Re: [atlarge-discuss] Ranking re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-web]...

[NameCritic <chris1@telnor.net>]

Judyth I don't have the time or the desire to comment below simply because
of the way your emails are formatted. Everyone else here their qoutes are
moved to the right with > except yours. Can you tell us why? It makes anyone
responding within your comments do extra work so others could find it
readable.

So I'll just write the comments here. I'll make it short because I can see
I'm dealing with someone who thinks that a college degree in marketing
qualifies them as someone who knows how to sell on the internet. That's what
all the corporations in the dot com crash thought too. They thought banner
ads worked. They know think popups work. Same class of people. All your
years in the advertising business don't count, degree or no degree unless
you have successfully sold on the internet. I don't know all your background
Judyth, but bricks and mortar advertising mentality does not equate to
inernet success.

The average user is not one with a college degree. That is not the majority
of users. They want something easy to understand, that is personal, and
written to them not AT them. Thought I would throw in a randomly all caps
word just for you.

I do make sales with my websites. I do advise companies and individuals how
to do the same and do it successfully. I work full time from home. I make my
living at doing this on the internet. I've done this without large budgets
and with large budgets both. I have also founded and operated a nonprofit
whose website did very well and recruited a lot of members.

Your attitude is one of the ones I spoke of when I said this current group
will not be able to communicate with the average user. Your condescending
nature in just this email is a perfect example. "Again, on the basis of
(entirely too) many years in the advertising business, I would say you don't
quite understand how these things work in practice. "Pretty" and
"brochureware" are irrelevant -- that's not what I'm suggesting at all. But
if I were marketing a product to Harley-owners I'd use a
different approach from the one I'd use for drivers of compact cars or
bicycle riders."

Of course you use targeted advertising Judyth. You're preaching to the choir
here. I never said anything about not targeting a particular audience. You
speak of this as if only an elite few with years in the advertising business
know this big secret. Judyth let me let YOU in a a big secret; Targeting
your audience isn't a big secret. In the case of this organization our
audience is every internet user in the world. Target that. You say I don't
understand how it works in practice. No Judyth that remark is condescending
and stupid. I do it in practice. That is the exact type of comment that will
keep everyday users off this list and out of this membership.

You wrote; "A successful Web site is one which

a) attracts the people it needs to speak to, using search engines
and other ways of getting the word out. Just generating random
hits won't work; you need to target your marketing."

By the way, generating random hits that apply to the keywords in the
metatags I wrote will work. You have to assume not everyone knows who the
hell ICANN is. That doesn't mean they don't care about the internet. We are
not just targeting people who already care Judyth. We are the ones who have
to make them care. The fact that you seem to miss that point worries me.

You wrote: b) "presents the product as something the visitor wants or wants
to be part of/share the image of, while presenting that image
in the best light possible. Even if we are not pitching only
to university-educated sophisticates, we can't present this
organization as if it were intended primarily for the illiterate
if we want the organization to do the job we claim it will."

If you take all the internet users in the world and looked at their average
education level Judyth you will find we ARE targeting the illiterate and
semi-litarate people of the world as well as those who are
university-educated. But most of the people we need to reach are NOT
university-educated. At least in my opinion we have enough elitists already.

You wrote: "c) recognizes that attracting and appealing to the real target
market is the best way to achieve the desired result -- in our
case, recruiting people who are interested in not only using
the Internet but doing something constructive about human
rights like privacy, security, freedom of expression, etc. in
the context of Internet governance. What we need isn't just
to get numbers up by persuading every idiot on the Net to sign
up just because it's free, but to convince people who care that
they can do something about these issues by joining."

Again Judyth we definitely disagree. Our target is not people who are
already doing things about human rights, etc only. Our job as with any
organization is to make people care about what we are doing. That means
someone who has never done anything like this before as well as those who
have. If you are just wanting to join a peer group, try a trade association.

You wrote: "Like yourself but perhaps for different reasons, I also
believe simplicity and ease of navigation are best. I'm on
record already as one of the people deeply committed to
this organization being truly international -- that is, not
directed at affluent Westerners with the latest equipment
and browsers but also at Internet users in developing countries
whose equipment, software and access-time may be quite limited."

You're committed to it being "truly international" but trying to appeal to
internet professionals not the average user. You may think you are trying to
reach the average user. I understand, it's your background maybe. There, a
condescending remark to you. Like that?


