form we'd now would recognize as a blog.

About eighteen months ago I started a "links blog" of interesting Quaker links, incorporated as a sidebar on my popular "QuakerRanter" personal blog. I eventually gave the links their own URL (QuakerQuaker.org) and invited others to join the linking. I always stumble when trying to tell people what QuakerQuaker is all about. The best definition is that its a "collaboratively edited blog aggregator" but that's a horribly tech description.

The rise of blogs is creating the necessity for these sort of theme-based aggregators. This morning I stumbled on Original Signal, a new site that organzes the best Web 2.0 blogs. A site called PopURLs does the same for "the latest web buzz." A site called SolutionWatch has written about these in Tracking the web with Single Page Aggregators. We're all on to something here. I suspect that sometime this fall some clever person will coin a new term for these sites.

Categories: Analytics , MartinKelley.com , Practical 2.0
Tags: Aggregators, Design, Nonviolence, Personal Blog, Quaker | Edit
Over on the New York Times, an article about a new Nickolodeon-created website for parents

now in the final stages of beta testing.

In a nonpublic test of the site over the summer by about 1,000 recruited participants, executives learned that these users wanted to blog; now, every user with a profile can, Ms. Reppen said. Through the beta test, which is now open to new members, Nick is learning that parents want spaces to sell their crafts, a separate Christian home-schooling discussion and bigger type on the Web site. Local discussion boards will also be added, as will user-generated video.

They also quote a Nissan marketing executive, who says that "community sites are one of the big phenomenon happening on line this year."

There is a big shift going on.

It's startling to realize that my three year toddler is almost the same age as Myspace and older than Facebook. In just a few short years they've come to dominate much of the online world, especially with under-25 users. The kind of independent blogs that dominate a sites like Livejournal and Blogspot don't have the web of cross-connections--what I called the "folksonomic density"--of the new social networking sites. It seems appropriate that Myspace was founded by spammers: who knows more about sucking people in?

The question: will the net have room for independent niche sites? Myspace is changing its architecture to disable key linking features of third-party embedded plug-ins like the from the popular video site Youtube. The big search sites also want a piece of this market--new features on Yahoo local and the geotagged maps on Yahoo's Flickr are impressive). It all reminds me some of the debates about local food co-ops versus enlightened supermarkets: is it a good thing that organic produce and soymilk can be purchased at the local Acme, even if that cuts into the independent co-op's business? Don't we want everyone to have access to everything? In the end, philosophy won't settle this argument.

Categories: Practical 2.0
Tags: Beta, Facebook, Myspace, New York Times, Nick, Nickolodeon, Nissan, Parents, Phenomenon, Wikipedia | Edit
Interesting article over the Moveabletype blog. Anil Dash interviews George Johnson Jr of Hyperlocal Media, who's using MT as a content system to build hyperlocal community sites that can compete against local newspapers (see their very-cool looking BuffaloRising site).

Here's some of what Johnson has to say:

Distribution, content creation, and the ability to more easily compete with established local players online... blogging is perfect for that. I mean a blog is chronologically arranged, in columns, divided by categories and changes (in many cases) everyday. That's the broad definition of a newspaper, right? A blog is so much more than that, but the basic structure lends itself very well to developing an online competitor for newspapers.

It was three years ago that I followed Brad Choate's instructions for using Moveable Type as a whole-site content management system. What started as an experiment became a way of life for me. The MT interface lends itself so well to content management that I'm now using it for my non-techie clients: Quakersong.org and Quakeryouth.org are both put together by MT and I've been surprised that there's been almost no learning curve for the client's adoption of this software.

Given this, it seems odd that the kids at Moveable Type haven't taken MT in this direction (even more surprising since they hired Brad himself a few years ago!). I see a big market in my niche sites for this sort of functionality and three years later I'm still having to tweak templates to get this to work. Anil, what's up? If Drupal had better documentation and smoother installation it would have been the brawn behind MartinKelley.com.

It would be fun to follow Until Monday's example and create a hyperlocal site (hint hint to VW if she's reading this). Of course, locality is not just geographically-based anymore. Quakerquaker.org is a local portal of a different kind. I'm a big believer that the hyperlocality of niche and geographic sites are the cutting edge in the next-wave of the social web.

