Great article from our colleagues in the Tarleton web services group on how to (and how not to) format your page so that readers can find the important content — http://tarletonweb.blogspot.com/2014/06/end-bloodletting-in-digital-visibility16.html
Categories and tags are core components of WordPress, which is among the most popular platforms used to host web sites. Even professional developers have a hard time understanding the difference in how the two should be used, and the lay audience generally sees no distinction. Proper use of these elements, though, can have a profound effect on making a site more successful.
Use of categories and tags
WordPress itself says that “tags are similar to categories, but they are generally used to describe your post in more detail.” They also say that categories are meant to be hierarchical, while tags exist independently and are independent of any structure. Categories, then, are meant to classify your overall article, while tags describe the content elements of the article.
Categories should be firmly established. Articles fit within categories, not the other way around. Tags, though, are more free ranging. They depend on the content of the article. WordPress recommends having between five and fifteen tags for each article to sufficiently describe the content.
Having a controlled library that comprises the core set of tags is crucial. We want to make sure that all references to a particular entity are tagged exactly the same so that we capture all of the articles pertaining to that subject. For example, we would not want to have separate tags on different pages referring to the university as “Texas A&M,” “Texas A&M University,” “TAMU,” etc. These just serve to dilute the power of the tag to describe your site’s content. That being said, a site with a wide range of topic will not be effective if it uses only this core set of tags. Tags must properly describe the article’s content, and to do that they must be based on the article itself rather than a pre-compiled list of key terms.
Tag clouds are the most common use of leveraging your tags. These show the most common tags on your site, with the size of the text indicating how many articles contain that particular tag. This gives a visual reference to let users know what kind of content they can find elsewhere on the site. It also serves as an index to your site, letting users find other areas of interest that they might otherwise not have come to your site for.
Another powerful, but seldom used, method of leveraging tags is using them as a data feed to populate pages on other sites. Consider [spoiler alert] an experts list site, for example, where each individual’s listing shows related articles that are published in your news site. Matching the expertise keywords with a WordPress tag lets us quickly and easily create a synergy between these two sites, making both more valuable than either on their own.
Effect on Search Engine Optimization
Tags can have an influence on search optimization as well. Modern search algorithms are good at picking out synonyms, so you should avoid using such common terms as separate tag names. Search engines will see this as duplicate content and penalize your site for it.
One other SEO aspect to consider is the concept of link bleeding. In general, each page’s link value is divided among all the links on the page. The tag cloud will likely contain a lot of links, and the value of the less used tags could be pretty minor. They would therefore take away from the page’s effective optimization. Adding nofollow tags on the tag cloud is therefore usually a good idea.
If done correctly, the “categories” and “tags” pages on your site should be among the highest ranking pages.
We are taught from elementary school when we first start writing compositions that the first thing we should do, before we ever start writing, is to identify our audience. The same thing holds true for building web sites. But do we really do it? Some do. At least in a rudimentary way. We put together a committee, ask that questions, and after a lot of argument come up with something. In today’s higher ed it is usually “prospective students and their parents,” at least when talking about the university’s main page. What do we do after that though?
We often write the chosen audience on our production documentation, check it off the list and cease thinking about it altogether. The web committee then moves on to deciding content (we are a modern selection committee, we realize that content must come before design.) We send out surveys, make sure we talk to every department on campus to get buy-in, maybe we even survey other universitys’ sites to see what they have that we don’t. What’s missing from this picture? Where in that process is the audience that we are supposed to be writing for?
I once attended a conference where one of the presenter summed up in one line what we should be doing…give your viewers what *they* want, not what *you* want. That completely turns our process on its head. It means we have to do research, make value judgments, and even risk alienating constituencies on campus who might not like what that means for their content.
The tricky part comes in determining how far to go with this new paradigm. Something like branding is definitely something that we want, but that doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. It doesn’t interfere with, and if done well should even support the mission of the site. We are still trying to attract those prospective students, and branding should reinforce the information they are trying to obtain.
One thing to watch out for is turning your site into an extended university org chart. Think instead in terms of navigating content by services…for example provide a link to “tutoring” rather than “The Office of Classroom Excellence.” The audience doesn’t care *who* provides the service, it is the service itself that they are looking for.
Also, be careful of the language that you use. We have our own extensive jargon, and fall into it too easily. Being at the university every day we are exposed to (so much so that we take for granted) a lot of terms, concepts, organizational makeups, etc. that mean little to the general public. Write for the audience using terms that, again, they place meaning on rather than what we hold dear.
We tried to take this approach in our last implementation of our university website. We removed most of the links that were previously aimed more at faculty/staff and an on-campus audience, even if they were the most popular link on the page. We took flack for doing so, but it was short lived, people adjusted, and the site is now much more aligned with its purpose of serving the prospective student and their parents.
Read any web design book, blog, or article, and they’ll tell you that a good, user-friendly, custom 404 page is one of the most important elements that you can add to any site. And they’re right. But we as web administrators know that “good” and “user-friendly” are wide open for interpretation. Most of the time users hit the page, ignore it, and go about their business. Users seldom bother to report the broken link, and when they do they very often don’t include all (or sometimes even any!) of the information we need to track down and fix the link.
With our new website we’ve tried something different, making it as easy as possible for users to report bad links. We did this on purpose – we knew that with the new design there would be plenty of them. The university site had been poorly limping along on a very bad information architecture for years. Directory structures were illogical and poorly named, and the access file contained almost two hundred redirects for sites that had been on the server but moved years ago. We decided to clean house with this new version of the site, knowing there would be some (a lot) of short term pain, but that in the end it would be a better environment.
