SiteProNews

Internet Forums are highly popular, they cater for all tastes and deal with every topic imaginable. People visit Internet forums for a variety of reasons, the most common being the search for information or entertainment. The Internet forum is a safe environment if you behave sensibly but you can find yourself in dangerous territory if you ignore the following warnings.

Don’t Join Internet Forum Flame Wars

An Internet Forum flame war is to be avoided at all costs. The airing of differing points of view, debate and discussion are healthy things for an Internet forum: they keep it lively. An Internet forum flame war can make entertaining reading but don’t be tempted to join in or start one. If you make a habit of leaping into forum flame wars, you will acquire a reputation as a trouble-maker and you could find yourself barred from a forum because of your behaviour. Another good reason for avoiding forum flame wars is that you could find yourself caught in the crossfire. Before you know it, people will be firing at you from every direction when all you intended to do was have a bit of fun.

Don’t Make Jokes On An Internet Forum

Well, you can if you really must, but remember that the Internet forum has the same drawback as email: the reader can’t see your expression or gestures. The smile, shrug or grimace which can lift your comment from serious to humorous will be missing and your message will be something which the reader has to interpret. If the reader gets it wrong, you might very well find that you just started your very own Internet forum flame war quite unintentionally. You can safely tell a joke on a forum (provided that your joke’s content is appropriate) but sarcasm and irony are dangerous and best avoided.

Don’t Be An Internet Forum Drama Queen

The Internet forum is not a suitable stage for you to perform your very own drama. If you flounce about making extravagant statements merely for effect, you will be the object of ridicule by other forum members even if nobody tells you so. If you are a member of a support forum for a particular programme, it is quite in order to post a message to the forum saying something along the lines of “I’ve started to feel unsure about [whatever], I don’t think it’s going to work out unless I make some changes. Can anybody suggest what I should try next?” Compare this to the next post in drama queen style: “I quit! This Sucks. I’ve done everything right so it must be this ****ing programme. You will never hear from me again!” Which forum member would you want to help? There will be kind people who feel the drama queen’s pain and offer support and suggestions. When the drama queen makes a big re-entrance to the forum after a few days sulking, posts “I’m back!” and expresses a resolve to work diligently towards success, the kind people who offered support will feel that their advice must have done the trick. When the forum drama queen posts another “Goodbye Forever!” message, the same kind people will empathise as the drama queen is obviously being affected by an emotional roller coaster and they will offer further sound advice. The kind forum members will be pleased when the drama queen makes a further “I’m Back And Here To Stay!” recovery. By about the third or fourth “I Quit!” drama, even the kindest people will be wishing the drama queen had stayed quit the first time round and Internet forum credibility for the drama queen ends there.

Don’t Be An Internet Forum Puppy

A real puppy can’t help chasing after everything that moves, getting under people’s feet and being hyperactive to the point where it sometimes becomes annoying: that’s just its nature. The Internet forum member who behaves like a puppy can help it and should desist. I am talking about the person who joins an Internet forum for the sole purpose of getting the links in his signature file on the forum as often as possible. The annoying forum puppy will respond to every message posted whether he knows anything about the subject or not. He will post messages which are of no value to anyone, these messages will range from boring pointless observations to obscure drivel to requests to poll an unimportant question which bears no relevance to the forum. If you are desperate to plaster your signature file all over the place, join lots of Internet forums and just post a few messages on each. With any luck, you will grow out of this time-wasting pursuit before the other forum members form a lynching party.

Don’t Be An Internet Forum Seconder

Have you ever come across Mr Me Too? If you have, you will know who I mean. He is about as annoying as the Internet forum puppy. Mr Me Too will post a response to every thread that appears on a forum. It won’t take him long as he won’t bother to read through the thread, all he will do is add a comment saying “me too” or “I agree”. This gets his signature file posted with the link back to his website and that’s all he wants. Mr Me Too does not go to the Internet forum for entertainment or information or to contribute anything useful. If you are subscribed to a forum thread and receive notification that someone has posted a further message on the topic, it is very irritating to log in at the forum only to find that someone has posted a message saying “me too” or “I agree” just to give his signature file an airing. It is sadly true that the Internet forum puppy and Mr Me Too will get their links on the Internet alongside the forum members who post meaningful messages. When the day arrives that Search Engine Robots are able to distinguish the difference between valuable forum messages and drivel, those two offenders will find that it’s pay back time for their transgressions.

Don’t Attack The Internet Forum Moderators

If you have a message removed or edited by an Internet forum moderator, there will be a reason, so don’t post complaints on the forum. Even if you don’t understand or don’t agree with the decision, there is no point in arguing. Attacking a moderator is like holding up a placard saying “I’m a pest, throw me out”. The moderators are there to ensure the Internet forum is kept to the required standard. Remember that somebody owns this forum and invests time and energy in keeping the environment — well — moderate. The Internet forum is not your private sand-pit, you are a guest and if your behaviour is not appropriate, your invitation to play could be withdrawn. You should also remember that anything you post on an Internet forum will be available for public scrutiny for years to come.

The dictionary definition of the verb to moderate is: “to keep within measure or bounds; to regulate; to reduce in intensity; to make temperate or reasonable”. If this does not sound like your kind of environment, perhaps you should stay away from Internet forums.

Author:  To find sources of legitimate work at home ideas, visit Elaine Currie’s Work At Home Directory - while you are there, pick up a free copy of Ezine Article Writing - 10 Steps To Success http://www.huntingvenus.com/eceboo.htm

Since Search Engine Strategies San Jose has just past us, we thought it would be interesting to get the low-down on what it takes to actually manage an SES conference.

Andrew Goodman, author of “Winning Results with Google AdWords”, editor at Traffick.com, founder of Page Zero Media, a frequent speaker at industry conferences, and conference chairman at SES Toronto, was kind enough to chat with me in Toronto.