There's a lot of pioneering to be done in this regards. The net has a lot of power to take down culture monopolies by confronting old boy networks and business-as-usual thinking with innovative social networks that harness the talents of the outsiders. The smart newspapers, magazines, churches and cultural organizations will come on board and leap-frog themselves to twenty-first century relevance. Too many of the Philadelphia (and/or) Quaker institutions I know respond to change by shuffling job titles and putting blinders up against recognizing the ever-narrower demographic they serve.

Categories: Drupal , Practical 2.0
Tags: Blog, Blogging, Content, Content Management System, Local Newspapers, Local Players, Movable, Moveable Type | Edit
I just relaunched my personal blog a few days ago, moving it from nonviolence.org/martink to quakerranter.org. I plan to write a whole big piece about it in the near future. But my access logs just picked up something amazing.

An important part of the redesign was an automatic keyword generator. Posts were run through a script that automatically pulled out keywords from the text. My 2003 article, Going all the way with Movable Type generated the following tags, which appear as links after the post:

Following the links takes you to similarly-tagged articles. At least that's the conceit. When you follow a tag's link you're simply doing a site search for that keyword. A little htaccess rewrite magic is making the result look like it's a static category page.

"Fine and well" you're thinking, "big deal." Well, here's what's cool. There are 225 entries on the QuakerRanter blog. Google's just gone through and indexed the site and is now claiming it contains 1300 pages. Each tag is being indexed as its own page. Every time I mention any interesting term, it becomes a page that Google indexes and delivers to its searchers.

Which brings us to today's cool piece from the access logs. In December of 2004 a rather innocent post on Quaker Ranter became the center of a mini-whirlwind on the political blogs when it mentioned that I had gotten a call from a CBS News publicist interested in Nonviolence.org. All political blogs get publicity calls from news and opinion think tanks trying to suggest (or plant) stories but no one's supposed to talk about it. I only mentioned it because it was so unusual. One of the blogs denouncing the liberal conspiracy my post revealed was the somewhat slimy Little Green Footballs. After a few weeks the denunciations died down.

But this morning, someone looked up littlegreenfootballs in Google and came to my site. Because of my automatic keyword generator, tags, and static-loooking links, I'm now the number two entry, on two three-year old posts, now relocated to a days old quakerranter.org. Cool.

This mixing and matching of content and rich manipulation of data is sometimes lumped together in the cool bu zzphrase folksonomy. Note that none of what I've done is a tricking of Google. Every tag is really going to a page with that content. These are "natural" and "organic" search results in the lingo of SEO. I'm just presenting my information in multiple formats that appeal that the widest array of audiences.

For what it's worth, I don't think I deserve #2 status for "littlegreenfootballs" and I don't think Google will keep it there for long. It's a bit odd that they have elevated that particular term so high and no others tags seem so stratospheric.


Positive Results:

As of February 2007, Google indexes 3,540 pages on QuakerRanter.org, a blog of only 239 posts. In December 2006 30% of my Google visits were to one of the "tags" page. Reconfiguring the blog in this kind of tag-intensive way has more than doubled search engines visits, again in a very natural and organic way. Adding tags has simply made what I've written more accessible to search engines. Very cool.

Negative Ramifications:

Shortly after installing this new system, my servers started periodically crashing (about once/week). The problem would be multiple MT-Search processes overloading the memory.

My guess is that a search engine spider came along and started indexing all of the tags. Each link initiated a search query in Movable Type. The built-in search for Movable Type is just not able to handle this volume of traffic.

I installed Fast Search to solve the problem (tip of the hat to Al-Muhajabah). It took awhile: Fast Search required a MySQL upgrade at my host. After that I needed to install these plugin fixes. Then it was fine-tuning the htaccess files. It was been more work than I initially expected and the tag results now forward to a funny URL that Google doesn't love as much.

Categories: Niche Marketing
Tags: Blogs, Htaccess, Keyword Generator, Magic, Movable Type, Movabletype, Nonviolence, Personal Blog, Quotes, Rewrite, Run Through | Edit
Read a fabulous article last night and this morning by Diana Boyd, a PhD student at UC-Berkeley and a researcher at Yahoo! Research Berkeley. She's writing about the interactions of culture and technology and it speaks a lot to some of the online and offline conversations I've been having lately.

