Half-Elf on Tech

Thoughts From a Professional Lesbian

Tag: website

  • Istanbul (Not Constantinople) Will Confuse Your Users

    Istanbul (Not Constantinople) Will Confuse Your Users

    It's not Istanbul Yet If you’ve never heard The Four Lads (or They Might Be Giants) sing “Istanbul (Not Constantinople)” you’re missing out on a great swing song. The lyrics basically dance around the fact that Constantinople was renamed Istanbul, but also how even New York was once New Amsterdam, saying things like “People just liked it better that way.” and “It’s nobody’s business but the Turks.”

    Eventually you’re going to look at your website and think that you need to redesign it. In ages past, I would say things like ‘What would Amazon do?’ to indicate how people generally should not redesign their entire site. But those ages are long past and now, if you want to redesign your website, it’s an accepted standard of life. Both the code running your site and the look and feel of it have to be updated more than with just a slap of fresh paint.

    Now that everyone’s accepted the fact that sites will update and change, the trick is how to make a change without forcing people to wonder why Constantinople got the works!(See? The song title had a point.) You can’t just assume your user-base is going to magically divine how everything works and know where to go to do things, after all.

    Obviously you can make a blog post that explains where everything went, but eventually that will fall off your front page. So you could also make a new ‘page’ for your site features, and hope people saw that. Toss in some customization on your 404 page (and maybe some clever .htaccess redirects to send people to the right place), and you should be okay.

    Should is the key-word there.

    Science has proven to us that people like what they like, and changing it is a sure-fire way to cause problems. And once people make a decision that they like something, they will grow to actively dislike anything else. That’s why you get rabid Apple vs Windows fanboys. (Read The science of fanboyism by The Tech Report.)

    At its crux, that is why bigwigs tell you not to redesign your site. Not because new layouts are bad, but because people are used to your site and, probably, like it the way it is. That tells me that when you make a change, and you will, you need to do it in a way that looks similar enough that while things have changed, the ‘feel’ remains the same.

    The feel of a site is a terribly nebulous thing. The ‘feel’ has to be right for you, because if you don’t like your own site, you’ll never use it. The ‘feel’ has to be right for your target audience or they’ll never use it. Anyone who tells you they know all the answers, by the way, is lying. There’s a reason big companies hire folks to do tons of studies before changing the UX (User eXperience) of a site, after all. Generally speaking, as Matt Mullenweg said recently, “The software is wrong, not the people.”

    Have you ever felt like a fool because you can’t remember the 16 special clicks and drags to get MS Word to do something? It’s not you, it’s the product. Your website is your product, and if even one person complains and says ‘This isn’t right!’ you need to stop and think about it. I’m not saying you have to change it, but I am saying you have to consider their point of view. Get out of your monkey house.

    What it all comes down to is simple. If your site isn’t easy for your intended audience to use and understand, they won’t. If you change your site to something new and different and they don’t like it, they’ll leave. You need to understand what makes your users tick, and cater to them without kowtowing to their every whim. Sometimes learning that balance will make you take the wrong path. That’s okay. Mistakes are things to learn from, so don’t fear them.

    On the subject of ‘big’ changes, there is a time and a place for them. When you look at how Amazon, Apple and Microsoft looked in 1999 and compare them to 2011, you feel like they’re the same sites, only grown up.

    1999

    2011

    For the most part, color schemes are the same and so is layout. But if you were to jump from one to the other, it would feel like a big change. In reality, the move from 1999 to 2011 was all done in steps, slowly and carefully, so as not to jar the user too much out of their comfort zone.

    This doesn’t just apply to site design. The GAP logo changed recently, and was universally panned. It was so bad that GAP actually had to change their logo back. Pepsi changed their logo and got more hate than Coke did for New Coke. (Actually I don’t know if anyone cared about the Pepsi logo. We drink Coke in my house.)