I have to say that Toronto had one of the best SES conferences I’ve been to. The keynote speech by Seth Godin was phenomenal, and Andrew made some changes that made me (an occasional conference wallflower) enjoy it even more!  - Pauline

Pauline: Let’s talk about the organizing. When you first got this opportunity did you have a bunch of new sessions in mind or was it sort of a brainstorming team effort? How did you come up with the new sessions?

Andrew: It evolved from past SES Toronto conferences. I had given input to Chris Sherman on past ones from previous evaluations of other panels. Overall, I think I had the anecdotal feedback from people in Toronto who had previous complaints that people had stumbled into panels that were too basic. There were people around the table trying to determine whether it should be more basic or less. My analysis of it was that we had the widest spectrum in Canada running the whole gamut.

All SES conferences have a large number of brand-new people who need to be given fundamentals — that’s what they’re paying for. So you need to keep that fundamentals track. You can’t just get rid of it and have this avant-garde SES advanced or whatever. I tried to track it so that it would stretch to have both — and maybe even be extreme. That way we could have a really basic kind of panel on SEO in a way that was fun, like one of the ones Jill sat on. (Is Content King? Is SEO “BS”? White Hat Hotseat) I didn’t attend it but I sensed it might have been fun and light to get people easing into understanding content in a more discussion-based format.

Pauline: Well, I thought when looking at the program that just by changing some titles of the sessions, things sounded a lot more entertaining. It was great to see some new presentations and content. It seemed like some speakers were kind of scrambling about putting finishing touches on new presentations, too!

Andrew: You’re absolutely right. I may have caused a lot of discomfort just by changing titles and revamping the descriptions or mixing it up slightly. I got this kind of weird reaction sometimes, “What’s this all about?” For instance, in the Purple Cow workshop, Rand Fishkin made this kind of “What’s going on?” gesture. The session was like a site clinic, only it was more about differentiation and cutting through the clutter and creativity and business ideas. I didn’t know how that would turn out, but I wanted to have a panel that followed Seth’s keynote that paid homage to one of Seth’s concepts. Of course, it turned out well, although it’s true that updating your material is hard. I don’t like to do it, but I do it all the time. People do appreciate new stuff.

Pauline: Yes, the banter I was hearing amongst the speakers made it seem like it was their first time! I thought that was brilliant. But I think all in all people were very happy that the sessions were really great. Was that your main job in putting this whole thing on? Paying attention to the content and who’s going to speak? What was your actual role in putting this whole thing together?

Andrew: It started there. It does involve a lot of adjusting and interacting with the speakers. But it also involves finding speakers, and that’s a fun thing because there’s a process. Either people are pitching or you’re finding the ones that have already presented. This was all new to me. So I think again with so few tracks there’s an interesting thing that happens. I mean, I certainly proactively contacted some people, but it was getting full and I just didn’t get to contact a lot of the old familiar and awesome speakers that I know personally. Also a lot of people who pitched wanted to know why they didn’t get on, and I suppose that’s something I’ve never experienced before. Often there’s no good reason, it’s just that we proactively went after 3 or 4 people, because in our heads we thought that would make for a dynamic panel. So there’s no reason. Nobody had done anything wrong in their pitch. We just thought, “Let’s try this,” and we already had enough people. So this aspect was kind of interesting.

Pauline: So there are some politics involved. Saying no must be tough too. Did you get a lot of people pitching to you?

Andrew: Yeah, and I was pleased with that specifically. I don’t have experience receiving pitches for Chicago or elsewhere — I’ve never had that experience, but for Toronto, what Chris and I noticed for the first few years was that we were trying to find people. The marketing community in Canada didn’t know SES and SES didn’t know the people. And that included companies. So we didn’t get many pitches in the past. We’ve started to get them now. Most potential speakers don’t know where the blog is that tells you the dates to pitch. I’ve had friends say, “Well, you know the organizers, and you were helping with SES Toronto 2 years ago, so can I just get on?” And I’ll say, “Look, I have to pitch just like everyone else at San Jose, etc. It’s the same thing. There’s this page with the instructions and the dates, and everyone should pitch according to plan.”

Pauline: Did you have anyone speaking who was doing so for the first time?

Andrew: Quite a number actually.

Pauline: Oh, good.

Andrew: I think it’s important even though people don’t do their very best job the first time out. I didn’t my first 6 times out. And I remember Danny noted in 2001, my first time speaking at SES, that I’d been nervous. That can detract, but people become very good with practice. Rebecca Kelley of SEOMoz was a first-time SES speaker; it was very well received. It’s obviously because she does SEO for a living. She has the fundamental info. There are also a number of local speakers I’ve gotten to know and did proactively seek out. I sat down with them and asked what they could contribute. Some of them had new ideas, which helped me decide that these panels were going to work out!

Pauline: OK, switching gears, do you have any plans to write another book or an update to “Winning Results with Google AdWords”?

Andrew: Yeah, I’m under contract to write a second edition with the same publisher. That’s behind schedule — catastrophically so, maybe. My colleague Mona has just completed a new report; it’s about Yahoo, which is the second-most important company in this space. [see “Stuff You Might Like” below]

Pauline: So, she’s got Yahoo and you’ve got Google.

Andrew: Yeah, I know, her topic is harder.

Pauline: That’s all I have, thanks Andrew.

Andrew: You’re welcome, Pauline.

Author:  Pauline Kerbici is the Director of Marketing of High Rankings, a search marketing firm outside of Boston, Massachusetts. She co-founded SEMNE, a New England search marketing networking organization in 2006 and holds an MA, Integrated Marketing Communications from Emerson College.

“I’m so glad I don’t manage Wiki, it’s like having squabbling kids high on sugar in the back of a mini-van for 10 hours!” EvilGreenMonkey - Forums Editor, SearchEngineWatch

I have just spent two and a half hours on Google Chat with someone who does. Controversial, quick witted and damned by those she has banned from Wikipedia, Durova is a much maligned but multi-faceted character. She is also one of the most recognized names surrounding Wikipedia. As one of the more outspoken of 1302 or so Administrators, Durova has attracted a lot of heat for her ardent defense of the Encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

SiteProNews.com readers will recall Durova’s name from Ross Dunn’s article, “Is Wikipedia Corrupt?” which ran on Thursday August 9. In the piece, Durova’s name came up several times in relation to a dispute between herself and Gregory Kohs, an SEW Forums member who goes by the name of “thekohser”.  It was this dispute that caught the eye of several writers in the search marketing sector. Durova contacted me hoping that more open communication would help clear the air between the Administrators at Wikipedia and the search community.