Here's the link: G/localization: When Global Information and Local Interaction Collide. And here are some snippets to entice you to follow it:

On culture:

When mass media began, people assumed that we would all converge upon one global culture. While the media has had an effect, complete homogenization has not occurred. And it will not. While some values spread and are adopted en-masse, cultures form within the mass culture to differentiate smaller groups of people. Style-driven subcultures are the most visible form of this, but it occurs in companies and in other social gatherings.

Techies will like her take on "embedded observers":

While the creators have visions of what they think would be cool, they do not construct unmovable roadmaps well into the future. They are constantly reacting to what's going on, adding new features as needed. The code on these sites changes constantly, not just once a quarter. The designers try out features and watch how they get used. If no one is interested, that's fine - they'll just make something new. They are all deeply in touch with what people are actually doing, why and how it manifests itself on the site.

On online communities:

Digital community participants sometimes find that they "accidentally" meet someone. People collide on Flickr because they took similar photos; the find wonderful blogs through search. These ad-hoc interactions typically occur because people are producing material that can be stumbled across, either through search or browsing. They may not intend for the material to be consumed beyond the intended audience, but they also don't see a reason to prevent it. In essence, they are inviting moments of synchronicity. And synchronicity is energizing.

Categories: Practical 2.0
Tags: Gatherings, Global Culture, Global Information, Homogenization, Localization, Mass Culture, Phd Student, Researcher, Snippets | Edit
An early description of my using the Movable Type blogging platform as a content management system (CMS) for an entire website. I've used these techniques to build websites which clients can easily manipulate and update.

Inspired by Doing Your Whole Site with MT on Brad Choate's site, I started experimenting today with putting the whole Nonviolence.org site into Movable Type. At first I thought it was just a trial experiment but I'm hooked. I especially love how much cleaner the entry for the links page now looks and I might actually be inspired to keep it up to date more now. (I've also integrated Choate's MT-Textile which makes a big difference in keeping entries clean of HMTL garbage, and the semi-related SmartyPants which makes the site more typographically elegant with easy M-dashes and curly quotes).

So here's what I'm doing: there are three Movable Type blogs interacting with one another (not including this personal blog):

  • One is the more-or-less standard one that is powering the main homepage blog of Nonviolence.org.
  • The second I call "NV:Static" which holds my static pages, much as Brad outlines. I put my desired URL path into the Title field (i.e., "info/index") and then put the page's real title into the Keywords field (i.e., "About Nonviolence.org") and have that give the data for the title field and the first headline of the page. It might seem backwards to use Title for URL and then use Keywords for Title, but this means that when I'm in MT looking to edit a particular file, it will be the URL paths that are listed.
  • The third blog is my "NV:Design Elements." This contains the block of graphics on the top and left of every page. I know I'll have to redesign this all soon and I can do it from wherever. This blog outputs to HTML. All the other pages on the site are PHP and its a simple include to pull the top and left bars into each PHP page.

Oh yes, I'm also thinking of incorporating guest blogs in the near future and all of these elements should make that much easier.

Here's another site to check out, about how someone integrated Movable Type into their church website using some interesting techniques.

Categories: MartinKelley.com , Movable Type
Tags: Blogging, Content Management System, Love, Movable Type, Nonviolence, Quotes | Edit
A 2004 Denominational Website Report

When I wrote this in the Fall of 2004, I was working as the webmaster for Friends General Conference, the US/Canadian denominational body for the liberal branch of unprogrammed Quakers. As webmaster, I felt that one of my most important responsibilities was to understand how religious seekers use the internet and how our nonprofit organization could benefit from understanding these patterns.

My 2004 report on the three FGC websites touched on a lot of these issues. I offer it here because I hope it can give other nonprofit and denominational websites some ideas about how to measure their site's use. Too often we put up websites without any follow-up analysis of their use. You just can't make an effective website like this and if your work is ministry you don't want its reach constrained by minor navigational design issues. Please feel free to use the comment page to start a discussion on any of these issues.

State of the Websites

Report for FGC Central Committee, October 2004
By Martin Kelley, webmaster

It's important to start off with a little editorial about why we need reports like this. We put up a website and we know people use it. Why bother spending time collecting data?

The internet is simultaneously vague and precise. We can say definitively that the FGC website received 114,097 "unique visitors" in the past fiscal year. But how many people does that represent? Is that a high number or low number? How did these users react when they came to the site. Did they think to themselves "whoops, not what I want" and leave, or did they go "wow, what's this FGC?, hey this is great." LESSON: We need data to know if the site is being used well.