    Some of the changes were pretty bold, and they all drive home the point that you do need to make changes. But they also remind us that the changes must be recognizable. “People just like it better that way.”

  • What’s Your Net Worth?

    What’s Your Net Worth?

    I get a lot of requests from people to link to their sites.  Back in the day, we all used to have massive link pages where we just listed all the cool sites we knew about.  On a fansite, I actually still have one where I list all the related sites, organized by how they’re related, separated by language, etc etc.  Here, though, you see a list on the right of links, broken down into “Websites” and “WordPress” and that’s pretty much it.

    The reason is that I subscribe to the belief of contextual links.  If a link, by itself, has no context, my reader cannot determine the inherent value of the link.  When I write a blog post, I try to put links that make sense inside my post.  On my fansite, where I have a moderately sized wiki, I link from the related page to the related site.

    Still, when people ask me to link to their site (or to friend them on Twitter/Facebook whatever) my knee-jerk reaction is “Why?” and it should be yours too!  You should always ask that when someone wants to network.  What’s in it for me?  What good will this bring me?  Do you write good content?  If you’re asking someone to link to you, you had better be bringing something good to the table, other wise you’re an unsolicited request, and no one likes those.

    Perhaps this flies in the face of my SEO advice (which is to network), but networking doesn’t mean you should cold-call everyone with a related site and ask for attention.  Sometimes networking is linking to people, but it’s also tweeting and working the community.  If you have a site about dog biscuits, hang out on the Milk Bone forum and talk to people.  If someone has a question about the best biscuits for an old dog missing teeth, and you know you wrote a great post to it, you link to it.  “Hi, Bob.  My dog is 16 and he’s got no teeth on the right side, I know your pain!  I spent a lot of time researching this problem, and hopefully this will help you. Link.”

    Look at that!  You were nice, polite, and helpful!  It’s even better if you stick around and talk to Bob some more, if he needs it.  You’re building your reputation in a productive and constructive way.(Yes, it’s a lot of work.  If you haven’t caught on to that yet, I also have a bridge for sale …)  The most important part is that you told Bob why your link was going to help him.  You put up some cred and you didn’t make it too long.

    When you think about it, the best way to get people to link to you is to get them interested in your site. The best way to get them interested in your site is to make content of value. Part of having a site with percieved value is having a site that attracts myriad walks of life. It’s a vicious circle. You have to get that foot in the door for people to notice you, and that’s what makes you popular.

    How do you get the foot in the door if you don’t want to spend all your time on related sites?

    You don’t.

    Look. If this was a brick and mortar company, you’d be advertising, wouldn’t you? You’d know you had to network your vegan dog biscuits to all the hippies and dog lovers out there, and you wouldn’t think twice about it. You’d hire that idiot kid to stand on the corner in a gorilla outfit handing out coupons, or spin a sign while dressed as a sandwich. You would spend money and time to introduce the world to your brand.

    The Internet is the exact same way. So when you cold-email someone and say ‘Hi, I really like your stuff! Will you link to me site?’ you need to bring your A Game. You need to sell your work, explain to me why you’re worth space on my site, and how come I should read your blog. Just saying ‘I, too, am a blog about vegan dog food!’ doesn’t cut it for the bigger sites. You can’t expect people to spend all their time checking out people they should link to, especially if you’re not already linking to them. Think of it like coming up with a good cover letter for your resume. You want people to read that page and go “Yeah, this cat is cool!”

    Your links make or break you, but more important than who links to you is who, and how, you link to others. If you link to every dog site in the world, links from you are worthless. If you’re discerning and link only to the ones that mean the most to you, or are the most like your own site, then you’ve shown the ability to tell the difference between any old site and one of value. You’ve made yourself worth something.

    And when you’re there, you won’t need ask people to link to you any more. That’s when you’ve made it.

    Just don’t think it’ll happen all in one day.