The Chat-interview (transcript here) lasted far longer than either of us expected but, after speaking with Durova for such a long period of time, the conversation left me with a deeper respect for the work of the Wikipedians along with a deepened cynicism when reading the rantings of some of its detractors.

The interview covered over 13 pages (Arial, 10pt font) in a Word document. I’ve decided to reprint excerpts from it in this article along with a link to the full transcript.

To start the interview, I wanted to get some background on how the Wikipedia operates. I wanted a sense of structure, an understanding of how its hierarchy works to make and enforce decisions.

me: ok.  Is there a hierarchy of editors/volunteers at Wikipedia?

durova: Mostly it’s a meritocracy.

me: ok… a hierarchy based on merit

durova: In theory (I could show you a quote) an administrator’s opinion in a discussion carries no more weight than any other editor’s.

But certain tools have to be restricted for practical reasons.

me: k.

durova: There are tools I don’t have.

Checkuser, for instance, gives information about an account’s underlying IP address.  That’s very closely controlled for privacy reasons.

Likewise there’s a power called Oversight.  That’s done to erase personal disclosures.  Such as a twelve-year-old who posts her home address.

me: what are the various titles (ie: admin, editor, etc…) and how are they earned/granted

Sent at 11:10 AM on Wednesday

durova: Well, anyone’s an editor who edits the sight.  You could click the “edit” tab on an article and become an editor right now, if you haven’t already.

Here’s a page on administratorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

Administrators and bureaucrats are elected by community consensus.

Arbitrators are a combination of election and appointment.  The other positions are appointed either by Jimbo Wales or the arbitration committee.

me: TY:  my goal here is to help users understand the environment.

durova: Sure.

me: how does one get noticed by the community / stand for election?

how long are the terms?

durova: Arbitration is a three year term.  The others have no specific duration.

me: as an estimate, how long does the average editor/admin/arbitrator serve?

durova: Most arbitrators resign before the full three years.  It’s a very demanding position.

me: no doubt

durova: For the rest, people are as active as they want to be.  Wikipedia had 1302 administrators when I checked this morning.  About 2/3 of those are active.

Sent at 11:15 AM on Wednesday

me: so you are one of about 860?

durova: There’s a voluntary program called “Administrators open to recall.”  These are sysops who’ve pledged to go through a reconfirmation vote if enough other editors ask for it.  About 100 administrators participate in that program.  I’m one of them.

I could check that number if you like for accuracy, but about that.  Yes.

Here’s a link to the current votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA

me: ok. this is like a democratic method of deposing admins for the editors?

durova: There’s been talk of that.  Nothing formal has come out of it.  The arbitration committee handles instances of misconduct.  Occasionally they desysop someone.

me: I’d like to get back to that in a moment or two.

durova: Sure.

me: why would a candidate’s nomination be voted down or fail to reach consensus?

how do the voters (editors) know about each nominee?

durova: Well, there could be concerns about an editor’s overall experience or about their conduct.

me: is there a lot of thought put into voting by the editors?  Is there debate?

durova: These are discussions rather than raw votes.  Reasoning counts for a lot. If you’d like to take a moment and look at the current discussions you’ll see a cross section of how this plays out.

Next, I wanted to get a sense of how much work was involved for any given editor or administrator. As Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer run organization (there are only 7 paid staff at the WikiFoundation, none of which are directly involved in the administration or editing of Wikipedia), the amount of work varies from volunteer to volunteer.

me: what does the job of admin entail?  how much time commitment?

durova: Totally flexible.

I could spend ten hours a day or do nothing for a month.

me: yes but the work must pile up if Admins don’t dedicate time

durova: There’s usually enough of us to keep on top of things.  We could always use more help.

I asked for help collecting statistics on the workload.  One sec while I dig up an example.

me: k

durova: Here we go.  In August 2005 the site deleted about 1000 articles a day.

12 months ago the average was 3000 deletions a day.

By 6 months ago that average was 5000.

Another area that eats up a lot of administrative time is Recent Changes patrol.

me: so, on average, there could be up to 150,000 deletions a month

durova: In that neighborhood, yes.

One hundred and fifty thousand deletions a month!  No wonder there are some awfully angry people out there. Many of the complaints against Durova and other editors or administrators come from disgruntled contributors whose postings were deleted. As the popularity of Wikipedia continues to grow, and as search and Internet marketers find ways to use Wikipedia to get solid backlinks or a guaranteed placement for a commercially focused posting, the number of editorial deletions is increasing. Rapidly…

durova: Here’s a humorous look at vandalism patrol. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles

me: 150K deletions in a month indicates a lot of (what?)

durova: Well, one classic example is garage bands.

A group of friends start a band, try to get gigs, aren’t signed yet.

So one of them writes a Wikipedia article to try to get attention.

Unfortunately there aren’t any reliable sources to prove whether the article is something real or a hoax.  Just the band’s homepage, which can be spoofed.

So we delete that.  Happens all the time.

me: what is the test for reliability, credibility?

durova: For your readership, I should note that a certain percentage of those deletions are about non-notable people and businesses.

Let me give you a link to the notability guideline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

The links lead to detailed discussions for specific areas.

me: ty

durova: Here’s another important link, our articles for deletion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AFD

Right now there are 96 open discussions for businesses and organizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_%28Organisation%2C_corporation%2C_or_product%29

Deletions are not done lightly. There is an enormous amount of discussion surrounding whether to keep or drop a posting. Some specific debates can go on for several pages with tens of editors and administrators writing their opinion of each post. When a super-majority consensus of approximately 75% is reached, a decision is made.

me: what constitutes “consensus”?

durova: Usually, two-thirds.

