tdog.blog

Well, it’s not like we didn’t know this before, but it sure is nice to get some validation. According to the good folks at nature.com, researchers in Canada have determined that initial, snap impressions users form of a web site have lasting effects on their experience with a site.

To quote a bit from the article (emphasis mine):

We all know that first impressions count, but this study shows that the brain can make flash judgements almost as fast as the eye can take in the information. The discovery came as a surprise to some experts. “My colleagues believed it would be impossible to really see anything in less than 500 milliseconds,” says Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University in Ottawa, who has published the research in the journal Behaviour and Information Technology1. Instead they found that impressions were made in the first 50 milliseconds of viewing.

What we’re talking about is what psychologists call the “halo effect.” If we like our first impressions, we’ll hang around a web site (person, book, store, whatever) longer than we might otherwise to prove to ourselves that our first impressions were right. (I know, we are pretty screwed up as a species–a similar idea about reducing dissonance explains why, when we do something mean to someone, we actually feel dislike for them. All we’re trying to do is maintain some level of internal consistency.)

What do the researchers suggest?

1. Limit use of graphics–use them to grab attention, not as eye candy.
2. Give easy and quick access to information–your site is supposed to be an information asset, not the equivalent of a billboard or brochure. (If it is that, then call us and we can help you join the 21st century)
3. Follow conventions! The reason why I can probably drive your car is because it has a steering wheel, brake pedal, gas pedal, and gear shift, and all in pretty much the same places as in my car. Don’t make users float around looking for your logo (put it in the upper left corner like everyone else). Same goes for search widgets–they usually go on top and over to the right of the page.

Here is what CNN had to say on the topic:

In the study, researchers discovered that people could rate the visual appeal of sites after seeing them for just one-twentieth of a second. These judgments were not random, the researchers found — sites that were flashed up twice were given similar ratings both times.

They also matched the responses given by subjects who were shown the sites for longer.

Full article link

Comments(0)

Sorry, I’m going to rant a bit here. I’ve never been a fan of SEO consultants. I think 99% of them run a barely legal racket. The good ones, the ones in the 1% agree with me. The industry is rife with fear-mongering snake-oil salesmen who use all kinds of crappy tactics to part marketing managers and web site owners with their hard-earned cash.

One tactic, which Bill Leake of LCG covered at InnoTech 2005 in Austin TX was focusing on the 20% of SEO and ignoring the 80% that matters. SEO consultants, instead of building the quality of inbound links to their clients’ web sites, instead do the SEO copywriting/keyword churn. Why? Because they can bill more for it, naturally.

Another thing I keep hearing all the time, and it makes me want to scream, “Liar! Liar!” (think of that scene from The Princess Bride) is that search engine spiders have trouble negotiating query strings.

You know, these are URLs that look like:

http://blog.tripledogs.com/index.php?cat=4

So do me a favor right now, open a new window and do a google search on No Nonsense XML Web Development with PHP. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you.

Back already? That’s right, that’s my book. Notice what the first entry is? A page on amazon.com. The link looks like this:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/097524020X?v=glance

Looks like a query string to me. In fact, this amazon.com page is ranked higher than Sitepoint’s (ie, the book’s publisher) page for the same book. Why? Probably because tons more web sites out there link back to amazon.com’s page than sitepoint.com’s.

Look, if Google and other search engines couldn’t traverse dynamic sites, then huge swaths of the internet, like online databases, blogs, threaded discussion forums, and ecommerce sites (to name a few) would go unlisted.

Here’s what Google has to say on the subject of query strings:

• If your company buys a content management system, make sure that the system can export your content so that search engine spiders can crawl your site.
• Don’t use “&id=” as a parameter in your URLs, as we don’t include these pages in our index.

Wanna learn more? Read Google’s Webmasters Guideline.

BTW, TopDog, our CMS, allows the use of friendly URLs, such as /aboutus.html instead of the use of CMS-generated url, which might be more like /innerpage.php?pageid=17. But notice the use of pageid instead of id. (As Chris Beasley points out below, you should also avoid the use of session variables in your query strings as this creates constantly changing URLs for the same content, and this could be a bad thing.)

Also, please note that friendly URLs are friendly to PEOPLE, who find it easier to remember aboutus.html instead of the query string. The point is brought up in an article about query string myth.

(An article, by the way, whose URL contains a query string [?itemid=518] but which scored very high on a Google search for “common seo myths query strings”.)

Before I go, I gotta quote one more source:

Myth #8: Google Will Not Index Dynamic Pages

Some search engines have, in the past, had problems with dynamic pages, that is, pages that use a query string [14]. This was not due to any technical limitation, but rather, because search engines knew that it was possible to create a set of an infinite amount of dynamic pages, or they could create an endless loop. In either case, the search engines did not want their crawlers to be caught spidering endless numbers of dynamically generated pages.

Google is a newer search engine, and has never had a problem with query strings. However, some dynamic pages can still throw Google for a loop.

Some shopping carts or forums store session information in the URL when cookies [15] are unable to be written. This effectively kills search engines like Google because search engines key their indexes with URLs, and when you put session information in the URL, that URL will change constantly. This is especially true as Google uses multiple IP addresses to crawl the Web, so each crawler will see a different URL on your site, which basically results in those pages not being listed. It is important that if you use such software, you amend it so that if cookies are unable to be written, the software simply does not track session information.

So, you don’t need to use search engine-friendly URLs [16] to be listed in Google. However, these URLs do have other benefits, such as hiding what server side technology you use (so that you may change it seamlessly later), and they are more people-friendly. Additionally, while Google can spider dynamic pages, it may limit the amount of dynamic pages it spiders from one particular site. Your best bet for a good ranking is to use search-engine friendly URLs.

This is from Chris Beasley, writing for Sitepoint. Is SitePoint the publisher of my book? Of course. Does that make this information any less true? Of course not. Please note that Chris seems to advocate the “safer is better” approach, in that a search engine friendly URL might get more of your pages spidered.

So, is it okay to use dynamically generated content with query strings in the URL. Sure. Just avoid the id= keyword and inserting session variables. If you’re feeling paranoid, then use Apache’s mod_rewrite to change your dynamic URLs into something more human readable (ie, from /innerpage.php?pageid=7&category=SEO to /topics/seo/page/7), or use a friendly URL module like the one we wrote for TopDog.

Here’s Google’s FAQ on what to watch out for when it comes to SEO scams. Don’t get taken in by these guys.

Comments(7)

Tom Collins (not the drink, the legendary direct marketing guy) has a 10-point formula for writing a winning ad:

1. Flag and snag the prospect.
2. Identify the product or service.
3. State or imply the problem.
4. State or imply the benefit.
5. Strengthen the verbal with the visual.
6. Invite reading with typography.
7. Build brand recognition and trust.
8. Don’t hold back the Web site’s best sales points.
9. Include outside recognition if possible – awards, reviews, testimonials.
10. Encourage and reward response and involvement.

Source: Direct, 10/15/2005, p. 78.

Comments(0)