Everyone who reads this report is by definition an insider. None of us are able to step into the shoes of an unknowledgeable seeker. In my study of usage patterns, I have found that the differences in website use between Quaker insiders and seekers is so great that they might as well be looking at different websites, if not different media altogether (see How Insiders and Seekers Use the Quaker Net. Because of this gap we cannot design the site based on whims or personal preferences. It is incredibly difficult to imagine how newcomers might navigate the site. We can only consider the design of the site after we've examined in usage, both in detail (actual users moving through the site) and in aggregate (pages and links visited over periods of time). See also: How to measure the peace movement. LESSON: We can only effectively design the site if we incorporate sophisticated and detailed data about how the site is being used.


Part 2, Googlization

By far the most significant change in our websites over the past year has been the "googlization" of Quakerbooks and Quakerfinder, both of which now have over four times the visitors they were getting last year.

The Google Problem: Both Quakerbooks and Quakerfinder have had great content from their start. The former lists the entire inventory of FGC's bookstore, along with book descriptions and reader commentary. The latter has our list of meetings--addresses, worship times, and contact information. But on both sites the bulk of the content was locked up in databases. Before users could benefit from the sites, they had to find them. This limited much of the use to people who already know about FGC and our resources. Because internet search engines can't search website databases (a problem known as the hidden or deep web), they could index only a limited number of pages on these sites and they made referrals on only the most generic search phrases (e.g., "quaker bookstore" "quaker meeting directory").

We made various changes to both sites (technical details below) that have made them searchable by Google and the other search engines, which now return our sites for very specific search queries, e.g., "Quakers in conflict Ingle" and "Quakers Poughkeepsie".

A Wider, More Inclusive Audience: What's great is that this has given us not just a bigger audience, but our target audience. Most of these visitors don't know enough about how Friends are organized to even know where to look for information. With Quakerfinder and Quakerbooks, we're now be visible on their terms.

We're giving them the basic information they're seeking and we're doing it when they are actively seeking it. This last point is important. I spend a lot of time watching how people use websites. If you email someone out of the blue with a link to a website, they might follow it but only half-heartedly. They might be doing five other things at the same time and they rarely stay to full use the website's resources. When someone comes to a site via a search engine they're much more likely to look around: this is the visit that they are initiating because they have something specific they're trying to find.

Having a "googlified" Quakerfinder means we're actually reaching people who are ready to try out a Quaker meeting and we're giving them that most basic information that's often hard to find. With a searchable Quakerbooks we're selling books to people who might not even have thought about Quakers as a possible spiritual path. I suspect that both sites are doing more outreach about Quakerism than any of us expect.

Update, 11/29/04: I recently met someone who came to Friends after reading the Quaker entry in Wikipedia. He had gone through the list of religious denominations in the U.S. till he found one that spoke to his condition. In the past month FGC has gotten 57 visitors from Wikipedia.

The Fixes

In the official committee report I tried to steer clear of too many technical details since I wanted people to read it. So I'll expand on them here on the website version.

Unique Domains: I don't think it really helped to give Quakerfinder.org and Quakerbooks.org their own domains, at least initially. In last year's report I noted that most of the traffic to those sites came from the main FGCQuaker.org site and that the separate domains weren't particularly useful. Now the sites do have their own sort of identity, thanks to the "googlization," which was a different process for the two sites.

Quakerbooks.org: Visitors to the Quakerbooks.org site are given session IDs to allow us to follow along with them as they make their selections. Since some users don't allow cookies, this ID sometimes appears in the URL (it appears as something like "?sessionid=1514" appended to the end of the address). Google really hates session IDs because its automated software doesn't know if the different URLs are different pages (to be indexed separately) or merely different sessions looking at the same page. So Googles just ignores anything that looks like this. The easiest fix is to have the software look to see if the visitor is Google and take of the session IDs (Google is okay with this workaround; I also used this method to allow them to index my Nonviolence.org discussion board.)