But closure is complex.

It’s pretty obvious when someone joined up just to comment at a discussion.  Those opinions usually get discounted.

And a single editor’s post may get extra weight for raising one or more important points that the opposing side doesn’t answer.

I was still curious how an article or entry was considered by the editors. One of my personal concerns about Wikipedia is the growing work-load for a staff of volunteers. Wikipedia has become an important social institution with an extraordinary power of placement at Google. A similar thing happened to the Open Directory Project. It grew much faster than its editorial staff could manage.

me: What is the process an entry goes through when made?

(from editor/admin perspective)

durova: Well, each new edit gets listed at Recent Changes.  There’s a link to that at the far left of your screen (depending on which skin you use).

Here it is for simplicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges

Some of the volunteers hang out here to screen for vandalism or new articles that need deletion.

They also add categories if the article doesn’t have any categories.

me: I see over 50 new entries in the past minute or two

durova: Yep.

me: are the rate of entries per day growing?

durova: This isn’t my quote. “At a rate of four hundred words a minute, twenty four hours a day, a person could read nearly twenty million words in a month. In the month of July 2006, Wikipedia grew by over thirty million words. In other words, a sleepless fast reader could never catch up with Wikipedia’s new content. Reading the current incarnation at that rate would take over two years, and by the time they were done, so much would have changed with the parts they had already read that they would have to start over.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

me: ty

durova: np

me: so if the readers can’t keep up, how can the editors?

durova: Heh.

We do our best.

Some bots crawl the site to sniff out vandalism and copyright violation.

me: is there a tremendous backlog of unedited or unfiltered posts?

durova: Mostly Wikipedia keeps on top of it.

Watchlists are important.  I wrote about them in my last article for SEL.
 http://searchengineland.com/070807-085103.php

Even with a large number of volunteers, running the Wikipedia can be a frustrating, thankless task. Apparently, the Wikipedians have a very strong and supportive internal community. Though Durova’s name tends to draw heat outside the Wikipedia, reading posts by other admins and editors shows she has quite a bit of internal support.

durova: I’ve been hoping that better communication could reduce the frustration on all sides.

me: what frustration?

durova: 5000 deleted articles a day represents a lot of wasted time.

We all know that Wikipedia is a top Google return.  And of course the professionals in SEO and related fields pay attention to it.

me: oh yeah

durova: There are things you can do to achieve your goals that work within site standards without taking too much of your time.

Most of the professionals don’t know much about what these methods are.

And a lot of the things that get published in the mainstream press are written by people who don’t know Wikipedia very well.

me: What exactly do you mean?  Are you referring to the goals of a marketer or those of an editor?

durova: They may be well-intentioned, but they often misrepresent one or more aspects of site policy.  Their readers read those mistakes and follow them, then our volunteers have to go to work. Now in SEO your basic goal is to send readers to websites.  Would you say that’s a fair summary?

me: Absolutely. Increased traffic is the goal. That was generally done via search engines. Now, Wikipedia is sort of a search engine that has at least one guaranteed placement in Google SERPs

In this and a few other ways, Wikipedia is starting to remind me of the Open Directory project.  SEOs are going to pay a HUGE amount of attention to Wikipedia in the coming year

durova: Well the way to get durable outgoing links from Wikipedia to a client’s site is to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia first.  Its social media aspects exist to support the encyclopedia.

I wrote about one way to do that in my first SEL column.

My next column is going to address another way to create durable links.

me: excellent

durova: Wikipedians don’t like linkspam, but they don’t begrudge links that serve a clear encyclopedic purpose.

The interview meandered over several other topics ranging from her personal experience at Wikipedia to the relationship between Wikipedia and Google:

me: Does Wikipedia have a relationship with Google?

durova: Yes, we run away for intimate weekends in the mountains and cuddle up on the bearskin rug by the fire.

me: do you think they respect you in the morning?

durova: We’ll see how Wikia does in the marketplace.

I have no connection whatsoever to Wikia, by the way.

me: I figured that. Wikia is still very small

durova: I think Google is very smart and is watching that very closely, and probably has a business plan to address it if it takes off.

me: Oh yeah. Google watches the space like nobody else’s business.  seriously though. Does Wikipedia have any agreements w/Google regarding content?

durova: Not that I know of.  Wikipedia is all copyleft licensure, so anybody can use the material for free if they credit the source.

But a lot of people wonder why Wikipedia consistently ranks so high.

me: does the fact that entries will almost certainly get high placements under relevant keywords have any bearing on editorial decisions?

lots of links.

durova: Among Wikipedia regulars, no.  Among occasional visitors and newcomers, very much so.

So to the extent that the hardcores like me deal with it, we’re taking out links and explaining policies to those people.

I know this isn’t the ivory tower.  Wikipedia content and links have real world impact.

That’s a reality and I deal with it.

Occasionally I siteban people because of it.

That sitebanning is what gets folks so angry with Durova. There is little she can do about that except try to do her job with consistency and relative compassion. More on the argument between Durova and certain members of the search marketing community next week.

Author:  Jim Hedger is Executive Editor of SiteProNews.com/. Jim is also a writer, broadcaster, commentator and analyst in the search marketing sector. He is an avid Wikipedia user and temperate Wikipedia supporter.

Many small business website development projects start with great vision but end up generating less than stellar results. Small businesses faced with budget constraints and little or no experience in the process of business web development often find themselves on the wrong side of their finished web project wondering exactly where things went wrong. Usually the answer lies with both the client and the web design or development company.

It’s All About Communication
The job of a good web development company is to help you take the vision you have for your website or web project and turn it into a reality. An initial “discovery meeting” should be the first step in working with a small business web design and development company. The way to make that process most effective is for the client and the developer to have a clear understanding of both the big picture and the fine points. The goal is to arrive at a consensus for your project that meets the project objectives you have outlined. Those objectives should be guided by the budget and technical considerations that you and the web development company have identified prior to beginning your project. As we all know, the devil is usually in the details.

