 THE BEEF Article by Jeff Clark News Why not visit the Saturn
bookstore for more
|
Enough Already! by Jeff Clark Internet Brothers - Helpware for the Cybercommunity At last count there were more than 3000 of them. They are big and little, they are beautiful and horrendous, they are everywhere. Most are an absolute waste of bandwidth, some are actually meaningful. You've got them, I've got them, even the Los Angeles Times has them. What am I talking about? Web site awards programs, and it's time to separate the chaff from the added value. Enough Already! Superb information site, outstanding design creativity, five star e-commerce excellence, wonderful pets of the net, best expression of why men fear slipping off the bicycle seat. You've seen them all, and c'mon admit it, you've even applied for a few yourself. When was the last time any of these awards really did something for your site? I mean brought traffic in droves, or better yet, even gave you financial incentive. I laugh out loud when I see some of these award graphics. People spend hour upon hour designing and creating their award masterpiece, some are downright gorgeous, then slap the title on them like "Dragon's Lare", "Desine Wonder", or my favourite "Virtual Realty." Have you ever received a 3-star award that has 4 stars on it? I once was even honoured "A Supreme Webmuster." Don't get me wrong, I'm like every webmuster out there who likes to be recognised for their hard work. It's human nature. But the web doesn't need any more awards. There are enough already. Instead, I suggest people who enjoy presenting awards join together and produce fewer, higher quality, meaningful web honours. It will make the web a better place, and save some of that wasted bandwidth. Here is what I propose: An award site's own visual appeal as well as even the
award graphics themselves should make one think "these folks could win their
own award." This is something I personally would never be any good at You can look at this two ways. We all know what the
"best" sites are, but they don't apply for awards. So a reviewer is limited to
judging only what applications he/she receives, or they differentiate between member
nominated and applied for sites. I think of Lycos' Point Top 5%
award. When the web was small, this made sense and was a good measuring stick. Now
with literally hundreds of millions of web offerings out there, the top 5% could include
over a million sites. (Actually I'm pissed off I never got this one. I must have at
least one of the best million sites, right?) Quotas don't really work anymore. An
award site should no longer say "I'm only going to give 1% my top award." Bottom
line: award exchanges and link whores are wasting bandwidth. You know as well as I do the
award graphics you see on every single site. This needs to stop. I'd like to encourage this. In fact, if I was more
than one person (hint to all you award managers out there), I would try to do more of this
myself. For example, my award is primarily for Helpware. There is a terrific new site out
there called Neostream Interactive
that is picking up every top award there is, but were they to apply for mine, I would
merely present a bronze award because they don't offer anything in return. Don't get me
wrong, they have a fabulous site, but it doesn't really meet my criteria. So if I had
separate categories for design brilliance, or exceptional use of multimedia, or marketing
excellence, then a wider variety of sites would qualify, and lose (hah!). I
believe allowing applicants to choose a category to enter is a healthy way of encouraging
improvement. Reviewers can also then select truly top sites that exhibit excellence in all
curricula. Encourage reapplication upon demonstrated improvement... Set a time limit on the award's validity (i.e. only
valid in 1999, or only valid for six months from date of receipt). Always up the bar. What
won today wouldn't stand a chance in 12 months. |
Other Beefs... HI STATS? - go there EMAIL PET PEEVES? - go there
|
simply
because I'm not a designer or artist, but top quality award programs should be willing to
spend money for professionals. A contemporary example that immediately comes to mind is 