I’ve just stumbled across an article on Webcredible’s site, saying that now web usability is common place, web credibility is the ‘new’ differentiating factor between websites. Why the quote marks? Because I’ve just realised the article’s from 2004, after posting it to Twitter. Oops.
However, the comment still stands. People DO judge an organisation’s credibility based on its website (don’t you?). People form an opinion in an instant when visiting a new site, taking it with them when they leave, probably never to return again if it’s not good. You only get one chance, two if you’re lucky.
One of the criteria listed in the article is ‘Your website needs to have an air of professionalism and confidence’. How to get this? According to Webcredible, ‘crisp, professional layout with sharp graphics…free information…no dead links…an automated confirmation email when someone contacts you’.
The writer acknowledges that there are ‘many more’. I think there’s a glaring omission here though, which is more important than the other poor little items relegated to the ‘many more’ group. Well-written, error-free, interesting and relevant copy!
What’s more credible to you: a site that’s littered with spelling errors and articles stuffed with key words or a site that’s easy-to-read with uninterrupted, easy-to-understand text?
I’d say the answer’s obvious.
Posted: January 29th, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Last night, I was searching for the Facebook ‘page’ and ‘group’ of a freelance PR and marketing networking website that I have a profile on. The website appears to be moderately successful, judging by the number of individuals listed.
When I found the correct page and group, I was surprised to see that each had only three and two members respectively. As my mouse hovered over the ‘join’ button on the group profile, I saw the list of ‘related groups’ that the administrator had chosen. I immediately decided against it. Why?
Consider the message your ‘related groups’ send about your organisation
As you know, when you join a Facebook group, it shows up on your personal profile for your ‘friends’ and networks to see. If I had joined and they had then visited this group to see what I was supporting, they too would have noticed the list of related groups. These include a number of very political and right-wing causes, which I do not advocate and do not want to be seen to.
Facebook is in the interesting position of being a ‘cross-over’ social network. By this, I mean it began as a means of personal expression, but has gradually attracted the attention of businesses and organisations as they have realised its marketing potential. In addition, our ‘friends’ are not just our friends; they often include work colleagues and business contacts too.
If they’re not relevant, separate your personal interests from those of your business
The administrator of this particular group has made an error by confusing his organisation’s interests with those of his own. He’s alienated a vast majority of an audience that would certainly have an interest in the group and its aims, but not his personal causes and preferences. They should be kept to his individual profile for his own contacts to see.
This is currently a wasted opportunity and shows a surprising lack of foresight from a network that should, in theory, know all about PR and how best to market itself. It should replace the current groups with links to groups that really are related, of use and of interest to its potential audience. Then the network might see its Facebook membership numbers grow.
I’ve had a quick look online to see if there was any guidance concerning Facebook use for companies, in terms of marketing. Most of what I could find only concerned how to protect themselves in the face of employee Facebook use. If you know of any good guides, add a comment to share them here.
Posted: January 23rd, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: Social networking | Tags: business, facebook, social networks | No Comments »
I’m not one of those people who’s averse to using an exclamation mark. I also like commas, apostrophes and all the other types of punctuation. I don’t apologise if this sounds a bit geeky; I write for a living, so it’s right that I have an interest in how to use them to their best effect.
So, I’ve just started reading Lynne Truss‘s book, Eats, Shoots and Leaves (2003). It’s been on my mind to get hold of a copy for a little while, as it received quite a mixed reception when it was first published. Okay, it may not be for everyone, but I’m really enjoying it. The book’s a very interesting, curious account of modern-day applications of punctuation and where it all stemmed from.
It’s not an in-depth history of the development of each mark, but more of a cheerful narration on where many of them started and why they’re so necessary to our understanding of the written word. Leading on from that, the book also mentions how punctuation has contributed to different interpretations of texts, such as the Bible (even if it is a very simplified explanation!).
Truss’s tongue-in-cheek style is self-deprecating and observes the little quirks that, I suspect, many writers suffer from. If you always comment on badly-punctuated notices and signs to long-suffering friends and family (or just to your inner self, because they already refuse to come out with you), you’ll like this too.
Read some reviews and buy it online from the wonderful Amazon.
Posted: January 21st, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: Grammar and punctuation, Writing style | Tags: books, lynne truss, punctuation | No Comments »
I’m conscious about the footprint I leave on the environment and am always interested in ways to reduce it further. This applies to both my everyday life and my work (I use a green web host). As a freelancer who works mostly from home, I don’t have to worry about a carbon-emitting trip to and from an office. However, due to this and the fact I write copy for websites, I rely on having my computer on nearly all day, every day.
So, I was interested to read Leo Hickman’s article, ‘How green is your computer?’. It provides some interesting background to the efforts that computing giants such as Google and Intel are making to reduce the effects of computing on the environment. The article leads in with some research on the carbon generated every time someone runs a Google search. While the results appear to be in dispute currently, they do make you think. I don’t know about you, but I often find it all too easy to just sit at my (small, clean, quiet) laptop without really thinking about what’s powering it.
I joined up to the Clean Energy Project some weeks ago (you may have seen the Tweet if you follow me on Twitter). This project harnesses the power of idle computers around the world to carry out calculations that will help to identify organic molecules for efficient solar cells. By sharing this task and using computers that are already on, emissions are reduced significantly. Something similar in the UK is the government-funded GRID Computing Now! initiative.
Other interesting organisations (both US based) include the Climate Savers Computing Initiative and Greener Computing, which is an environmentally-responsible computing news site. I’ve had a look for some similar organisations closer to home, but with no luck.
However, here are some other resources that might be of interest (although there’s not much out there that’s very recent). If you know of any other useful sites or articles, send ‘em over. Do you have any tips for other freelancers or people working from home? Send them too!
Posted: January 15th, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: Green computing | Tags: environment, Green computing | No Comments »