The best way to insure maximum results for your small business web development project is to take some time in preparation to get clear in your mind what exactly your are trying to accomplish. The next step in the process should be a good fact finding mission guided by the web project manager or web developer. The web developer should use this opportunity to not only gather the details of your project but to clearly understand your vision and what you want the end result to be. From there it is crucial that lines of communication between you and the web development company or web designer be kept open each step of the way to ensure a continued consensus on the project direction.

With that in mind, here are a few key steps you can take in preparation for that first conversation. The aim is to help you make the most of the “discovery” process and provide some sound advice to guide you along the way.

Good Process Makes Good Partners

1. Broad Strokes
Take some time to think about what you’re trying to accomplish with your website or web project. Hone in on how your project fits with your business, your industry and ultimately your customers. If the project is for internal use, how does it fit with your staff? Your website is ultimately about a business or marketing solution that solves a problem or set of problems. What are your trying to solve? What are you trying to accomplish?

2. Who Are You?
Help your web development company understand your business and your brand. If it’s a new website or a redesign that reflects a new look, it’s helpful to have some of your promotional materials, logos, letterhead, etc. available for the discovery meeting. You want to convey who you are as a business and how you present yourself to the world. The company or web developer you are working with should be interested in this and be able to summarize it back to you. If you’re a new company tackling small business website development for the first time and don’t really have too much in the way of branding or logos, don’t sweat it. A good website design company should be able to work with you to create design elements that reflect who you are or recommend a copy that specializes in logo or branding for business. Keep a list of websites you encounter where the web design speaks to you. The important thing is to reach a good design consensus.

3. Remember Your Audience
As your thinking about your business website development project, focus on your website visitors. Who are your customers? That’s ultimately who the website or web development project is being created for. Who is going to be using the website and how are they going to be using it? What’s the goal? Are you looking to generate leads from your website, automate your ordering process, sell products online, allows customers or staff to access certain information? Since you are the voice for the end users of the site, make sure and give them ample consideration during the discovery process.

4. You Don’t Have to Do It All At Once
The beauty of the web is that it is a dynamic and flowing medium. Your website can evolve in phases and you don’t have to accomplish everything in Phase I of your web project. You can brainstorm without barriers about what you want. Then, hone in and decide where the best starting point is. This is an area where an experienced web developer should be able to provide guidance. Perhaps phase I of your business web development project will be a new site creation that focuses on good design and offers essential content about your company and your services. It might include a newsletter subscriber “call to action” box on each page. Phase II might be the addition of an online store that allows customers to view order history and create reorders. Phase III could integrate added functionality to the store like the assembly of certain components, detailed reporting or a place for customer reviews. For small business web design and development, budgetary constraints have to be contended with. A website can be a work in progress and grow with your business. Breaking the project into digestible pieces can not only help you in getting better insight into what the priorities are but it can also help in spreading out the cost.

5. The Devils in the Details
You don’t need to know every detail in advance in terms of how the project will look. A good business web designer or developer should work with you through the process to draw out those fine points. It is useful to give some thought in advance to as many elements of the project as possible, particularly where projects involve interactive customer-based websites. To that end, it can be helpful to sketch out the step-by-step flow of what you’re trying to accomplish and how information flows. You might have a crystal clear idea in your head regarding how each element should look and behave. Putting it on paper helps communicate it to the web company. Or, maybe it’s a bit murky and setting the pencil to paper can be extremely helpful in clarifying your own ideas and objectives. Whether designing a new site or redesigning an existing site, jotting down a site outline is a great starting point. What are the key sections of the website? What content do you want to include for your visitors and where do you want them to go? During the initial discovery meeting, the objective should be to do a lot of fact finding. The more details you can provide the web development company, the faster and more effectively you can bring your vision to fruition.

6. Don’t Sweat The Small Stuff
While it is very useful to put some serious thought into the project for your initial discovery meeting, the nature of business web design and development projects is that many fine points will be shaped and forged as the project development unrolls. That’s why an integral part of the process should involve the web development company staging your project on the web (preferably in a staging area of the web company’s server). Then, as steps are completed and the project moves forward, a consensus on the final result is maintained. Small adjustments as the project progresses are common and expected. As long as all of the key points are in place, don’t feel like you can’t adjust minor details as things move along. With that said do keep in mind that major revisions or additions to project development can add hourly labor and impact the cost. Make sure you understand how much “adjustment” space you’re allowed without incurring additional costs. If you have a change or addition that is going to impact the bottom line on the proposal, request that you be notified in advance and have full veto or approval before work proceeds.

Conclusion
The best way to ensure that your web development project doesn’t miss the mark is by preparing for the process and selecting a small business web development company that can help you to realize your vision. Hopefully, this guide will serve as a useful tool in the creative and development process. It was designed not only for small business owners and managers but to be shared with the website developer or designer you ultimately engage. The process of good web development is about reaching a consensus defined by budget, vision, technical requirements and good communication. The blending of those elements serves to lay the groundwork for success with your project and a final result that realizes your vision and serves your business.

Author:  Ilene Rosoff is the president and founder of The Launch Pad, a 15-year-old Florida-based technology services company specializing in small business web hosting services, small business web design and development, and business information technology solutions for local and national clients with zero to sixty employees. The Launch Pad helps small businesses grow and succeed with technology and on the web. Visit www.launchpadonline.com to request a technology or web assessment for your organization or for a custom proposal for web or information technology services.

Responses to my previous posting called “How to Ethically Update Wikipedia” have been incredibly polarized and I felt it was important I provide some visibility to the ethical issues and ramifications faced by an immensely influential volunteer-run organization like Wikipedia.

First a Little Background
My July 17th posting was based on an excellent article published at Search Engine Land called “SEO Tips & Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider” written by a Wikipedia Administrator with the pseudonym Durova. My post summarized a few of the unethical Wikipedia listings that Durova had noticed throughout her time at Wikipedia and how Wikipedia responded to each situation. I was very impressed by Durova’s article and how transparent the process appeared to be.

