How to Fix Search on Your Site

In the midst of creating great web user interfaces, it’s sometimes easy to overlook the second-most used user interface on your site: the search box.

Here’s list of 10 things you can do to make search work better:

1. Review your search logs. 
   What is it that people are searching for? Keep track of the top 50 search phrases on your site.
2. Check the format of your search results.
   Are you getting "clean" results? In plain English? Is it easy to read the title and description of each page in the listing? Or is there junk like navigation text in there? Nothing looks worse than the description of your page reading "About Us", "Admissions", "News and Events", and so on. Update the formatting of your results accordingly.
3. Make sure you have great content for your top search phrases.
   The best way to make sure you’re providing great search results is to have great content about the terms that visitors are searching for. Create at least one "perfect" page that a visitor who searched for a specific term would want to see.
4. Make use of "best bets" functionality.
   Many search engines have the ability to force certain content to the top of the search results by keyword. Create a best bet for each of your top search terms and point it at the perfect content you’ve created.
5. Review your metadata.
   Google and the major search engines may no longer pay attention to metadata, but you can use it to tune your internal search engine. Make sure all your pages have descriptive titles, meta keywords that make sense. and good meta descriptions.
6. Train your content authors.
   Put together a 2-pager on "how to make sure your content shows up properly on our search engine", and include it with the materials you give to all web authors on campus.
7. Check your indexes.
   Usually its been a while since you’ve checked what exactly your search engine is indexing. Have you brought up a new sub-site with a different URL? It may not be included in your index. Take a quick inventory of all your sites and make sure that the right ones are being spidered.
8. Axe the "advanced search."
   If there’s one thing that Google should have taught us by now its that simpler is better when it comes to search. You should have a single search box. No making the visitor pick the "collection" they want to search from. No and/or searches. And absolutely no option to "Search the Internet." Come on, if your visitor wants to search the Internet they will go to Google.com, not your site.
9. Tune your search tool.
   Check the settings on your search software. Configure duplicate checking to make sure you don’t show the same document more than once. Implement "no-index" tags to eliminate navigation and footers/copyrights from your search results.
10. Make it somebody’s job to maintain the quality of the search over time.
    Part of the problem is that at most institutions, it isn’t clear who is responsible for the quality of the search results. Someone in IT installs the search engine, sets it to spider the site, and nobody thinks about it again. Give someone the job of regularly checking those top searches (they will change over time, and you’ll see seasonal changes too), and making sure that you’re generating good results for those terms.
    

Once you’ve done all those, you might think about spending a couple of bucks on new search software. Which one should you buy? For what its worth, I would say 70% of our clients have selected Google Mini.

Posted by Rob Cima
Additional Posts (7)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

DIY College Website Redesign

(The kick-off of an ongoing series…)

With shrinking endowments, budget cuts and hiring freezes (or worse) fewer institutions are in a position to hire a hot-shot consulting or design firm to tackle all aspects of a far-reaching strategy / ia / design / content / html / cms implementation type of project.

Instead, colleges and universities (at least many of the folks we’re talking to lately) are looking for ways to do more with limited resources, which often means dividing work between internal teams and consultants like us. Partially to shave costs, partially to build internal capacity and partially just because a website redeployment is a lot of fun (really!). Sometimes we’ll do strategy and design and the college project team will handle writing and programming. Or the opposite. Or a completely different division of labor. The idea is to meet the client where they are: relying on their strengths, filling in gaps where additional expertise is needed.

But… in order for this divide / conquer approach to actually work (and to result in an actually great website) everybody needs an understanding of the nature of the work involved. So over the next few months we’re going to explain — in excruciating detail — the steps we run through in a “typical” website redesign (from initial planning to post-launch debrief meetings).

If you’re running your own project and this helps you keep it all straight, excellent. If you’re considering working with mStoner, it’s important to understand exactly how we work so you can determine what makes sense for you to do and what for us to do. No matter what, if you know up front all that’s involved in your big ol’ redesign then you can make some informed decisions about what to tackle on your own and when (if at all) to look for outside expertise.

The outline of our DIY Website Redesign guide looks like this:

• Groundwork
• Plan of Attack
• Design
• Content
• Technology
• Policies & Procedures
• Training Programs
• Sustainability

And, starting tomorrow we’re running through ‘Groundwork’ (probably an 8-part series).

