Operationalizing that digital strategy thing.

Categories, Catastrophes, and other Calamities

Hi there! Welcome to our blog. Don't forget to sign up for our free RSS feed. We Triple Dog Dare Ya! And thanks for visiting!

Humans are categorizing machines. Every moment of the day, everywhere we go, everything we do, we are constantly categorizing. We have to, or we’ll go nuts in this modern world of hurly-burly and jump-and-run. Little kids, when presented with an unusual (to them) food item, will wrinkle their noses and say “I don’t like it” when they’ve never had it. Why? Because the unknown food item doesn’t fit into their “good eats” category. We make judgments about people based on the way they dress. Why? Because we just know that someone who dresses nattily is somehow a better person than the slob standing next to him. Whether we’re right or not, the categorization still happens.

There’s another kind of categorization, a more formal type, and it was born in the 18th century when Swedish botanist Linnaeus started working out a standard nomenclature for living things. If you’ve ever sat through high school or college biology, you’re still using his system today. He created a taxonomy–a hierarchy of categories based on shared characteristics. A dog and a cat are both mammals, but one is a canine and the other feline based on characteristics.

Fast forward 200 years, and you see taxonomies everywhere. The Dewey Decimal System is the other well-known taxonomy out there, but believe me, with the rise of the Internet, categorization schemes appear everywhere.

But what’s the point of using a taxonomy? We’re asked that question a lot, believe me. There’s really only one good reason to deploy a taxonomy on your internet, intranet, or extranet site: to give people easy ways to search for and retrieve the information they’re looking for.

For example, your corporate site may have hundreds or thousands of content items on it: white papers, articles, technical support pieces, product descriptions, case studies, press releases, and so on. More than likely, you’re probably already using some grouping methodology to make sense of all this content, but it’s likely an organic, haphazard approach.

For example, you may have grouped all your white papers together, or provided content categories that are related to the way your company is organized. But as a visitor to your site, I need to know more about your solutions for my industry. I have no idea if that information resides in your XYZ group or your ABC division.

Instead, imagine if I were to go to your web site and I see a way to browse information by products or by industry. I’m in the medical industry, and I see that you have information about that very industry. When I visit the medical industry page, I can see that there are various product links there. I can follow any one of those links and arrive at a products page that contains further links to all the usual suspects: brochures, white papers, and case studies. But there’s an added bonus: I also see tech support items related to this product, partners and consultants I can work with to help install or modify the product, and over there are related products I can use along with this product! All of this functionality can be powered through a taxonomy.

In other words, an effective taxonomy can teach us about a subject–empower us, in other words. If I don’t know much about your product space, visiting your taxonomy-powered product page will introduce me to all the content items that will eradicate my ignorance on the topic. At the same time, the taxonomy can teach me about how this widget relates to other widgets and to your company as a whole. After I’m done, I’ll be a more educated, enlightened customer–and perhaps I’ll be ready to take the next step in the sales process.

Surveying the Fortune 1000 (pt. 1)

We’re in the middle of a fascinating internal project right now: surveying the web sites of Fortune 1000 companies. Basically, we’ve taken our spidering software and pointed them at a current list of Fortune 1000 web sites. We run two spiders at a time, 24 hours a day, and they patiently tabulate each web site, counting up pages and documents as they go. These spiders also catalog pages that are unreachable or more than 30 days old (in other words, stale).

What’s the point? We wanted to know what kinds of problems big companies face when they try to maintain ever growing web sites. We’re about a third of the way through our survey, and we’ve discovered some very interesting things. For one thing, we assumed going into the project that bad links would be the number one problem out there. Although this is true for those companies with 2500 or more pages on their web sites, the number one problem faced by sites with 500 pages or less is stale content. An even bigger problem for companies with 500 pages or less on their web sites is a preponderance of stale content and bad links.

At first blush, these observations suggest that many companies in the Fortune 1000 have some kind of system or procedure in place to help them create and maintain their web site content, but that smaller web sites are still getting short shrift. In fact, if you look at the data closely, the percentages for bad urls and stale content look similar for web sites under 500 pages and over 4000 pages. The very largest and smallest web sites seem to face the same problems–entropy. Those web sites in the middle, although far from having a handle on the situation, seem to be coping better.

What else jumps out? Not as many companies as you think are using key organizational labels like “about us” or “contact us” for their sites. Only 144 of 350 surveyed sites so far are using “about” or “about us” in their linking. Only 184 of 350 surveyed sites are using “contact” or “contact us”. Who’s running site maps? 98 web sites are, which means that roughly two-thirds of the list isn’t using some kind of site map to help orient visitors. These numbers suggest that companies have a long way to go to standardize on common linking strategies that most people rely on to navigate a site.

Out of 350 companies surveyed so far, 158 are using either JSP, PHP, or ASP on some of their pages, with the overwhelming majority (132) opting for ASP. This matches another report I read that Fortune 1000 companies tend to go with Microsoft environments because they can afford the licensing–smaller companies (and by that I mean several hundred million in revenue and below) are a more even mix of web server environments. Fifteen companies so far have opted to use two or three of these technologies on the same site, which points out that in some industries, heterogeneous systems are the norm.

Want to know more? Tune in soon when we’ve had a chance to complete our survey and draw out some more interesting connections and factoids.