The Ramifications
Since my posting I received a few comments on the posting that were obviously from people who felt very strongly that Wikipedia, and in particular Durova, had serious issues with ethics. In that regard I have little doubt that these people had previously poor experiences with Wikipedia/Durova and have an axe to grind; the anger was palpable. One of the comments even revealed Durova’s real name (which I chose not to allow) and linked to a page where unkindly and distasteful words are shared about Wikipedia and Durova.

The complainants’ comments on StepForth’s site and Search Engine Land’s insinuate Wikipedia is run in a mafia-like manner where those who administrate the encyclopedia can be malicious when angered and may act without repercussions. Here are some quotes:

1. One commenter by the name of Gregory Kohs defined Wikipedia:
   Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a blog disguised as an encyclopedia, controlled by a limited number of people with admin tools who have particular axes to grind about living people with real names, all while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity.
   Source, StepForth SEO blog post.
2. A commenter followed up Gregory’s comment with a long reply that included this:
   Durova’s advice to openly declare your intentions as COI (conflict of interest) in her article sound good - but like much of Wikipedia, the intentions are good in the script of the rules, but the proof of the “pudding” in implementation often winds up “on the faces” of the business people who naively trusted Wikipedia to be a professional and business-friendly place. It isn’t that.
   Source, StepForth SEO blog post.
3. A Search Engine Land comment caught my eye:
   Are we now to the point in our Web 2.0 society where anonymous persons holding authority positions within Top 10 website communities can say defamatory things (that I lie to journalists), and the end result of my politely personal complaint is to have my “professional reputation” further questioned by the anonymous administrator?That’s just lovely.

   Thank God I love my wife, daughter, family, and many friends — who all love me dearly and don’t give two whits about Wikipedia. I really can’t imagine that if any major donor to the Wikimedia Foundation knew THIS is the type of culture that is fostered there, HOW they would possibly sign that check over to Jimbo and his admins-gone-wild.
   Source, Search Engine Land article.

At the StepForth SEO Blog Durova posted the following response to some of the comments:
“I am a voluntary participant in a program called ‘administrators open to recall.’ That means I’ll stand for reconfirmation of sysop status if half a dozen Wikipedians in good standing request it. Nobody’s ever initiated such a request. My candidacy for administratorship passed on an 81-0-1 vote (one neutral short of unanimous). So the community has expressed its confidence. I do, however, specialize in investigations and dispute resolution. So some sitebanned individuals sometimes turn up elsewhere on the Web with complaints.”

Comment note: many more inflammatory and defensive comments can be found in a less censored format within this Search Engine Land article.

My Position
I cannot attest to the accuracy of the lengthy complaints against Durova and Wikipedia and I don’t have the time or interest to thoroughly research the past (there appears to be a LOT to review). That said, if any of the complaints have an ounce of truth then Wikipedia has to be more cautious about the stance they take on content that may irreparably harm others or face a dmoz-like fate. On the flipside, those who post content on Wikipedia had better realize that whatever they post has ramifications on their own reputations so they had better be 100% certain of their sources and intentions.

Also I commend Durova for replying to the comments by noting that her current role as administrator can be circumvented by a vote by members in good standing. That said, I do wonder whether members in good standing would have any reason to oust a fellow member that may be of like mind. (i.e. who guards the guardians?)

In Closing
I have to admit that a volunteer-operated site that has the ability to seriously harm a business’s or a person’s good reputation gives me the creeps. This is especially true for online encyclopedias like Wikipedia where content, by its social nature, tends to stray into gossip territory. I realize that this applies to many social media websites but very few have the massive power to affect opinion that Wikipedia currently has. If there is one thing that this whole scenario illustrates it is that Wikipedia’s content, no matter who administrates it, should be heavily seasoned with salt. The same goes for any socially driven content online.

If you are in dire need of reputation management on your Wikipedia listing then read the well-written Search Engine Land article by Jessica Bowman where she explores the various ethical techniques of battling bad press on a Wikipedia page.: What To Do When Your Wikipedia Page Goes Bad.

PS) Google Needs More Diversity!
Google desperately needs to level the field a bit and offer up content from online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia (who regularly sits at #1 for most searches) to reveal some differing perspectives and soften Wikipedia’s influence. After all, there are bound to be other online encyclopedias that deserve a shot at the limelight as well.

If you represent an alternative online encyclopedia please email me, I would love it if you would submit a couple-paragraph introduction of your site and the reason why your content is just as or more deserving than Wikipedia. When I receive your introductions I will blog them promptly.

Author:  Ross Dunn is the founder and CEO of StepForth Placement Inc. Celebrating its tenth year of operation, StepForth is one of the oldest and most trusted names in search marketing.

Connecting to the internet wirelessly allows much greater mobility and efficiency. If you have purchased a new laptop or PDA, it likely has built in Wi-Fi capabilities. Even if your device is a bit older, it is not unlikely that you can still make use of the convenience that Wi-Fi offers. For those who are just now tip toeing into the world of wireless computing, a brief review of some of the basics should help to answer any lingering questions and knowing a few good resources can fill in the gaps.

What Do I Need To Consider Before Using a Public Access Wireless Connection?

Public access sites make connecting easy and offer users the ability to use time productively when they aren’t sitting at a desk, tethered to a cable. On the other hand, a wireless connection is a bit slower. When connecting at a public access site, you are sharing bandwidth with others around you, thus there may be delays when downloading, e-mailing, and so forth. The other consideration is security. When connecting via radio waves versus a cable, it is much easier for others to get access to information on your computer without appropriate security measures.

What Do I Need to Connect?

In order to wirelessly connect to the internet a user must first have a Wi-Fi enabled mobile device which supports standard 8.2.11 b or g Wi-Fi. Many new devices have this built-in. For devices that don’t have this capability, a Wi-Fi enabled PCMIA card or an enabled Wi-Fi adapter is needed. Of course, if you are traveling with a laptop it is also wise to take along a surge protector, a spare battery, and a power adapter.