Quakerfinder: On Quakerfinder.org, the problem was that visitors had to type in a zip code to get to any of the content. Google's not that interactive and only follows links. Until recently, it thought there was only three pages to the site. To fix this we set up an alternative way to navigate the site: from the homepage you can now follow a link to lists of Quaker Meetings by state. The zip code lookup is so much more convenient that we don't suspect many live people will look up by state, but Google will and because of this it now lists 808 pages on the site. Now Google acts as a alternate lookup service, one that doesn't depend on people finding our site beforehand.


Part 3, Comparing the Sites

Visitors

The basic measure used to measure website traffic is that of the "unique visitor," which counts user sessions. Here are this year's comparisons to last year's. Numbers represent the monthly average "unique visitors" to each of our three websites.

     Site	      FY 03/04 total  FY 02/03 total  Increase
FGCQuaker.org 114,097 82,747 38%
Quakerfinder.org 48,084 23,964 100%
Quakerbooks.org 69,924 19,332 262%

The last two sites have truly remarkable jumps. The numbers are a little misleading, however, as the increase in traffic hasn't been gradual but sudden and climbing. Compare the last full month (September 2004) with the same month the previous year and all three sites have higher jumps.

     Site             Sept 04         Sept 03         Increase
FGCQuaker.org 9459 8254 15%
Quakerfinder.org 8782 1997 340%
Quakerbooks.org 7498 1611 366%

While the internet grows in use every year, the increases on Quakerfinder and Quakerbooks represent a quantum leap over that incremental increase. They represent "search engine optimization" of those sites, or what we all refer to the "googlization" of the sites.

Links:

One way of measuring the visibility of a website is to count how many other webpages link to it. Here are

     Site              October 2004    October 2003    Increase
FGCQuaker.org 496 396 25%
Quakerfinder.org 196 46 326%
Quakerbooks.org 151 96 57%

For comparison: Quaker.org is up to 11,900 links, Phila. Yearly Meeting is 248, PendleHill.org is 420, FCNL.org is 10,200, Nonviolence.org is 20,900 and AFSC.org is 21,800. See Miscellaneous & Notes at end to see how numbers were obtained. See How Can We Measure the State of the Peace Movement? for more on this method of measurement.


Part 4, The FGCQuaker.org Site

Visitors

Use of FGCQuaker.org continues to grow at a good clip. We have a 38% increase this fiscal year compared with last's. The site received over 114,000 unique visitors from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004.

To the right is the chart showing unique visitors by month for the past three years:

Referrers: Where did visitors come from?

In September 2004, there were 9459 "unique visits" to the FGCQuaker.org site, still our most-visited site. Here's where they came from.

1021 from Quakerfinder.org. One surprise this year is the jump in Quakerfinder-referred visits. This is due of course to the phenomenal visibility of that site. In a recent one-month period, FGCQuaker received 983 visits from Quakerfinder links, two-thirds of which came from the "googlized" Quakerfinder pages. About one in ten visitors are now coming to FGCQuaker through Quakerfinder. Up 288% from last year.

842 from Google. We get a lot of Google traffic because we have a lot of content on our site: dozens of pamphlets, years worth of FGConnections, large parts of the old Fostering Vital Friends Meetings resource binder. Visitors via search engines often don't know FGC exists but they want to know about our programs and work. Because FGC does such great work (and because we publicize it online!), many of our resources answer questions people have. I think this is great outreach.

Here's an example. This Spring I noticed that we were getting visits on fairly generic searches for racism. Here's a list of search inquiries that brought people to the CMR pages on FGC:

"ending racism"
"racially diverse communities"
"quaker racial diversity"
"diversity in friends"
"ethnic diversity"
"responsibilities to racism"
"pastoral care racism"
"activities for ending racism"
"testimonies racial unity"

This is a fascinating list precisely because these are generic searches. People aren't looking for "Quakers ending racism," they're looking for anyone "ending racism" and Google is bringing them to us (we're number 6 on that search term). This is surprising: I would think the much bigger denominations would all have committees ending racism that would come up higher just because of their larger institutional clout. That we are so high suggests that this work is not as common as I we might hope and that Friends might have the opportunity to play a role in larger faith dialogues.

When people use search engines, they get results from all over the FGC website. Searches might pull up some four-year article on FGConnections, or one of the "Friends And..." pamphlets that we've put online. Google up 12% from last year. There were about 83 more visits from regional Google sites.