Details to follow…

Posted by Patrick DiMichele
Additional Posts (10)
Categories: Content and writing / Design and usability / Marketing and branding / Strategy / Technology and software

Discuss this article (1)

Big Pipes, Small Screens and Great Stories

What kind of content works best on broadband platforms? What content is well-suited for the web and even the very-small screens of cells phones? Any ideas? Anyone?

It’s a question a lot of smart people are grappling with, including programmers, artists, producers… and participants in the "Web Content – Where are the Big Ideas for Small Screens?" panel discussion Jan. 19 at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. Coming out of the discussion, the consistent and oddly-reassuring answer is good content—the kind that deals with personal experiences and passions, told in a compelling way that also makes people want to take action.

And why, exactly, would THAT tall order be considered a reassuring answer, when it immediately begs so many questions (especially in the context of a college or university’s web presence)? The short answer is because it’s easier to tackle this question of good, compelling content than it is to resolve the questions centering on how best to record and deliver your content, and how to effectively stay on top of a rapidly changing tech arena notorious for trashing effective solutions in favor of the new.

Panelists in the discussion, moderated by the American Film Institute’s Suzanne Stefanac, came from feature-length film and documentary backgrounds, but there was no common ground, no consensus in terms of how they produced their (far shorter) pieces. Example: some panelists shoot using 16:9 ratios, others stay with 4:3, but no one disagreed with anyone else’s methods. A few of the panelists shoot on professional-quality HD cameras and then "degrade" their content until it looks good when played back on a cell phone screen. Others do just the opposite: since the content will live on tiny screens, they use cellphones or palm-sized video cameras to record their footage, and edit as needed. Combining these approaches worked for others, and there was a healthy use of still photos, manipulated to convey movement or to establish key points.

What the panelists agreed on is that the technologies and methods for producing broadband content can vary wildly, change often, and will likely do so for quite a while—but what will never change is that good, compelling stories will find audiences. That’s been true since firelight flickered across the first cave paintings, and it will continue to be true as we watch flickering images on the newest, shiniest, and smallest of screens.

Posted by James B. Hyatt
Additional Posts (2)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Email: Still the “Killer App”

I’ve worked in the online sphere since 1995, and I really can’t remember a time when email wasn’t dubbed a “killer app.”

A new study confirms that the moniker still applies. (The grain of salt: It was conducted on behalf of a company that specializes in email.)

A few of the study’s findings that caught my eye:

• 67 percent of respondents prefer email as a communications channel over other online vehicles. (Take that, Web 2.0!)


• Monthly emails and content and frequency options positively impacted a company’s reputation. (Here’s an earlier post on this topic.)


• Email will be as central to online commerce and communications in the future as it is today.


• More than 88 percent of respondents said they would like organizations to give them more choices over the content and frequency of the emails they receive, including options on advertisements, special offers, articles, newsletters, white papers and other specific content options.

The last bulleted point is an important one. That’s true not only because of the significant response, but also because creating a system that accurately reflects the many kinds of emails sent by a college or university is a big job. I know, because I’ve been there.

In my previous life as a web director at a large public university, I was part of a group tasked with creating efficient methods for alumni and friends to manage their email preferences. Using email addresses pulled from the institutional database, we sent mass emails to hundreds of groups—folks who graduated from specific academic programs; people who attended arts or athletic events; participants in outreach activities. All these and countless fundraising appeals, several dozen e-newsletters, plus the occasional survey.

The email calendar often was jam-packed in December, when there’d also be numerous holiday greetings; lots of year-end e-solicitations; and football bowl tours and game information … at least in winning years. One December, we had a mass email scheduled every work day for three weeks straight. Most of those were sent to small groups; even so, there was plenty of audience cross over.

Plus we knew that some units maintained their own email lists and sent mass emails that we didn’t know about until they occasionally landed in our in-boxes.

The institution’s policy was that each email offered the option of unsubscribing from that specific type group (e.g., e-solicitations from the College of Engineering). We established dozens and dozens of email drop codes in the institutional database, so users could make discrete decisions about the type of emails they wanted to receive.

Managing those codes became a challenge. We needed enough to accurately reflect the audience segments. But we didn’t want them to proliferate so much as to become unwieldy. On the web page where users could select their email preferences, we listed all the popular options, but omitted some of the more esoteric groups. The system worked, but it didn’t offer the user the level of control requested by 88 percent of study participants.

It takes a savvy and complex system to accurately reflect the nuances and diverse audience segments of a large, multi-faceted organization.