We have left or recreated many of the most-used redirects and old directories through a combination of symlinks and rewrite rules, but with the amount we started with there are still many that are now causing 404 errors. Enter the new custom error page…
The most important thing we did on the page was to add a “Report this broken link” feature and make sure it was prominently highlighted. Through a few server side include tricks the mailto link will open the user’s mail client and populate the first line of the message with the requested page and the referring page, if applicable. This insures that we have all of the information we need to find and fix the broken link.
With this feature prominent on the page, we have increased the number of reports from several per week to several per hour…and not all to the newly non-redirected site. Several have been to files that have not been on the server for years, but are still linked from somewhere on the Internet. Bad links that have existed for years but have never been reported. The difference, it seems, is in making it easy for the user to do so.
One of the elements that we wanted to add to the new university site, as well as other sites we’re developing for campus, is a tighter integration to our other static sites and to our social media. For the purposes of this post, that means video on YouTube.
If you have explored the new development site for www.tamu.edu you will have noticed that the second-level pages link to YouTube channels and playlists that are relevant to the page topic. We had considered using inline videos on these pages, but thought linking to the playlists would give greater exposure to more videos.
Over the next several weeks we will be going into YouTube to refresh and add new content to these playlists, as well as create new ones for areas that don’t currently exist.
The great thing about YouTube is that we can pull your video in through these channels and feature it on the university website. I therefore encourage you all to start making more video available and visible. If we don’t already subscribe to your site send us the information and we’ll add it.
We previewed the prototype for the new university website to Brand Council this morning, so most of the campus communications offices now have an idea of where we’re going. I’m happy to say that their response was overwhelmingly positive.
We would now like to extend an invitation to our followers here to preview the site as well (and send us your feedback!) The URL is http://www-dev.tamu.edu/.
Please keep in mind that this is still a working prototype so few things are set in stone, and there is some placeholder content still in place. The exact makeup of the page content is still changing, and will change more based on the comments you send us. We thought it important, though, to get your feedback before anything became final.
As a frame of reference – the site’s main audience is potential students and their parents. To that end we have emphasized those content areas that are most referenced by that group.
One of the purposes of the eduWeb conference was to bring together marketing and web people. One show of hands suggested that the audience was evenly split. I myself am fairly evenly split, having written both PHP code and annual reports – both coder and copywriter.
According to Sarah Stanek, Senior Writer at California State University East Bay, the underappreciated members of the web team are the writers. Writers need to be at the first web meeting, not the last. They need to become trusted as the content authority. The writer should be the managing editor on the Web team. Professional writers can offer four things: ability, authority, access, and accuracy.
How can experienced writers make a website better?
- They can encourage each member of the team to agree in advance on word count, voice, content lifespan.
- They can help to break log jams in the workflow. Stanek’s advice: ask for corrections and edits to the website, make them, acknowledge they’ve been made, then go live.
- For students, they can provide deadlines. For administrators, they can suggest topics to write about.
- They can help review blog posts before publishing, if necessary. “Boring is okay, long and boring is not,” says Stanek. Moderate comments quickly. Don’t be afraid to close comments either.
- They can write interview questions (but not the answers). Put ideas in their heads, then put cameras in their faces.
Under the influence of social media, some web strategists are calling for professionally-generated content (such as marketing copy) to be replaced by user-generated content (such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter) because “it sounds more authentic.” But Stanek sternly insists that professional writers do not sound inauthentic.
In fact, says Stanek, “student bloggers write about ten times more formally than I do.” At a major university, over-formality may be a more serious problem than students writing ungrammatically. But that’s a whole other issue: where do people get the idea that stilted writing makes them sound smarter? I think the University Writing Center has a 12-step program for that…
True, journalists who cut their teeth writing for newspapers and magazines need to adapt their style for the Web, but any professional knows how to adapt. Writers have had to deal with an electronically-oriented audience for a long time.
Besides, in the past forty years, people haven’t changed as much as all that, even if buzzwords have. “Blogging is not a meaningful verb,” Stanek says. “The word is writing.” Marshall McLuhan wrote, “The medium is the message,” in 1964. That is, simply because a story moves from a newsletter to the Web, the message changes. If only because the screen is harder on the eyes than paper, writing for the Web needs to be shorter and scannable.
A “pencast” of The Role of Writers session (audio synchronized with notes) is available.
My name is Robert (Bob) Timm, Texas Aggie Class of 2010. I joined the Aggie Web Development Team today with the goal of providing the campus with a mobile version of the TAMU homepage. Not limited to just iPhones, but every mobile browser on every mobile phone. My experience extends from a couple years of web development and a phone app company I started this year, Roboconn Mobile Development. I look forward to providing this campus with some unique tools that have never been available to anyone before. So stay updated, changes are right around the corner!
Higher education has historically not measured ROI because it has not rigorously defined what to measure. You cannot measure progress in anything unless you agree what to measure and how to do so… and then do so consistently.
Measure and compare vs. last year. Set your goals and attempt to improve. Then measure exactly the same way next year. It takes ~3 years of this to get a consistent reading. If you change things too soon then the measurements will not be consistent and the comparisons therefore will be skewed.
Determine what to track and how to measure it. We have a lot of variables in higher ed, so we need to know which affect others, if they do so at all.
It is a good practice to not only measure against yourself over time, but also measure against your competitors (i.e. peer universities.) This is the only way you can tell how you stack up and if your progress is going faster or slower than theirs.
This is often hard to do because most institutions don’t like to share information. The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System conducts surveys and provides a lot of information about higher education institutions.
The goal of measuring ROI is to see where your investment is going. Marketing costs should decline over time, everything else being kept equal. Upfront costs from new campaigns will tend to work themselves out over time, and mature campaigns should be more cost effective than new ones that have new elements and new costs.