I said: >[...] ALL this committee stuff, discussions, and rhetoric is total
BS
>and >will never be enough to get done what you want to get done. ICANN
>is >agressive. We have no
>choice but to beat them at their own game because they are intrenched
>and
>have money and government sanction, and the media and public
>attention, ALL
>of which we do not currently have. It's like taking a knife to a
>gunfight.
(and Judyth note the > symbol you get when replying to other people's
emails)

You wrote: "Again, I really must disagree. If all one wanted to do was
beat down ICANN by sheer bullying, perhaps, or if they and
we were competing hamburger chains on opposite corners.
But we're not.

In fact, ICANN is already losing most of its credibility
all by itself, thanks to the way they are playing "their
own game" regardless of how many toes they step on."

Judyth, ICANN is so far ahead of this organization it's not even worth
comparing at this point. You speak as if this organization can already put a
dent in ICANN's armor. This organization so far isn't even filed legally.
This organization, to use the word loosely, doesn't even have a simple
mission statement. This organization claims a lot of signups/members, yet
only a few elitists even participate in these lists, mostly because of some
of the ridiculous things that go through it I would imagine as well as those
who do their very best to sound intelligent by using terms and abbreviations
the average user doesn't even know. You are included in that Judyth. My (oh
so too many) years in the advertising business. Give me a break. That
doesn't impress many people, but the attitude is pictured with a roll of the
eyes as if you are talking to a small child who doesn't understand anything.

I'm done helping. I don't have the time to waste. I tried to hang in there
to see if ANYTHING was gonna get done here. It's not. Good luck to you on
your little elite list who will NEVER attract the users you claim you wish
to represent. Say what you want Judyth. You and Jeff can have a great
conversation about how I quit for my lack of knowledge about what this
organization really needs to do, etc., etc. But the last laugh, is that damn
near anyone can do a better job at organizing this mess than those who are
here have done so far. and Judyth, even if they don't have Oh so many years
in the advertising business.

As for some people here who really do try to do things, Richard Henderson,
Richard Sexton, Joop, Sotiris, Walter, Jeffsey, Bruce, Danny, David Ferrar,
Eric, Jaz, and Joanna, to name a few. Maybe you can get something done.
Maybe you have the time. Personally I'm unsubscribing from the list
altogether. And formally withdraw any membership in this organization. I do
so sadly. I really held out hopes, but all I can see is a waste of time. No
one is any closer to doing this than we were 2 years ago and by the looks of
things here, I could re-subscribe in another year and much will be the same
as it is now. That has already happened. When I left the GA a year ago, we
were already past some of the discussions we are having once again in the At
Large and still ICANN goes about their merry way, doing what was intended
for them to do, undaunted by these little fledgling groups that say someday
we'll do something for the users of the Internet. Read the GA archives from
one year ago, make that december 2000 through april 2001. You will see
nothing new has been discussed here so far. Sotiris will tell you about even
before that, they had already discussed those same things before I joined
the GA. This is like a soap opera. As the ICANN turns. I'm changing the
channel guys. Later.

NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Ranking re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-web]...


At 14:37 -0800 2002/12/07, NameCritic wrote:
>Some good work there judyth. I first of all took the words join "free"
>from
>the original page I believe. I didn't use free for the search engines,
>but
>surfers shy away for ANY link that says join until they know it is
>free. So
>it is necessary to use the word free for that reason, not for the
>search
>engines.

As you'll note from the copy of my draft I'm sending separately
for further comments, I did keep the "free" in the text, though
I moved it further down. In my opinion, you don't say "buy"
before you say what the product is.

>An Judyth you are correct about capital letters IF you were writing a
>>letter
>or offline document or teaching an english course, but you use bold,
>caps,
>italics, etc on webpages with abundant text to highlight specific
>items and
>draw attention of the surfer to specific areas. The reason is they do
>not
>for the most part read the text as they would a letter. They skim. You
>write
>a webpage with all the text as if they are going to read it all
>because some
>do, then you go back and use bold, highlights, italics, and caps to
>write to
>the skimmers.

Begging your pardon, I disagree very strongly with this: the
surest way to have an unprofessional-looking site is to use
random capitalization and arbitrary highlighting. Whether
people skim the text lightly or read it carefully, the use
of formatting has to make sense or you create the opposite
impression from the one we are aiming for.