Nine out of 10 in this study wanted more control over the kinds of emails they receive. That statistic clearly confirms that a regular and systematic review of the email preferences web interface available to alumni and friends is time well spent.

Posted by Hilery Livengood
Additional Posts (22)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Americans Really Like Online Video

Guess whose sites gets the most traffic? You’d be right if you guessed Google, which draws a whopping 38 percent of video viewers, who watched an average of 51 videos each; Fox Interactive Media sites rank second, with 4.2 percent. (Google owns YouTube, which draws the bulk of the traffic to the Google sites—98 percent; Fox Media owns MySpace and FOXSports.com, among other properties.)

Other notable findings:

73.7 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
84.8 million viewers watched 4.3 billion videos on YouTube.com (50.4 videos per viewer).
47.7 million viewers watched 400 million videos on MySpace.com (8.4 videos per viewer).
The average online video duration was 2.8 minutes.
The average online video viewer watched 235 minutes of video.

Posted by Michael Stoner
Additional Posts (322)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Sometimes More is Less ... and More

I love my Kindle!
After a 45-day wait (they can’t seem to make them fast enough), it finally arrived five days ago. A trapezoidal piece of plastic roughly the width and height of a pencil. It’s got a screen that mimics actual paper and ink, but with the added ability to boost the font size to suit my eyes. Less than 11 ounces, a long battery life, over 100,000 titles, free book samples (you can download the first chapter of any book you want without charge), and all downloads priced at $9.99 or cheaper.

In less than 10 minutes, I’d set up my newest toy and purchased and downloaded Jim Butcher’s first Dresden Files novel, Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food,” five first chapters from Christopher Moore’s growing oeuvre of disturbingly hysterical work, and snippets of John Irving’s and Michael Chabon’s latest books.

I was in heaven. Kindling while I prepped dinner. In the cab while heading to Chicago’s annual auto show. Friday night, curled up on the couch with a warm fire going. In five-minute segments when it wasn’t my turn to make the next martini. For someone like me who loves to read several books concurrently, travels frequently, and doesn’t get many chunks of unspoken-for time, this little gadget was the perfect companion—a way to finally whittle away at a long list of books I’ve been waiting to enjoy. And yet …

... I hate my Kindle!
Actually, hate’s a really strong word. Permit me to explain the irony of the timing.

My kindle came five days before our bookcases arrived. Four beautiful oak cases providing 50 feet of shelving to house the books we’d shoved into a closet when we moved into our home four years ago. Finally, the unpacking. I stumbled across my copy of Hemingway’s “The Garden of Eden.” I opened it up and saw my signature (my handwriting’s gotten better since) and the date I purchased the book—1990, 18 years ago now! I scanned the first paragraph and realized that at the time I read this book, I couldn’t even pronounce the name of the small French town in which Catherine and David were spending their honeymoon. Six years ago, I’d been there. I thought of three people instantly who would enjoy this book, and I slipped it into my briefcase for the first on that list.

We spent the afternoon sorting and shelving … our poetry collection, our travel books, installments from the Library of America, fiction, history, art, atlases, dictionaries, and Harry Potter. I found books sent from friends with notes saying “this made me think of you.” I remembered books that I’d loaned out and had yet to (and probably never would) get back.

And I realized the compromise inherent in the technology. The chances of my wandering back through my digital library are slim, and the opportunity to pass any given book on, nil. And in these ways, the convenience and portability and efficiency of my new plastic friend prove the adage “sometimes, more is less.” But still …

... I love my Kindle. Did I mention the long battery life and free samples?

Posted by Voltaire Santos Miran
Additional Posts (100)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Rules for User-Generated Advertising

Anyone who’s read some of my commentary can imagine that I might have some issues with the “user” part. But, semantics aside, user-generated advertising inviting people who interact with your brand to create ads or contribute their insights or observations to a blog or other public space. For MasterCard, this meant the Priceless campaign, in which real people were invited to contribute content (images, comments) about real experiences that were “priceless” to them—and, of course, facilitated by MasterCard.

Why would anyone do this, particularly companies like MasterCard that are giving up control of their message in the process. Note that there’s a disclaimer on the Priceless website that states:

The opinions, activities, and businesses featured in Priceless Picks are not necessarily endorsed by MasterCard, or third parties that may be
leveraged within the content. Use of this information or content is at your sole discretion and risk. Priceless Picks may be moderated and will not
be posted until approved by the author/submitter.