434 from Quaker.org. Most of these people are coming directly from the Quaker.org homepage to the FGCQuaker.org homepage. I estimate that about 60% of these visitors leave the FGC site without clicking on any links. They're probably just superficially curious about us, but not enough to look around the site. Up 39% from last year.

253 from other search engines: 118 from Yahoo (118), MSN (74), AOL (42), Ask (19).

81 from Beliefnet. Beliefnet has a popular "Belief-o-Matic" quiz that will magically tell you what religious faith you should join. It's rigged in such a way that a lot of people unexpectedly come up as Quaker. The qui zthen directs people to an information page on Friends, which includes some links to FGC. Most of the Beliefnet visitors are coming from that information page directly to the FGC homepage. Up 200% from last year.

69 from UVa's Religious Movements site. This is a pretty good description of Quakerism

60 from Quakerbooks. Our own bookstore website attracts a lot of new people who aren't part of the established Quaker networks and many of them first learn of FGC this way.

53 from Religious Tolerance. A popular website from a Canadian Unitarian that profiles religions..

52 from QuakerInfo.org. This is the Philadelphia Quaker Information Center, a joint project of a number of Quaker organizations, including FGC.

Where did people go?

Top Destinations in September 04:
* To the homepage: 2396;
* Library's "Welcome to Quakerism" pages: 463;
* A&O "Resources for Meetings": 320 (prominently linked from Quakerfinder);
* Gathering pages: 309;
* "Silent Worship Quaker Values" tract on the Library section;
* Gathering's pictures from last year: 149;
* Religious Ed: 149;
* FGConnections articles: 129;
* Ideas for First Day School": 127;
* Advancement & Outreach homepage: 124;
* Young Quakes: 118;
* Publications: 100;
* Development 97.

These are pretty typical numbers. The only significant variation over the year comes in Spring, when traffic to the Gathering pages goes up. In May 2004, 961 people visited the Gathering homepage, and 355 visited the workshop listings.

Forget the Aggregates: How Do People Use the Site?

So far I've looked at tallied-up numbers: how many people visited, how many pages were looked at. The problem with this sort of statistic is that it doesn't give us a feel for how individuals are actually using the site. Looking at usage explodes the preconceptions that many of us "Insider Quakers" might bring to the web.

The first lesson: most people don't come into our site via the FGC homepage. Even more shocking: close to half never even see the homepage! This blew me away when I first realized it. We spend so much time designing the homepage and wondering how we're going to direct seekers from it but a lot of this work is in vain.

Of that 45% or so that enter the site via the FGC homepage, most of them leave the site immediately without following any link whatsoever.

Let's splice this another way: 70% of the people who hit our site (wherever they enter) don't look at any page other than that first one. They don't click on anything but the back button.

What are some of the lessons on this: one is that content is all important. Those majority of visitors who bypass the homepage to parachute directly inside the site are coming for specific information. Many of them don't know anything about FGC and most of them don't care to learn about FGC the organization. They're looking for some specific piece of information on Quakers ("painting of Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society Quakers" and "Quakers prison reform"), or on religious education in general ("religious meeting"), or on how churches are dealing with racism ("racial diversity" and "do blacks worship with only blacks"). These are all search phrases that have brought visitors to FGCQuaker.org. So it's great that we have our pamphlets online and FGConnections and RE materials and A&O brochures. There are hundreds of pages on our site, most of which we probably forget are there, but Google knows them and will display them up when the query is right.

Another lesson is that we shouldn't rely on our homepage to help visitors navigate. We shouldn't even worry much about using how its design will work for both insiders and seekers: most of the seekers never even go there. Most of the people coming to the FGC homepage are looking for FGC the organization.

Committee Page Case Study: One committee, Advancement & Outreach, is considering redesigning their committee page. In preparation I've looked at the usage and I think it makes a good case study. The A&O committee gets the most visible link on the FGC Homepage (top left, it gets this position because the committee list is alphabetical). Despite this prominence, almost no visitors actually follow this link. Only 1.5% of visitors to the FGCQuaker.org site ever get to the A&O homepage and even at that it's the most visited committee page on our site!

Most of the visitors that did get to the A&O page left without clicking on anything. It is safe to say that most of those visitors didn't thoroughly read through the page. The most-followed link is the first one, for the "Inreach/Outreach" review. In the one-month period I examined only 9 people followed this link! This doesn't mean A&O material isn't used: Quakerfinder is very successful and the pamphlet "Resources for Local meetings" is popular. And over 300 people in this month came to some part of the A&O site. Committee pages are useful for the relative trickle of Quaker insiders who visit the page, but we should focus more on the content committees are producing.

