Marketing & SEO Discussion List - LED Digest

LED Digest 2313: Marketing Away From Simplicity

==================================================                  The LED Digest              Moderated Discussion List      "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997"       Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom          pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Registration from a Trusted Leader   pair.com for Hosting  |  pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator:                     Published by: Adam Audette                          LED Digest adam, led-digest.com     http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. December 21, 2006                   Issue no. 2313 ..............................................             .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING =================         <Moderator Comment>                 ~ Holiday Thanks         --== Simplicity is Overrated ==--                 ~ David Spahr "It's all about who your customers are. And that means the end user, not the site owner."                 ~ Maty Matyszak "[Simplicity] also relates to ease-of-use."                 ~ Shari Thurow "Simple doesn't mean boring."                 ~ Derek Andrews "My belief is that...features are added as a marketing device."         --== The Email Crisis ==--                 ~ Phil Chave "...if millions of people use the same code, there is an incentive to break it."         --== Google on Linking ==--                 ~ Dirk Johnson "...legitimate, responsible reciprocation has it's place..." ======== CONTINUING =============================== <Moderator Comment> Holiday greetings, LEDer... A short week this week - taking Friday off to get an early start on the egg nog. Next week will be spotty too with all the yule tides and the New Year. So don't expect a whole lot from this side of the world until after it's officially 2007. Every year I list a few things I'm thankful for, and a few goals for the upcoming year. I thought I'd share these with you. What I'm thankful for (in no particular order): - My family and friends, my daughter and the change of perspective she's given us. - Having the freedom to create my own work schedule. - Living in a great small town (Bend, Oregon). - Having the privilege to publish the LED Digest for the last 10 years. - Getting to know so many amazing people through my work on the LED and elsewhere. What goals I have for next year: - To be the best husband, father, brother, son and friend I can be. - To work harder than ever and play harder than this year. - To keep learning about Internet marketing. - To work with more small business clients. - To finish the led-digest.com site and get it ranked for "email discussion list." - To keep publishing this list and making new friends. - To have more time to read and write. To keep learning and adapting to change. - To give back to the community I live in. What are your goals? What are you thankful for? (They won't be published if you want them private.) Happy Holidays! Adam ------------------------ From: David Spahr Subject: Simplicity is Overrated > One of the sites I run is related to the gaming industry > and it's very sophisticated... It gets more traffic than all > my other sites combined. It's by far the fanciest. And I > never hear a single complaint that it's not simple enough.         - Nathan Holley, LED Digest 2312         - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1417/55/ I certainly have heard this. My customers are antique lovers and not that computer savvy generally. They say outright that they do not like fancy sites. It's all about who your customers are. And that means the end user, not the site owner. (Soon to be) site owners, as often as not, have horribly bad ideas about what their sites should look like and do. That is why redesigns happens so much. If you are dealing with the gaming industry then you are dealing with computer savvy people and they will obviously like fancy graphics, bells, whistles etc. That makes sense. Remember when people said, "if you want your site to be successful you need music"? Geez.... we know now that isn't true. Music belongs on music sites. If I hear Scott Joplin's "The Entertainer" one more time on a non music site I will hit my head on the floor. As a designer, you should not be giving your clients "features" just because you can. That is the punch line to "Why does a dog lick his *****?" David Spahr * Stereoviews.com * Antique-Photography.com * -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Maty Matyszak Subject: Simplicity hmm.. Simplicity does not just relate to features or the lack thereof. It also relates to ease-of-use. The more you make it simple for a user to find and operate the features of your website, the more attracted to the website your users will be. Sites such as amazon or ebay are very rich in features, but they are also (generally) simple to use. On the other hand, take mobile phones (cell phones on t'other side of the pond). These are possibly the least user-friendly consumer devices in creation and their lack of simplicity is why the 'mobile web' has remained stuck in the starting gates. Someone once commented that you should think of a web page as a billboard being viewed by a motorist at 60mph. You have to get your message across quickly and unambiguously. Use as many features, scripts and applets as required to achieve this! Maty Matyszak www.knowyourcat.info -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Shari Thurow Subject: Simplicity Hi all- This is in response to Nathan Holley's post in LED #2312 regarding Don Norman's comments. First, I would like to point out that I had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Norman at Northwestern University at a usability event. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Norman as a usability professional, and by no means do I consider myself his equal in this area. His books are outstanding and many of them are required reading in my graduate program. That being said, Dr. Norman is not a Web site usability professional. Nor does he understand search engine optimization by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, Dr. Norman was quite rude to me during the presentations. I don't know if it was an age or gender thing, or whatever. I'm a big girl. I can take criticism. I would love to return the favor by inviting him to a search engine conference panel, except I wouldn't be as rude as he was. But I digress. Dr. Norman made it very, very clear that he wasn't a Web site usability expert. So when he blew off my research and opinions? Well, let's just say that I will listen to Dr. Norman's opinions because I respect his research and knowledge, but I am rather dumbfounded at his opinions about Web sites. His conclusions, though purely subjective, are rather fascinating. So LEDers, if I were you, I'd be more interested in hearing what Dr. Nielsen has to say over Dr. Norman about Web sites. Jared Spool and Eric Schaffer, too. Also, where did anyone get the idea that simplicity means text-only site (no graphics)? That is ridiculous. Simple doesn't mean boring. Usability is all about categorization and organization of information, appropriate labeling, and matching business goals with visitor expectations. Making things clear is a huge part of usability. Sometimes it is simple, and sometimes it is not. Sincerely, Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director Grantastic Designs, Inc. http://www.grantasticdesigns.com/tips.html -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Derek Andrews Subject: Simplicity Nathan Holley raises some interesting points, but misses some important issues by trying to make global statements. > [Don Norman] argues what consumers (of widgets, > of websites) really want is lots of fancy functions - even > while touting that simplicity is desirable. With regard to websites, my belief is that what most people want from the vast majority of sites is content (information). > "Why do we deliberately build things that confuse the > people who use them? Answer: Because the people > want the features. Because simplicity is a myth whose > time has past, if it ever existed."         - Don Norman, Quoted         - http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html But do they really want the features? My belief is that in a lot of cases features are added as a marketing device. Then the engineers have to find some way to fit it all into a small package with a small price tag. The result is usually a device that is anything but easy or intuitive to use. I'm thinking here of things like GPS units and digital cameras. I tried a GPS once, and unless I was using it everyday and could learn what buttons to press, I would need to keep the instruction manual with me at all times. I would rather trust my life to a compass. I do now own an inexpensive digital camera too, but in terms of usability I much prefer my old manual 35mm SLR which has three simple controls for focus, aperture and speed. It's easy to understand what each is going to do, I have total control over how I use it, the controls are comfortable to use, and quick too. When I want to use the self timer there is one switch to engage that, unlike the several button clicks on the digital camera, and that is assuming I remember where that function is in the menu hierarchy. > "Make it simple and people won't buy. Given a choice, they will > take the item that does more. Features win over simplicity, even > when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity. > You do it too, I bet. Haven't you ever compared two products side > by side, comparing the features of each, preferring the one that > did more? Why shame on you, you are behaving, well, behaving > like a normal person." I don't agree with this. 'Normal' may be that large part of the population who fall for marketing gimmicks. I know that I very often don't buy the most complex product, though mainly because I don't need, or cannot afford or justify the cost of the extra features. 'Normal' is just a part of the population, and also one which has been manipulated by marketing messages. "Irrational' or 'gullible' might be a better term. > Now I'm all for building sites that are usable, that are clean, > even simple. But I've often thought how odd it is that my visitors > and clients continually ask for fancy features: RSS feeds, text > resizing, flexible layouts, tableless designs, newsletters, even > color switching on their sites.         - Nathan Holley, LED Digest 2312 That may be true of one section of the population, but I doubt that many of my customers even know what many of those things are, let alone care. I've certainly never had a request for any of it. I must admit though that I have myself asked for RSS from several sites because this is a tool that has a real use. > One of the sites I run is related to the gaming industry > and it's very sophisticated... It gets more traffic than all > my other sites combined. It's by far the fanciest. And I > never hear a single complaint that it's not simple enough. The point here is the the people who visit a gaming site are probably going to be more technically savvy that the rest of us lesser mortals. They probably crave complexity and visual stimulation. Coming back to one of the first comments I made, it could also be that this is the site that has the best content, and it is that which keeps your visitors coming back time and again. Derek Andrews, woodturner http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Phil Chave Subject: Email javascript encoding Hi James I too use this javascript coding to hide my email addresses, so far with really great results. ie.   user = '####'; domain = '####'; document.write(a xhref=\"####' + #### + '###' + ####+ ####); There must be millions of websites that use this same code and so there is incentive for spammers to make a program that somehow picks this to shreds. In the meantime, I often go further and put extra parameters in like this: send = 'mailto:' symbol = '@'; suffix = '.co.uk'; Then if the whole thing depends on someone looking for a set format, for each new website built, I change the coding to something like this: 123send = 'mailto:'  or suffix123 = 'co.uk';  or user_fred = 'fred'; I realise this ain't straight out the text books (sorry javascript writers, stop crying, you'll water down your beer), but as long as you do the document.write to reflect the changes, it always works, and if it screws up those wicked email gatherers for even a couple of months, I'm all for it. Go ahead with your Christmas project, it sounds like a great idea. Just bear in mind, that if millions of people use the same code, there is an incentive to break it.  Try to put something in it that users can customize, thus making it even more difficult for the spammers. Don't stay up all night working on this, Santa won't come! All the best, Phil Chave www.distanthealer.co.uk -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Dirk Johnson Subject: Google linking > Google has their hands full. Recips are the backbone > of the web since before engines ever showed up. But > Google must look for "signals of intent" before they ignore > or penalize.         - Eric Ward, LED Digest 2312 Thanks to Eric Ward for explaining why Google, or any other search engine, should not, and apparently, does not punish or devalue legitimate reciprocal linking. There a lot of legitimate reasons for sites to link to and from each other. Eric also rightfully points out that the practice pre-dates every search engine. It's fundamental to the WWW. It is unfortunate that a large number of rather well-known writers and speakers in the SEO world expose their compete lack of understanding of the subject of reciprocation. By self-admission, most of them don't do it, and recommend against it at every chance they get. Some use all manner of derogatory comments. Never mind that this insults large numbers of website owners who reciprocate successfully and have nothing whatsoever to apologize for, to anyone. I guess that these SEO gurus feel they have that kind of leeway. They're gurus, after all. Idolized, and apparently above reproach. You must agree with them, or suffer their verbal wrath. They get mutual support for such arrogance from the forums and blogs that they run or frequent. Anyone who disagrees within these forums is subject to all manner of insult and abuse, from them and their minions. Humility and a willingness to examine facts is not a strong suit among this crowd. Yet they talk as if they know all about the subject of reciprocation. It's become absurd. When they discuss the subject, they reveal quite blatantly that they don't understand the legitimate purpose, they don't understand how to do it the right way, and they most certainly do not understand how it affects search engines. Their claims that it does not work are a fantasy that they insist upon believing, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For most average website owners, the link building prescriptions of the anti-reciprocation crowd are all rather time consuming and difficult to pursue, in comparison. Reciprocation is not easy, but it provides the average site owner with the most accessible, stable, and relevant link base, from which they can expand their efforts, if they choose. It's just basic branding within a realm of interest. If it's not for them, then for their competitors, who will reciprocate, and benefit from it, when done properly. To those who follow the anti-reciprocation gurus, good luck keeping up with competitors who are not so constrained by bad advice. The unsubstantiated claims of the anti-reciprocation crowd have reached a very shrill tone. The new game is to twist the words of various search engine executives, to fit their view of the world. It's become ridiculous. Fortunately, not all the SEO world has gone off the deep end. Eric Ward, and a few others, do understand that legitimate, responsible reciprocation has it's place, first, as a branding and networking function, and second that it does, in fact have a beneficial affect on search results, as well. Best regards, Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations DomainDrivers LLC www.domaindrivers.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Fear paralyzes; curiosity empowers. Be more interested than afraid." - Patricia Alexander