Secondly, a user must have access to a Wi-Fi “hot spot”, a location which will connect them to the internet. Some homes are now Wi-Fi enabled while many airports, hotels, and public institutions such as libraries are also Wi-Fi enabled. Indeed, some cities are working toward having Wi-Fi cover their entire geographic area. Many local businesses also offer access to Wi-Fi; businesses such as Starbucks and MacDonalds commonly have access. Some hotspots are “free”, although most business understandably expect only paying customers to make use of their Wi-Fi service while other hotspots require payment.

How Do I Locate Hot Spots?

There are a number of ways to locate hot spots. Many businesses post signs on their windows indicating they are a Wi-Fi hot spot, but for those in less familiar surroundings searching for a connection doesn’t have to be haphazard or time consuming. There are a large number of resources that can be accessed.

Using a web enabled cell phone, users can check sites such as 4info.net to search for hotspots in a given location. Another option which requires a bit of pre-planning is to check one of the many sites available on the internet which allow users to search for hotspots anywhere in the world. Sites such as wifinder.com, wi-fi-zones.com, wifi411.com, and jiwire.com are just a few that can help users find the connection they need prior to leaving home. Another option is to download a database onto your mobile device which can be accessed later without an internet connection. One such service is jiwire.com.

Is There Anything I Need to Know Before Connecting Wirelessly?

Yes, security needs to be attended to as hot spots are unencrypted. Data being transmitted wirelessly is therefore susceptible to being intercepted by others. Users must assure they take precautions to assure the security of their own data; file and printer sharing should be disabled, files should be made private and password protected, and firewall and other security programs should be installed. Many such programs are on the market but jiwire.com offers one such program and the Microsoft site offers more detailed security precautions and instructions to help first timers. (microsoft.com/atwork/stayconnected/hotspots.mspx)

Once you arrive at the hot spot you will also need to enter the SSID, or name of the access point, in order to log on. The SSID can be found on the internet when searching for a hot spot and is also available at the hot spot location. For anyone logging on the first time, step-by-step guidance is available via online tutorials. Again, jiwire.com offers such a guide complete with screen shots to help the beginner.

The leap to wireless computing can offer great rewards such as increased mobility and efficiency. Using just a few online resources can make the process of connecting via Wi-Fi almost effortless.
Christine Peppler, the author provides useful information about using and selecting home electronics on her website at homemedias.info.

Although we credit Google, Yahoo, and other major search engines for giving us the system we use to find the information we seek, the concept of hypertext came to life in 1945 when Vannaver Bush urged scientist to work together to help build a body of knowledge for all man kind. He then proposed the idea of a virtually limitless, fast, reliable, extensible, associative memory storage and retrieval system. He named this device a memex. But there is a long list of great minds that have given us the information system we now use today. This article illustrates some of them. Here is the History of the Search Engine:

Ted Nelson

Ted Nelson created Project Xanadu in 1960 and coined the term hypertext in 1963. His goal with Project Xanadu was to create a computer network with a simple user interface that solved many social problems like attribution. While Teds project Xandadu, for reasons unknown, never really took off much of the inspiration to create the WWW came from Teds work.

George Salton

George Salton was the father of modern search technology. He died in August of 1995. His teams at Harvard and Cornell developed the Saltons Magic Automatic Retriever of Text otherwise known as the SMART informational retrieval system. It included important concepts like the vector space model, Inverse Document Frequency (IDF), Term Frequency (TF), term discrimination values, and relevancy feedback mechanisms. His book A theory of indexing explains many of his tests. Search today is still based on much of his theories. History of the search engine uses some of the same techniques even today.

Alan Emtage

In 1990 a student at McGill University in Montreal, by the name of Alan Emtage created Archie; the first search engine. It was invented to index FTP archives, allowing people to quickly access specific files. Archie users could utilize Archies services through a variety of methods including e-mail queries, teleneting directly to a server, and eventually through the World Wide Web interfaces. Archie only indexed computer files. With Archie, Alan Emtage helped to solve the data scatter problem. Originally, it was to be named archives but was changed to Archie for short.

Paul Lindner and Mark P. McCahill

Archie gained such popularity that in 1991 Paul Linder and Mark P. McCahill created a text based information browsing system that uses a menu-driven interface to pull information from across the globe to the users computer. Named for the Golden Gophers mascot at the University of Minnesota, The name is fitting, because Gopher tunnels through other Gophers located in computers around the world, arranging data in a hierarchical series of menus, which users can search for specific topics.

Tim Burners-Lee

Up until 1991 until there was no World Wide Web. The main method of sharing information was via FTP. Tim Berners-Lee wanted to join hypertext with the internet. He used similar ideas to those underlying the Enquire (a prototype created with help from Robert Cailliau) to create the World Wide Web, for which he designed and built the first web browser and editor, called WorldWideWeb, and developed on NeXTSTEP. He then created the first Web server called httpd, short for HyperText Transfer Protocol daemon. The first Web site built was at:

http://info.cern.ch/

and was first put online on August 6, 1991. Tim Burners-Lee created the World Wide Web Consortium in 1994. Tim also created the Virtual Web library which is the oldest catalogue of the web. The history of the search engine is a fascinating story.

Author:  Jeff Casmer is an internet marketing consultant and work at home business owner. For more information on search engines optimization please visit his “Top Ranked” Improve Search Engine Rankings Directory gives you all the information you need to Work at Home in the 21st century.

Annual mobile phone sales are predicted to hit 1 billion by 2009 and there are already 4 times as many internet-enabled phones in the world than there are PC’s.

According to Dotmobi (www.dotmobi.net), one third of the global population are connected via mobile phones today and approximately half are expected to be using a mobile Internet phone by 2008. An IPSOS survey suggests that 29% of mobile phone users in the UK searched for news and information on their handset during 2005.

The statistics are impressive and will get any marketers pulse racing. But it does seem as if we’ve been hearing about the potential of mobile search market for some time, and yet very few travel companies appear to be active in the mobile search space and mobile e-commerce revenues are still modest.