The lesson is clear: visitors are primarily looking for 1) good useful content from the "Quaker Library" resources and 2) practical information about the Gathering. Pages about committees and internal FGC workings are not well used. We need to continue the focus on practical resources. We also have to accept that people will not be looking at what we think they should be looking at. Through these visits we will slowly build up FGC's reputation but many people only dimly know what they're looking at.

What I didn't say in the report

In my official FGC report, I only hinted at the differences between institutional websites and focused online new media sites.

One surprising find that didn't make it into the report is that the three most-viewed pages on my own Quaker Ranter site were seen by more people than all but the two most-viewed FGC pages. The most viewed pages on FGCQuaker are the homepage and the Welcome to Quakerism page. Three of the pages on "Quaker Ranter" are seen by more people than any other page on the FGC website. FGC's Religious Education and Advancement and Outreach and Publications pages all are more obscure than my homepage or my "resources on plain dress" directory.

Institutional websites by their very nature have too many conflicting audiences and too timid a voice to act as much more than a reference resource. The Friends General Conference website is probably more friendly to seekers than most other institutional websites out there but even it gets a lot of people hitting the "back" button as soon as they hit the homepage.

Religious seekers are looking for individual voices with something to say and I suspect new media seeker websites will only become more important as time goes on. I suspect this will come as a surprise to institutional insiders as it happens. Sort of relatedly, see my Peace and Twenty-Somethings for some of the generational aspects of this shift. My Books and Media section collects similar sorts of essays.

One more piece in this: the FGC websites didn't get a lot of blog traffic. If all I were was the webmaster of Friends General Conference, I'd assume that all this blog talk in the media was hype. But as the "Quaker Ranter" I know that a popular blog and/or personal site can get a lot of readers. The lesson here is that there's little cross-over. Blogs seem to send little traffic to institutional websites and vice versa (actually institutional websites can't really send people to bloggers for a variety of reasons). I've had a number of people read my blog and declare they'll be coming to the next FGC Gathering so I know personal blogs can help raise organization profiles but that interest doesn't manifest itself as an immediately-followed link. I suspect the community being formed by the blogs is far more important than the raw number of referral links.


Part 5, Quakerbooks.org and Quakerfinder.org

Quakerbooks.org

The first of our two sites to be "googlified" was Quakerbooks.org. I had long hoped to have our book listings show up on the search engines, especially since we carry a lot of hard-to-find ones. I had opened up the discussion board of my peace site to Google and been happy with the results.

Back in early 2003 we installed new software by Steve Beuret to power the bookstore website, one that would allow easy transfer of information between the website and our inventory program. The website could now list whether a book was in stock, and orders would go directly into the system (no more retyping them!). Once the new system was running smoothly, I emailed Steve about optimizing it for Google. There were two parts to this: having the books show up (Steve) and linking them in such a way that Google would index them properly (me). It took awhile to get ito all working but on December 17, 2003 Google came through and indexed the site.

The most visited pages are the introductory ones:

  • Welcome to Quakerism
  • Becoming a Member
  • Basics for Everyone

The search phrases that are bringing in visitors used to be generic ("quaker bookstore") they now are very specific. September's list is typical:

  • crash by jerry spinnelli
  • Andrew Goldsworthy
  • celebration of discipline
  • the misfits by james howe
  • rufus jones

I knew we'd show up high in the Google rankings for obscure books but I've been pleased that we're right up there with Amazon and Barnes and Noble even with mainstream books.

Our online best sellers are pretty

  • Grounded in God: Care And Nurture In Friends Meetings
  • Friends for 350 Years
  • The Quaker Way
  • Philadelphia Faith and Practice
  • Listening Spirituality Volume 1
  • Silence and Witness
  • The Journal of George Fox

The bookstore inventory software is not very good at pulling marketing statistics. While it's very good at telling us what books have sold and what books need to be reordered, it won't tally up things by type of sale (phone vs. web vs. mail-order). The bookstore report should include more information on actual web sales.

Anecdotally it appears as if about half our web orders are new customers. Many of them are from geographic areas which are not traditionally Quaker. A&O has produced a flyer which goes into orders for new customers.