Well, for one thing, people place a high value on authenticity these days. And they value the opinions of their peers. This week, there was some interesting reporting on sites that facilitate “group shopping”—which is sort of an extended version of what you can do on Netflix, where a recommendations engine looks at the movies you rank and how you like them and then compares your choices with those of other viewers, suggested movies that they liked but that you haven’t seen yet. Or the reviews on Amazon.com or eBags or any one of dozens of other websites.

User-generated content is much more authentic that the work done by marketing copywriters. Often cheesy, it’s also refreshing because it is so unpolished.

Colleges and universities are already taking significant advantage of user-generated content—most often in student recruitment, where blogs by current students offer an insider’s (often) unvarnished view of what life is really like on campus. Though I know it’s a scary step for admissions offices, I’m all for unmoderated, unedited blogs. Remember that the buzzword is authenticity. The best example I know of is Ball State’s multiple award-winning blogs.

The Ball State bloggers started off with text and still images, but are increasingly using video. Here’s another, often unheralded, example of user-generated content, this time in video: Duke’s Froshlife videos, which is what you get when you turn students loose with video cameras and iMovie and let them share their experiences as freshmen. What’s more impressive is that Duke students have been doing this since 2003 and it’s turned into a real film festival (or, that would be an iMovie festival to be completely accurate).

Entering the area of user-generated advertising is not for the faint of heart. Here’s a top ten list of principles for consumer-generated ad campaigns. There are all important, but my favorite is “Keep it authentic.”

Posted by Michael Stoner
Additional Posts (322)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Exploring Second Life

Sarah “Intellagirl” Robbins from Ball State University could be the best-known academic teaching in Second Life right now. For the basics, here is a story from the Ball State Daily News, and there is much more detail on Robbins’ own blog.

Karine Joly has written a number of posts about Second Life over at CollegeWebEditor.

Some other examples of ways in which colleges and universities are experimenting with a presence in Second Life:

Harvard Law School offered Law in the Court of Public Opinion at the Law School and in Second Life. Here’s a CNN story about this course; it offers some comments from students and other educators who are using Second Life.

Ed Lamoreaux, a professor at Bradley University, conducted a three-week multimedia course in research methods in Second Life. More here.

The azaleas are blooming at the University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill. Visitors start at a virtual version of one of Chapel Hill’s best known landmarks, the Old Well.

Ohio University maintains an extensive presence on SL, with weekly podcasts, games, a student center and a beautifully staged art presentation. YouTube video promotion here.

The University of Cincinnati offers podcasts on Second Life as part of its Distance Learning and Outreach program on SL’s “EduIsland.” Other tenants include George Washington University, Johnson & Wales University, the University of Delaware and Cochise College, and Empire State College (SUNY), although some have little more than an online billboard to announce their presence.

Can a virtual fundraising event work? The American Cancer Society held its Relay for Life in Second life and mare real—almost $40K. There were more than 1,000 virtual participants. More here. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the Make a Wish foundation also have a presence in Second Life.

Finally, I highly recommend the classic novel about avatars, True Names, which was first published in 1981 by mathematician and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge. A new edition was published in 2001 with essays commenting on its effects on science and fiction. Like William Gibson’s Neuromancer, this is one of the works that anyone who is seriously interested in learning about life online should read. It’s also worth taking a look at Howard Rheingold’s work, particularly Virtual Reality: The Revolutionary Technology of Computer-Generated Artificial Worlds – and How It Promises to Transform Society.

Posted by Michael Stoner
Additional Posts (322)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Great YouTube Video Explains Web 2.0

The video is here. It was created by Michael Wesch, a professor of cultural anthropology at Kansas State. The video not only helps the viewer understand Web 2.0, but shows it in action. Wow!

Posted by Michael Stoner
Additional Posts (322)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)

Top 10 Mistakes When Selecting a CMS

Robertson identifies these mistakes to avoid:

1. Not understanding the problem to be solved
2. Not understanding content management issues
3. Assuming there are only a dozen possible products
4. Bigger is better
5. Not distinguishing between requirements and selection criteria
6. Writing too many requirements
7. ‘Complies’ / ‘does not comply’
8. Focusing on the ‘what’ not the ‘how’
9. Confusing the CMS project and the broader website project
10. Running the selection as a technology project

From my point of view, no. 10 is often the biggest mistake we see institutions making. Getting broader input from those who are expected to use the CMS is critical and, in general, speeds uptake on the part of users.

Posted by Michael Stoner
Additional Posts (322)
Categories: Technology and software

Discuss this article (0)