Why is this site a flop?

Murray R. Van Luyn wrote...

SUCCESS! Well a much improved website performance at least. Since adding a
toy robot face and some tiny toy images to fill up the blank space on the
opening page, things have improved. There are still plenty of visitor still
bailing out at the first page, but it's not everyone like before. Most
people seem to be taking a bit of a look inside the site, and some are there
for quite a while. I couldn't be happier.

Have you considered that at least some of those visitors are readers of

these newsgroups, checking out your site to see what the discussion is
about?
--
Martin Clark

Murray R. Van Luyn wrote...

"Martin Clark" <martin (AT) spl (DOT) at> wrote in message
Have you considered that at least some of those visitors are readers of
these newsgroups, checking out your site to see what the discussion is
about?

Yes, thank you Martin. I'm not too upset about the many people that are
still taking a quick look at the opening page and then bailing, as I imagine
there will be a good number of readers from this newsgroup just popping in
the see what's going on. I still have to address the possibility that some
of these short duration visitors have JavaScript turned off, or are having
other problems with the JavaScript menu. The situation has much improved
over how it was early yesterday, though. I'm ecstatic.

Glad to hear it! If only all website problems were so easy to solve and

produce ecstatic results!

Isn't CSS confusing at first? Never mind, I'm making headway.

Confusing? I should say so! Now that you are seeing the possibilities,

I'm sure you'll be eager to ditch your table-based layout and use CSS
for that as well. That's when the fun really starts!
--
Martin Clark

Hi Chris,

"Chris Beall" <Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> wrote

Hmmm, I just have to ask: are you sure your logs are accurate?

Pretty sure. I had a reasonably good squiz and all I could find were search
engines looking at everything, and a few people who just downloaded the
index.

- The domain name led me to think this would be a place where I could
review a gadget. Nothing on the home page shows me how I would do that.
If YOU are going to review the gadgets for me, then a better domain name
would be GadgetReviews.whatever.

Yep, that was my first choice too. Unfortunately I was years too late.
'Review A Gadget' does sound more like somewhere you go to write a review.
Oh well, I'll think a little bit harder before I register the next domain
name.

- While everything in the navigation menu could be considered to be a
gadget (though I'm dubious about spy cameras), there are many types of
gadgets that are not present. All of the ones you have (again excepting
spy cameras) seem to qualify as Toys. Perhaps visitors were interested in
kitchen gadgets, or garden gadgets, or automotive gadgets...

Yep, all toys so far. I'm just warming up. Once I get the search engine, and
all the other site problems sorted out, then I hope to add some more
'gadgety' stuff. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I just love toys!

- "FACT - you will save 30% to 50% by buying online." So? Assuming this
is true, why is it so prominent? My immediate response is, "This isn't
about gadgets or reviews, this guy is trying to sell me something, not
just inform me." Of course, looking at the rest of the page, I see no
evidence to support that impression (no cart, no 'Order here'), but that
just leaves me a bit puzzled.

I few people have said the same thing. I'm definitely open to suggestions
about the opening text. Someone mentioned that the contents of the
description tag would be more appropriate. It reads "REVIEW A GADGET - Find
out about all the most popular and most highly recommended techno-toys,
gifts and gadgets, all in the one place." Yes, the sales pitch isn't going
to work here. Maybe I should save that for an 'about us' page.

- If many of your visitors are from the US, they may be confused by
'stockists'; 'merchants' would be better (unless that confuses Brits).

Yes, my main target viewer is an American female buying Christmas presents.
I have just no idea how to write for such a person, but I'm trying to
Americanise the spelling at least. Thanks for the tip. Merchants it will be
from now on.

- The navigation includes 'Bookmark'. I didn't click it. If it means
'Bookmark this site' it should say so. Or better, not be there at all. If
people want to bookmark your site, they know how to do it. If they click
here thinking it's something else, they won't be happy that you messed
with 'their' bookmarks.

Most sites with a bookmark link seem to call it something like 'bookmark us'
or 'bookmark site'. If it's a little clearer then I really should do the
same.

- There's a big white space between the thumbnails and the 'site map'. It
looks like something was accidentally left out, hence unprofessional.

- The site map is just a list of currently-available reviews. What would
this page look like if you had 2000 of them? I'd move the site map to its
own page, with just a link on the home page.

Oh, I wish that sitemap weren't necessary. It's just not pretty and I'm
really trying hard to hide it by putting it that far down the page. You're
right, it doesn't look so good like that. I'll fix it. All these horrible
sitemap and popular pages tables are there just to redistribute PageRank to
where it needs to be within the site. Make the links invisible or nearly
visible and the page drops off the search engine. I guess I'm stuck with
them, but as I get into CSS a little further, they should improve a little I
hope.

- "This page visited xx times". That's of interest to YOU, but not ME.
Again, I view this as a sign of amateur work.

Yes, the consensus seems to be to log the data, but not to display it. Not
even in the fine print.