Quakerfinder.org

After we saw how successful the "googlization" of Quakerbooks was, I thought we should try it for Quakerfinder. It took a little seasoning to get everyone on A&O to sign off on the project but I am delighted to say they saw their way clear. The result has been nothing sort of amazing. Use of the site has grown by 340%. But the actual numbers are even more important: by my best estimate, over 6000 a month are using Quakerfinder who would not have even found the resource if we hadn't made it search engine friendly. That's 72,000 people a year--twice FGC's membership, and these are the EXTRA people coming. Altogether at our current rate, this site is being used by over 100,000 unique visitors. Even if only one in ten of them make it to a Meeting, that's a lot of people.

In last year's report I pointed out that most of Quakerfinder's traffic was coming from the FGC site. At that point, it didn't looking like giving the location look-up utility it's own domain name was paying off in any tangible way. Now it's clearly worth it. Just the extra 600 or so visitors Quakerfinder is throwing to FGCQUaker.org site makes it worth it! Horray!

Twenty Times the Google-Linked Visits: I compared two typical months, one before and the other after the "search engine optimization." In May 2004 Quakerfinder received 241 visitors from Google searches (footnote 1). In September, it received 3813 visitors--that's over twenty times the visits. Overall visits almost tripled, from 2292 to 6037, with 60% of those extra visitors directly attributed to the Google bounce. The chart to the left shows daily Google-referred visits since the middle of March.

More Than Just Google: Other search engines were affected too: all together search engine visits went from from 311 in May to 4134 in September. For those interested, the top five search engines for Quakerfinder traffic are:

  • Google.com 83%
  • AOL: 5%
  • Google Canada: 3%
  • Yahoo: 1%
  • Comcast: 0.8%

As you can see, Google far overwhelms everyone else, which is why we often just call this "the googlization" of Quakerfinder!


Part 6, Miscellaneous and Notes

Miscellaneous

Mailing Lists

Late in the fiscal year, we purchased bulk email software. No, we're not going to try to sell Viagra or a new home mortgage. This program will help us get information out to our bookstore customers and committee lists. Our occasional bookstore emails ("Book Musings from Lucy") have been very well received, with only a tiny fraction of recipients asking to be taken off the list.

Web Host Changes

A big project, though not very exciting, is that we're changing our web hosting company. FGCQuaker.org is with the new company (OLM)and Quakerfinder.org and Quakerbooks.org will be moving shortly. The new company organizes our accounts better and we hope that their service is better. (We'd recommend avoiding Data Realm also known as Serve.com.)

Notes

Programs I Use to Collect Stats:

  • For overall numbers, I used a extremely-common program called Webalizer, which gives useful monthly summaries.
  • For details I used a program called AXS Visitor Tracking Program, which lets me watch individual users as they navigate the site. With AXS I can also get details on where visitors to specific pages come from.
  • I have a list of key words which I watch on Google; every few weeks I record where our sites stand on those phrases and watch how navigational changes I make affect our Google rankings.
  • I also use Google to see what other websites are linking to us. I look at what they link to (often not our homepage) and how many sites there are linking.
  • I also follow links using more specific search engines such as Technorati, which indexes blogs ("web blogs" or personal diary-like sites).

Measuring Links:

I use Altavista's search engine to measure how many links a site has. For good reasons, Google doesn't list obscure websites and also counts how a site's links back to itself. Here's a sample Altavista query:

link:www.fgcquaker.org/ -site:www.fgcquaker.org

See How Can We Measure the State of the Peace Movement? for more on this method of measurement.

Unique Visitors:

The most standard measure of website usage, here is a definition: "A real visitor to a web site. Web servers record the IP addresses of each visitor, and this is used to determine the number of real people who have visited a web site. If for example, someone visits twenty pages within a web site, the server will count only one unique visitor (because the page accesses are all associated with the same IP address) but twenty page accesses."

Categories: Analytics
Tags: Denomination, Friends, Liberal Branch, Navigational Design, Nonprofit Organization, Quakers, Religious Seekers | Edit

Search

As Seen In

EBook

Shortcut cover
Web 2.0 Mash-Ups & Niche Aggregators (O'Reilly Media, 2008, $9.95): Order here.

Social Networks

Other Sites

Archives