  • SEO “Experts” Are Lying To You (About Backlinks)

    SEO “Experts” Are Lying To You (About Backlinks)

    Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

    “For just $19.95, we offer hundreds of certified backlinks!”
    “Quality backlinks for your site!”
    “In just one week, we can make your site in Google Searches!”

    I see people ask, a lot, what the best WordPress plugin is to generate backlinks. And I always reply something like this: “The best way to get backlinks is to write good posts that people will link to and share.”

    But what is a backlink anyway? As obvious as it sounds, a backlink is a link from someone else’s site back to yours. So when I say things like “Yoast’s explanation on how BlogPress SEO Plugin generates spam is an invaluable resource”, I’ve linked back to his site and made a backlink. If he has pings on, he’ll see my remark and link, and it’ll show up on his site in the comments section.(I actually turn pings off, because of the high number of spammers and the low value it was giving me. If the only reason you’re linking to someone is to get the link BACK to your site, you’re doing something wrong, but that’s another blog post.) Backlinks, honest ones between two good sites, are great. I love getting linked to from CNN (it happened once) or other sites who like my writing. It’s a great compliment.

    However, people seem to think that backlinks are going to ‘generate SEO.’ First off, they’re not using the words correctly. SEO stands for ‘Search Engine Optimization.’ My first grown-up job, where I wasn’t just fiddle-farting around on the computer, was to optimize meta-data for sites to get them ranked first on AltaVista, so yes, I do know what I’m talking about here. Due to that early work, I’ve got pretty awesome Google-Fu, because I used to spend hours going over the specs for search engines, and reading up on how they worked, what their algorithmic engines were, and how to get legitimately good results for my key words. I also learned what keywords are useless.

    Back in the day, search engines would rate your site based solely on your self-contained content. One of the ways we would promote our sites would be to use hidden text or meta keywords that only the search engine would see. We’d list all the keywords related to our site about dog biscuits, and awesomely, we’d get rewarded. Naturally some people would shove totally irrelevant keywords in, to game the system for other searches. Which is why sometimes you’d search for ‘free range catnip’ and get a link for ‘wetriffs.com'(Note: wetriffs.com is NOT SAFE FOR WORK!). Today, no search engine relies on keyword meta data because of that (though most sites still include it).

    Nothing can ‘generate’ SEO, because by it’s nature, optimization isn’t something you generate. It’s something you can leverage and build on, but we don’t generate it. Backlinks are, certainly, a component in getting your site highly ranked on Google for your keywords, but you’re really not optimizing your site for backlinks by doing anything other than making good posts, if you think about it. Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but your page rank (i.e. how cool Google thinks you are) is going to be build on a few things, and while backlinks are one of them, it’s not everything.

    Here’s how you make a good site that’s highly ranked in Google:

    1. Write good content
    2. Include decent meta data in your site’s HTML (If you need help with that, check out Google’s page on Meta Tags.)
    3. Network with other (related) sites to share links
    4. Advertise

    So why do people get all fired up about backlinks? Google themselves say:

    Your site’s ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to you. The quantity, quality, and relevance of links count towards your rating. The sites that link to you can provide context about the subject matter of your site, and can indicate its quality and popularity.(Link Schemes – Google.com)

    Sounds great, doesn’t it? If a lot of people link back to me, like WikiPedia, then my content is proven to be good, and I win! You knew it wasn’t that simple, right? Google’s smart. They actually care about the quality and relevance of people linking to you! Heck, Google actually agrees with me when we both say the best way to get a good page ranking is to make good content. More to the point, those get-backlink-quick tools are going to engage in what basically amounts to spam, which will adversely impact your page ranking.