- I turned off JavaScript and loaded the page again. Oops, there's no
navigation at all! I could use the site map, I suppose, but that's at the
bottom of the page, below that big white space, so I won't see it until I
scroll. [Security folks often recommend that users turn off JavaScript to
avoid malicious scripts. Some users actually follow this advice. On your
site, such visitors will probably arrive at the home page, see no way to
navigate further, and leave. Hmmmm.]

Yes, the JavaScript menu is scheduled for replacement with a pure CSS
version. I've just learnt that you could do that. That should fix the
problem with JavaScript security aware visitors not seeing a menu and
leaving, as well as 800 x 600 FireFox users getting the menu plonked square
in the middle of the homepage.
http://www.auluk.freeserve.co.uk/pictures/reviewagadget.jpg

And now some questions, on behalf of the group. You said, "Since I have
made changes to my website it's been a complete flop." What changes did
you make? Was the site a success before you made them? If so, why did
you change it? Have you tried removing the changes one at a time and
observing user response?

This was the old site.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/Reviews/index_old.php It was just
supposed to be a way for me to easily submit a bunch of disparate pages to a
search engine, and then to easily see how they were going. I really had no
intention of ever putting together any sort of website. It just sort of
dragged me down that path with each new discovery I made about search
engines and ranking.

Once I get all the problems that I'm just now discovering sorted out, then I
should be able to get a baseline site performance figure. Hopefully I will
then be in a much better position to accurately gauge the effect of
individual changes. That's an important point you're making and I'll keep it
in mind in future, but for just now chaos seems to want to reign.

One problem here is that you've asked US to deduce why a bunch of OTHERS
don't stay on your site. It would be a bit of work, but you COULD put a
prominent box near the top of the home page that says something like:
"STOP! If you are leaving this site without looking into it further,
PLEASE take a moment and *let us know why*. We really want to do better."

The "let us know why" would, of course, link to a contact form, perhaps
tailored to repeat the same question and not requiring a user to provide
their email address. You might learn something that none of us will ever
catch.

Yes, I've read of website owners popping up a survey form and offering small
rewards for just that sort of invaluable feedback when a customer leaves a
site without making a purchase. That's definitely who I need to speak to.
I'm not exactly sure how to go about such a feat, though. I've had some
really good feedback from this group so far. Perhaps if after I've fixed
some of the things that I need to do, and if the problems then persist, then
maybe I should give it some serious thought.

Thanks for all the effort you've put into your input Chris. It's very much
appreciated.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.
--
http://www.review-a-gadget.com/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/

Hi Eric,

"Eric Lindsay" <NOwebmasterSPAM (AT) ericlindsay (DOT) com> wrote in message

I've heard talks about web sites by Russ Weakley, whose CSS menus you
have already found at http://css.maxdesign.com.au/

If I can find the notes I took, I'll write some of them up.

He seems to be promoting the idea that first of all you get the text
content to be the right mix of information and promotion. If someone
comes to your site wanting information about a specific known item, they
want quick access to that item - however if they have that much
knowledge, a search engine probably sent them to the right page for that
item in the first place. So some of your pages need informative material
about the gadgets that interest you. Review a few for real, pointing to
strengths and weaknesses (sure, you may not sell a model with
weaknesses, but it might get people into your site). Become trusted by
buyers for real information, not just sales blurbs. Write about things
that interest you about what you are selling. The search engines will
love you. Especially if other people interested in the same gadgets link
to your site.

Russ Weakley's perspective sounds interesting. It's clear that I need to get
a bit more input concerning the actual copy on the site. I'm supposed to be
writing for American ladies buying Christmas presents. I have just no idea
how to do that. All the stuff I've read so far was sales pitch oriented.

I agree, I need to position myself as the trusted expert making genuine
product endorsements. Sales blurbs just don't do that. Product feature and
benefit information might be closer to the mark.

Then get the HTML right. All the obvious things folks here will tell you
about.

Like the right Doctype. On a new site, that just about has to be HTML
4.01 Strict. XHTML served correctly isn't handled well by IE6 or 7, so
there is no point (yet) in moving to XML.

Valid HTML, so the browsers know what you were trying to write. Don't
make it hard for browsers with badly written HTML.

Make sure you have a title in the head of your HTML (it is required by
HTML). Not only do some search engines like it, but when people save
bookmarks, the title is usually what shows in their bookmarks. Don't
waste a title on a company name, or something vague like "Introduction"
Use something very specific like "Gadget XYX use and specifications -
company name" Not too many words.

Semantic use of headings. Search engines love h1. If the title says
Gadget XYZ specifications, then the h1 should have something very
similar. A single h1 only per page, thank you. A paragraph after it with
a bit more about Gadget XYZ.

If you run to a h2, then make it a relevant sub-topic, and have some
text after it about the h2. Consider a couple of h2 headigs. For
example:

h2 Using Gadget XYZ
Gadget XYZ is used in farnargling practice, by level three apprentice
padawars.

h2 Gadget XYX Specifications
Gadget XYZ specifications now include an advanced self sealing snorkel
for river crossings, plus optional dragon dropping containers to confuse
tracker dogs.

If you want the name of your site in big letters, just style something
else to display your company name in big letters. An h2 or h3 is often
appropriate, and can be displayed larger than the h1 by CSS.

