Icebergs

As a free public information website, I was as equally fascinated by what was in this piece - Government urged to improve Web sites - as what was not.

First up, tell us what we don't know: they are too complex and are difficult to navigate. Well, D'uh.

The we get to the provision of information about the cost and usage of government Web sites.

I find it MIND-BOGGLING that the government spends £208 million a year (of whose money?) on its Web sites... but knows little about who access them or how they are used.

If ever there was a case to get them out of the public sector's dead hands this was it. They don't know what they're doing. They patently don't know why they're doing it. And they don't seem to care whether it works so long as it looks like they are doing something. And the heck with any ROI, which any sane business would apply to its comms efforts.

These are tools. Their only value is in being used. Not just for being there. I mentioned recently about a site that was all excited about 7,000 'hits', which a kennelcam of a dead dog rotting would exceed.

I'd also love to know what the breakdown of costs of design , build, operation and maintenance are for some, especially in the enviro-arena.

I'm betting several have 'departments' (which explains them looking like camels), all on salary with pension. Junkk.com has one bloke... so far... plus a few nice mates helping. And as and when it does need to grow, it will be funded by ads.

Which is better value?

ADDENDUM

That'll teach me. Now, when the heck will I find the time to read it?

Report
Exec summary
Another thing - 89 pages!!!!

Gotta ask. Gotta tell.

I recall, a few years ago when the latest disability legalisation came out, getting a bunch of what amounted to extortion emails from 'consultants', who had 'noted' that our site was not as compliant as it could be and would, for a fee, not report us.

I got rid of them all by pointing out that it had been briefed from the outset to be as all-embracing as possible (with a Bobby rating taboot), and if there were areas we could improve would appreciate being told where they were so we might address them. Why would I not? Reaching out in any way practicable - note that - simply improves our audience base. Never heard back.

So I must say that at the time, and still, the way it all got inspired, imposed and handed over to such folk with legislative backing really p*ssed me off. I even recall a poster on the topic, with a wheelchair-bound individual in a judge's wig, waving a gavel, saying 'We're out to get you!'. Not, I felt, the most engaging way to inspire cooperation.

And with a website, especially one that is user-driven, there are many factors afoot, from design considerations to how editorial may or may not get perceived by the majority of the audience, who can take a number-penalising hike if one panders to some demands.

Hence this struck a chord: eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

Now I could care less what you orientation is, and our site is not configured to exclude anyone, save for the consequences of some disabilities that we really are in no position to address.

So, in many ways, should anyone choose to ignore the possible reaction of other users by failing to be all-inclusive, this simply seems a matter of 'why not?', closely followed by 'more fool them,' topped off by 'ignore the silly so and so's'.

eHarmony can obviously afford the changes required, but for a site of our size a failure to offer certain additional options can be financially punitive, especially when we are free to kick off. So demanding we add stuff at our expense would seem... unfair.

But it's more the principle of the thing, and now a gay bar in Australia has won the right to exclude heterosexuals it looks like there may be a slight unravelling taking place.

I'm all for protection from abuse, but this all simply smacks of a bunch of chancers trying to make a fast buck in the name of what should have been something noble, by abusing a poorly-considered bit of PC legislation (which seems to be most of them).

I fear there will be few winners bar the lawyers. As always.

Links! Rechts?

A visit from the BBC

Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.

However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."

As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.

The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.

Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.

With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.

Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.

On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.

Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.

So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.

And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.

Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?

Judge ye not?

Thanks for this: And the winner is...

I'll have to check but I have a vague notion I submitted, and paid money to do so. Or was it for the main site on the Webbies?

Makes you think. All's fair and all, and certainly if it's still the best then it deserves the accolade.

But who decides? And who checks? And who judges the judges?

Maybe they just got that Ch 5 production company to handle it, pocketed the saving and decided to just go with what worked before with a few tweaks.

My faith in the workings of awards shows is about on a par with TV contests.

It's not where you live, it's... actually, it is where you live

"Internet People: How to make successful start-up'

Before even clicking on the first link, as I rather feared the first requirement looks like being 'Live in London'. Sigh.

Still, an interesting piece with some worthy advice and avenues of further investigation.

ADD:

Thank you Futurescape (and Ms. J for putting us all together so nicely... and virtually)

And as what goes around... from waaaaay out West at http://www.junkk.com we are more than happy to offer anyone with a consumer product or service that helps the planet a nifty slot and promo via our free diRE:ctory and newsletter.

Web-based especially welcome (a bit of NO-COtoo saving on all that gadding about)!

Speaking of complete wastes..

Fake bloggers soon to be ‘named and shamed’

Any significance that this is posted by the political correspondent?

ps: My Mum thinks my free reuse ideas website Junkk.com is fab.