    Of course, there are good backlinks. Like mine to Yoast’s (not that he needs the ‘link juice'(The term ‘link juice’ is what we use to call the ‘value’ of a link coming back to our site. If I link to you, I give you ‘juice’ which boosts your page rank. In Yoast’s case, he doesn’t need any help, but I give it anyway.)). But the best way to get those is to get yourself known in your arena. People don’t link to new sites because they don’t know about them, so you need to get out there and get known. Talk to a site you admire (or people you admire) and ask them if they’ll read and review your site. Post your articles on twitter/facebook/digg/whatever and basically put in the sweat equity to make your site shine. And if that sounded like a lot of work for you, then you’re right. It is work. It’s hard work.

    The obvious question now is that if these so-called experts are telling you that they can generate hundreds of backlinks, what are they actually doing? They’re ripping you off. There’s no automatic, auto-generated, way to create backlinks. So if someone tells you that they can do it for $19.95, they’re not lying, but they are cheating you out of money, and giving you something useless. If you’ve fallen for one of those scams, I’d cancel that credit card ASAP. I have a horror story about a guy who got scammed and then ripped off for a couple grand.

    The lessons learned from this are pretty simple: There is no quick fix, no magic bullet, no perfect tool that will make you popular. You have to find your audience and pitch good content to them. You have to work hard and yes, this takes a lot of time and effort. Anyone who says differently is selling something. Of course, optimizing the hell out of your site (with caching software and minification and CDN) is a great thing to speed your site up, but at the end of the day, all advice in the world boils down to this: If there’s nothing here for people to read and find beneficial, your site is useless.

    Before you get depressed and think there’s nothing you can do to improve your site, I refer back to Joost de Valk. When people tell me they’re an SEO expert, I compare their website and work to Yoast, because in my opinion, he’s the example of what an SEO expert looks like and he doesn’t call himself an expert. He says he’s a ‘SEO and online marketer.’ Sounds to me like a guy with his head on staight. Pretty much everyone else I ignore. And he’s written the Ultimate SEO Guide and it’s free for anyone to use.

    SEO Folks I Would Hire (culled from my ‘Folks I’d Hire’ list):

  • Website Viewability

    Website Viewability

    The goal to make your site look cool, be easy for people to use, and be available for all, is a holy grail trifecta that is rarely achieved. Many times, you have to sacrifice one leg of the tripod in order to achieve your goals.

    The advent of Typekit has led to a lot of websites using cool custom fonts in a way that is supposed to solve that age old problem of what happens when you design your site with a font the end-user doesn’t have. For a very long time I couldn’t understand what the big deal was, since I often read these sites from work, and their fonts were all jaggedy and ugly. Then I fired up a site from home and was astounded at the difference.

    This is what I normally see when I go to TypeKit:

    This is what you’re supposed to see:

    I know it doesn’t look too bad, but basically what I don’t get are the nice, smooth, edges on fonts, so when I read a whole page like that, it’s hard on the eyes. TypeKit works by javascript, so arguably, it should work on all browsers with JS enabled (which is to say all modern browsers). I’m using Chrome (latest and greatest) and I get crap.

    That’s from Ed Jeavons’ Beyond web-safe fonts with Typekit, which is a great article. But the whole thing is unreadable to me because of that.

    So where is the break down here? TypeKit’s goal is to make their fonts work on every site, regardless of if you have the font installed on your server. Jeavons says “Typekit degrades gracefully so that anyone without JavaScript, or with a browser that doesn’t support the necessary features, will simply revert to your standard CSS rules.” If that was the case, shouldn’t I be seeing a better site?

    According to TypeKit, the problem is that the sites I’m seeing didn’t make good standard CSS rules. My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. After all, every site I go to has the exact same problem. So I turned off javascript and went back to the site:

    Now that looks like you’d expect graceful degradation! At this point, my answer is that something TypeKit does is unwelcome on my office computer. Or more likely, my office firewall. That’s a whole new kettle of fish. I can’t reasonably expect everyone to go find an office behind a firewall made of adamantium and test their site. But clearly this is not the fault of the individual site. Is it reasonable to expect TypeKit to look into this? I went on a search and found they have a cool little checker too typecheck which says I’m fine:

    There’s nothing in their FAQ or help desk that mentions Firewalls having this issue, so I decided to check out Google Web Fonts. Lo and behold, I get the same problem. Some more digging and I found someone who ‘fixed’ the problem using css. My Twitter friend @cgrymala suggested I also try ClearType, since I’m on Windows XP at work. That actually helped a lot (seriously, I cannot tell you how much nicer things look) but the main problem is still there.