Up until now most advertisers have been ignoring mobile as a marketing channel, according to a new report by Forrester Research called “Interactive Marketing Channels to Watch in 2007.” It suggests that only 13 percent of marketers use mobile text message ads and only 11 percent bother advertising on wireless application protocol (WAP) sites. It seems clear that advertisers are waiting for evidence that the market is there before deciding to jump in themselves.

Barrier and limitations to growth

Despite the huge number of people that have access to the mobile internet there are a number of barriers to mobile web adoption. For example;

1. Cost and clarity - carrier data plans can be expensive and confusing compared to normal internet access plans.

2. Screen Size - the limited screen size of many hand sets negatively impacts the user’s browsing experience.

3. Ease of use - due to the limited screen size there is an increased number of clicks needed to get to content.

4. Lack of content - there is a ‘walled garden’ approach to the content offered by many mobile network operators which means that not all mobile users get full access to content.

Competition - the WiFi explosion

Another factor that may have impacted on the growth of mobile internet usage is the increasing availability of high-speed WiFi internet access in many public areas. Airports, hotels, bars, libraries and commercial shopping centres are increasingly offering WiFi, and it’s often free. This has encouraged users to use laptops and PDA’s to access the internet while on the move rather than through mobile phones.

Mobile is the perfect advertising platform

Despite these barriers to growth travel companies cannot afford to ignore the e-commerce and marketing potential of this platform. All of the barriers to growth outlined above will be overcome over time as technology improves and network and content providers adapt their services to facilitate the growth. The issue is not really whether the mobile search market will make an impact, but how it will make an impact.

In many ways mobile is the perfect advertising platform. It’s always with the consumer, it’s always on, it provides personal profiling data, it provides location data, it’s interactive and it has multiple billing options already built in.

At present the major bulk of mobile searches are related to ring tones, news, entertainment, maps and directions, directory listings, local restaurants and other local services. As many as 60,000 UK users a day are checking train times on their mobile phones.

Local search is clearly the natural mobile advertising opportunity. Going forward, more complex searches and bigger transactions will become viable as technology advances and users become more comfortable with using their handsets for searching.

In a recent Travelmole interview, Nancy Lyndhurst, the product manager for O2, said some of the larger travel brands like Cathay Pacific, Accor Hotels and KLM are already successfully marketing with mobile technology. She also cites the example of Lastminute who received a £3,000 holiday booking online from a customer using their mobile telephone.

Mobile marketing spend to reach $11 billion by 2011

A recent report by the telecom division of Informa Group stated that advertisers are expected to spend a massive $11 billion on mobile marketing by 2011. Optimistic predictions like this have compelled the major search engines to start making significant investment in the future of mobile search themselves.

Google have predicted that their own mobile division, based in London, will “become the biggest driver of new business” for the company.

Google has developed its own mobile search engine and has signed a number of deals to provide mobile search services to major operator portals. Motorola have even agreed to add a dedicated “Google” button to some of its hand sets. LG, one of the top 5 mobile firms in the world, have announced that they will start to ship handsets pre-loaded with Google services from this month.

Yahoo has unveiled a new application called Yahoo Go Mobile which makes its various services available on certain phones. Not to be outdone, Microsoft launched Live Search for Mobile in February at the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona.

There are also a number of start ups like Jumptap and Medio who will be bringing services to the new mobile search space.

It’s clear that the major search properties, in partnership with the phone manufacturers and network services, are intent on driving the mobile search sector forward. With this kind of momentum there’s no doubt that mobile search marketing will eventually become a major part of online marketing, it’s just a question of when. Could 2007 be the year of mobile search?

Author:  Mark Scriven is the M.D of Turismotec Ltd, a UK based search marketing agency that specialises in the travel sector. Turismotec publish a bi-monthly search marketing newsletter called etravel.success.

In this modern world, online and other communication technologies change at a very rapid pace. Web conferences, email advocacy campaign, and blogs are being considered by many nonprofit organizations as new, exciting, and somewhat mysterious technologies that they can use to communicate and mobilize.

The emergence of podcasting, wikis, or text messaging campaigns has made all of these technologies seem obsolete. For nonprofit organizations keeping up with the latest technology trends can be very challenging. Many nonprofit organizations face basic technology challenges such as keeping a strong network up and running and maintaining an effective Internet advocacy site.

It is necessary for organizations working to reach their constituencies, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to become familiar with and effective at using new communication technologies. This is due to the fact that these technologies are a means to an end, and that end is communicating with people and influencing them.

The majority of thought leaders and civically engaged citizens who then influence their associates, family, and friends are online. A large number of Internet users also share information between one another via email, social online communities such as myspace.com, listserv groups, and more.

There are some steps that nonprofit organizations can take in order to tap communication technology to further their missions through advocacy work. For instance an organization can “lower the bar”. This means providing more opportunities for users to get involved through features in emails and on the Web site. Such features include calls to action, free newsletter sign-ups, and online petitions or pledges.

It would also be a good idea to “engage and educate” the online users. An organization should provide useful information through online communications and update that information regularly to keep the audience engaged.

Enticing users to “train to click” is also advantageous for an organization that wishes to attract online users. People should be enticed to visit an advocacy campaignwebsite to get further information and engage in calls to action. Creating links in emails and e-newsletters to a website for access to further information and full newsletter articles can increase the traffic throughout the pages of an advocacy website.

A nonprofit organization can also benefit from creating incentives for users to take action. A website may offer free access to online or print resources for signing a petition or registering and simply celebrate successful online activists with featured profiles.

Making contact with other Internet advocacy communities is also a good idea. An organization may find the online communities that the members of its audience are a part of and join the conversations, post videos and photos, or place ads. An organization that is trying to reach influencers and young people will find this particularly effective.

Making sure that the online audiences have fun and reporting the results can also improve the online advocacy campaign of any organization. Fun and interactive sites and email communications keep people engaged. Reporting on the successes or challenges of advocacy campaigns and initiatives can keep the audience engaged and build momentum for further action.

Author:  Joem writes occasional articles on Internet marketing, Internet advocacy, Internet advertising, and advocacy campaign for www.optimumresponse.com and other similar websites.