You might want to also look up semantic web. Here is a quick outline
from someone just discovering it.
http://fadtastic.net/2006/10/19/the-semantic-code/
It works. Google likes it. I think a lot of readers like it also.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Ah, this is all the stuff I've been going nuts with for the past month.
Trying to figure out the best use of things like titles, meta and heading
tags etc. It's really important for me personally to conquer the search
engine rankings challenge. I believe that doctypes are pretty important when
you start to incorporate CSS as I soon hope to, and then appropriately
validated HTML becomes a consideration as well. I've got a bit of work to do
on the HTML it seems. I'll leave that until I've got the CSS flyout menu
that is to replace the current JavaScript one working. By then I should know
better what doctype to validate the HTML against.

Thanks for your input Eric. I'll look forward very much to seeing the notes
you made from Russ Weakley's talks if you are able to locate and post some
of them.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.
--
http://www.review-a-gadget.com/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/

In article <45ad46cb$0$27896$5a62ac22 (AT) per-qv1-newsreader-01 (DOT) iinet.net.au>,
Murray R. Van Luyn <vanluynm (AT) NOSPAM (DOT) iinet.net.au> wrote:

It seems you need 2 versions of anything you do in CSS. One for ie6, and one
for all the others.

And one for Opera. It's hard to tell the proportion of Opera users,
because that browser spoofs the IE User-Agent identification string.
I've noticed minor differences in the way Opera displays things,
plus one quirk in failing to set proper default coordinates for
hidden block elements.

-A

Murray R. Van Luyn wrote...

It seems you need 2 versions of anything you do in CSS. One for ie6, and one
for all the others. I'm busy downloading FireFox right now, and will be
testing the new CSS menu and everything else I do on both browsers from now
on.

On the contrary, you should be able to do one version that will work
properly in all browsers, as long as the design is not too complicated.

You are better off getting it to work in something like Firefox, which
is standards compliant, and then doing any tweaks necessary to keep IE
happy, than the other way around.
--
Martin Clark

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:58:20 -0800, "Murray R. Van Luyn"
<vanluynm (AT) NOSPAM (DOT) iinet.net.au> wrote:

I'm not sure what em's are just yet,

To perhaps oversimplify, an "em" is the size of the current default
font. Which if you haven't changed it will, for normal text, be the
size of the user's preferred font, or at least the one he doesn't hate
so much to have figured out how to change it. So if you don't redefine
the user's prefered font size you are least likely to offend him by
making your page hard to read.

Fonts other than the user's prefered default are best used sparingly and
for effect. It's common to use a serif font like Georgia for headings,
for example. Best to stay away from serif fonts for general use though,
because on the sucky resolution of most computer monitors the little
serifs, meant to make the text easy to read by guiding the eye, actually
confuse the eye instead.

Hi Everyone,

"K A Nuttall" <keith (AT) yammer (DOT) coedotyoukay.invalid> wrote

Okay, I can see one reason why it may have done worse: no graphics.

Both layouts are too heavy on the links, but at least the old site had
a friendly face.

I'd suggest adding some stock clipart and/or images to the design, to
make it a bit friendlier.

SUCCESS! Well a much improved website performance at least. Since adding a
toy robot face and some tiny toy images to fill up the blank space on the
opening page, things have improved. There are still plenty of visitor still
bailing out at the first page, but it's not everyone like before. Most
people seem to be taking a bit of a look inside the site, and some are there
for quite a while. I couldn't be happier.

I've still got a long way to go and a lot of work to do, but thank you all
for the invaluable feedback and advice that has set me back on the right
course. Wonderful!

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.

--
http://www.review-a-gadget.com/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/

Hi Martin,

"Martin Clark" <martin (AT) spl (DOT) at> wrote

Have you considered that at least some of those visitors are readers of
these newsgroups, checking out your site to see what the discussion is
about?
--
Martin Clark

Yes, thank you Martin. I'm not too upset about the many people that are
still taking a quick look at the opening page and then bailing, as I imagine
there will be a good number of readers from this newsgroup just popping in
the see what's going on. I still have to address the possibility that some
of these short duration visitors have JavaScript turned off, or are having
other problems with the JavaScript menu. The situation has much improved
over how it was early yesterday, though. I'm ecstatic.

Isn't CSS confusing at first? Never mind, I'm making headway.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn
--
http://www.review-a-gadget.com/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/

Hi Martin,

"Martin Clark" <martin (AT) spl (DOT) at> wrote

Which browser does the misaligned menu occur with?

Firefox, which is fairly popular. The same problem does not seem to
happen when I looked in IE6.

Good grief! FireFox appears to be used by nearly 30% of all websurfers. I
had no idea. Thank you so much for alerting me to the problem I was having
with FireFox. I would never have though to try the site out with FireFox. I
just didn't know it was so popular.

It seems you need 2 versions of anything you do in CSS. One for ie6, and one
for all the others. I'm busy downloading FireFox right now, and will be
testing the new CSS menu and everything else I do on both browsers from now
on.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.
--
http://www.review-a-gadget.com/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/