    Where’s my problem? My problem is that TypeKit and Google Web Fonts, while they purports to be a one-size-fits-all/degrades-nicely app, are not. If you’re not on the forefront of technology, if you’re behind a firewall, if you’re on a weird setup, these things are not going to work. This is not really TypeKit’s or Google’s fault. They’ve done an amazing job setting things up so it works most of the time. At best, they could have their javascript detect browser and OS (yes, you can do these things) and if it’s IE 6 or Windows XP (for example), revert to the javascriptless version of the site.

    It’s nigh impossible to solve the firewall problem. You can’t detect the firewall easily, and part of the point of them is they obfuscate who and what they are. And if the problem is a combination of OS, browser and firewall, then the best you might be able to do is somehow detect if any one of those three are on the known ‘possible’ trouble list, and shunt them off to a non-js version. And now you’ve added a lot more load to your server.

    The best you can do is to avoid using these cool systems and features until they’re more supported, which is where the whole concept of sacrifice comes in. If it’s more important for you to have your site look cool than to work for everyone, you have to find a way to degrade better. For a long time I had an alert bar on my site to tell you that if you were using IE 6, you needed to upgrade. Going back further, we used to regularly make sites that said ‘Best viewed in Netscape Navigator.’ Thankfully sanity struck, web standards started to stick, and we began to design sites that looked good in most browsers.

    I cannot advocate a return to ‘Best viewed in…’, but I can suggest that if you’re relying heavily on cool, cutting edge, features, you also have a printer-friendly version of your site that runs without any of the bells and whistles.

  • Don’t Bother Disabling Right-Click

    Don’t Bother Disabling Right-Click

    Every now and then I see someone ask ‘How do I disable right-clicking on images on my site?’ My answer, invariably, is ‘You don’t.’ The real question I suppose is ‘How do I stop people from ripping off my work on the net?’ and the answer to that is still ‘You don’t.’

    Is it online? Yes? Then it can, and will, be stolen. Does that matter? Kind of. The only way to make your works un-steal-able is to never publish them anywhere.

    When the last Harry Potter book came one, some diligent nerd spent countless hours photographing every page of the book, uploaded it online, and oh look, we all knew how it ended. That did not stop everyone from buying the book though, and in the end, was pretty much an amusing footnote in the saga of Harry Potter. And anyone who thought Harry wouldn’t defeat Voldemort was clearly not paying attention.

    When I put my dad’s stuff up online, I told him it would be better to convert his PDFs to easily readable HTML. He didn’t want to because they could be stolen. I pointed out that the PDFs are actually easier to rip (download, done), and the HTML was just being generated by copy/pasting from the PDF anyway, so he was already there. The point was to make his work more accessible.

    Does this mean you shouldn’t protect your data? Of course not! But the point is if you publish it, online or offline, it can, and will, be stolen. The only thing online media does is make it ‘easier’ to steal and re-publish under someone else’s name. Without getting into the myriad laws of copyright, I want to point out that your publish work is only part of your brand. If someone steals a post I make here, yes, they’re taking away from my audience, but realistically, they’re not hurting my bottom line. The reason you’re here, reading my posts, is because I’ve reached you. Either you read my social media outlets, my RSS feed, or you know me and follow me directly. But the people who are going to read this, you, are here because of work I’ve already done. The work I continue to do keeps you here, and you become my promoters. The only thing the thieves do is hurt my search engine rankings, and not even that in my experience. A brand is more than just your work. It’s you, your image, your representation. Spending all your time worrying about your SEO ranking means you’re missing the point. Of course a high result on a Google Search is important, but that’s just one piece of the pie.

    Someone is bound to tell me that all of this is nice and dandy, but why, technically, is it a bad idea to try and protect your media/data?

    Disabling right-clicks prevents people from being able to download your media. If I then view the page source, I get the URL of your image, load that into a new browser window, and download your stuff. Or I can drag-and-drop the image to my desktop, if you disable view-source. Those don’t work? Why not check the cache of what my browser automatically downloaded when I visited your page? Or how about a screen shot of what’s active on my screen right now? That’s all stuff I can do without even needing to be code-savvy.

    Google for “download image when right click is disabled” and you’ll get millions of hits. There’s no way to protect your media, once it’s online. The best you can do is to brand it in such a way that even if someone does get a copy, it is permanently marked as ‘yours’. Watermarks are the normal way to do this and probably the only ‘good’ way to do it, as they tend to be the hardest thing to remove.

    Don’t bother disabling right-click, or trying to stop people from downloading/stealing your stuff. Don’t put it online unless you’re willing to have it nicked. Make your brand identifiable with your site, and people will know to come to you.

  • Blocking IPs – Don’t

    Blocking IPs – Don’t

    Here’s the thing. I don’t think blocking an IP address is a good idea.

    Will it prevent spammers from registering on your site? Yes. But much like CAPTCHA, I think it does more harm than good.

    See, IP addresses are numerical labels assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. Big words. Shorter version: The IP address is the phone number. DNS is Caller ID. When you dial ‘Home’ on your cell-phone, the phone translates that into a number and dials, right? Well on the internet, you say “I want to go to ipstenu.org” and it’s DNS that says “Okay, my big bad directory says that’s 67.227.208.52 so here you go!” (actually it says “You want extension on 67.227.208.52” if I can stretch that metaphor).

    The IP address for websites is pretty static. Just as most of us don’t want to change our phone numbers and teach all our parents new contact info, we don’t want to have to update all the DNS servers in the world with our new IP address. It’s a pain in the ass, it takes up to 72 hours to propogate to everyone (usually less), but that still means there’s a period of time where people can’t get to your website.

    This is all over-simplified, but you get the gist.

    Here’s where it gets weird. In order for the internet to know who YOU are and send you back the website you asked for, it has to assign you an IP address. And this changes. A lot. Most ISPs (the people who give you access to the net for moneies) have a ‘range’ of IP addresses which numbers less than the number of people they have who pay for internet access. In order to make sure everyone can get on, when you connect to the net, you get a new IP. Back in the day of dial-up, every time you dialed in, you had a new IP. This was normal, and was one of the many reasons no one bothered to block by IP. All the idiot had to do was reconnect. These days, my IP changes about once a week or so, and I have no idea when or why, but it does. That doesn’t bother me.

    Lately, I’ve gotten complaints and requests to make Ban Hammer or Register IP MS block people by IP address. And after playing with that a bit, I’ve decided I won’t. Not because I can’t (it’s really not that hard, and actually, Ban Hammer already does it for Single Site WordPress by accident), but because I don’t think it adds any value. The IP address can change too easily to make this a useful tool, and the odds are I’m going to accidentally block someone who should be able to access the site!

    This is not to say I don’t block IP addresses at all, just that I don’t do it the way people seem to want to go about it. Maintaining my own blacklist of IPs is insane, and stupid. I don’t need to waste my time clicking and banning spammers or auto-register bots. Instead, I block IPs using one of two tools that was designed to look for bad behavior. I detailed all this in Spam / Splog Wars. That’s how I stop spammers and it works.

    So no, I will not be wasting my time telling you how to edit my plugins to block people from the IP level. There are perfectly good ways of doing this that work without you having to field complaints from innocent users.

    Block the bots, not the people.