>There is only a few ways to determine you have a successful website.
>If it
>is brochure-ware and on your letterheads and biz cards, etc. and the
>only
>people that will see it are those who see those or you tell about it.
>If
>that was the intended goal then all it has to be is pretty. That would
>be
>successful. The others all depend on A. Getting traffic to the site
>and B.
>Converting that traffic. Whether you are selling a product or not this
>is
>the only way to mark the success of a website, converting means
>getting the
>visitor to do what you want them to do, period.

Again, on the basis of (entirely too) many years in the
advertising business, I would say you don't quite understand
how these things work in practice. "Pretty" and "brochureware"
are irrelevant -- that's not what I'm suggesting at all. But
if I were marketing a product to Harley-owners I'd use a
different approach from the one I'd use for drivers of
compact cars or bicycle riders.

A successful Web site is one which

a) attracts the people it needs to speak to, using search engines
and other ways of getting the word out. Just generating random
hits won't work; you need to target your marketing.

b) presents the product as something the visitor wants or wants
to be part of/share the image of, while presenting that image
in the best light possible. Even if we are not pitching only
to university-educated sophisticates, we can't present this
organization as if it were intended primarily for the illiterate
if we want the organization to do the job we claim it will.

c) recognizes that attracting and appealing to the real target
market is the best way to achieve the desired result -- in our
case, recruiting people who are interested in not only using
the Internet but doing something constructive about human
rights like privacy, security, freedom of expression, etc. in
the context of Internet governance. What we need isn't just
to get numbers up by persuading every idiot on the Net to sign
up just because it's free, but to convince people who care that
they can do something about these issues by joining.

To that end, clear, straightforward and grammatical prose
which uses emphasis sparingly but in the right places is
likely to be far more effective than text in which there
are too many bolds and capitals for easy reading.

>As far as design is concerned, Navigation is the most important thing
>to
>consider above all else it must be easy to find everything from
>anywhere in
>the site and without using frames that many browsers do not support
>and the
>spiders hate. Next is catching their attention and text is the best
>way to
>do that.

Like yourself but perhaps for different reasons, I also
believe simplicity and ease of navigation are best. I'm on
record already as one of the people deeply committed to
this organization being truly international -- that is, not
directed at affluent Westerners with the latest equipment
and browsers but also at Internet users in developing countries
whose equipment, software and access-time may be quite limited.

>But as I said you have 2 types of people, readers and skimmers. You
>have to write to both. There is an old saying for webmasters. Build the
>first one for show and the rest for dough. Plain and simple. Ugly
>sites >sell product. Doesn't really mean ugly, but means plain, easy
>to use and >easy to navigate.

I would say that there are many types of people and our goal is
to speak to as many of them as possible. I would also say that
elegance IS simple while an overbusy approach to design turns
most people off -- even if they're equipped for the bells and
whistles, such things tend to slow loading of the page. One
thing to keep in mind is that few "surfers" will wait more
than 10 seconds to find out where they are and whether there
is something on the site they actually want to see.

On the other hand, I can't help cringing at the "for dough"
and "sell product" -- we are in fact not doing this for money
and we're not pushing an MLM or casino here. What we are
trying to market is the concept that our organization can
help Internet users protect their own rights by participating.

>No matter how many times this point is proven people still think
>design is really really important and pay so much attention to the
>look that
>they forget that the website is simply a communication tool you are
>using
>and you have a goal that you are trying to achieve with it, whether
>selling
>a product, doing outreach, or recruiting members.

Design IS important but in the sense of making the site make
a good impression on its destined audience, not in the sense
of letting a graphic designer go wild. Web design is at
least 90% creating a useful, logical structure for the site,
based on who it's for and what it must include.

>When I build a website, I build all of it, then if I need to I hire a
>designer just to pretty it up some.

At that point, you really should just save your money -- if
the design doesn't integrate into the purpose, you don't need it!

>[...] ALL this committee stuff, discussions, and rhetoric is total BS
>and >will never be enough to get done what you want to get done. ICANN
>is >agressive. We have no
>choice but to beat them at their own game because they are intrenched
>and
>have money and government sanction, and the media and public
>attention, ALL
>of which we do not currently have. It's like taking a knife to a
>gunfight.

Again, I really must disagree. If all one wanted to do was
beat down ICANN by sheer bullying, perhaps, or if they and
we were competing hamburger chains on opposite corners.
But we're not.

In fact, ICANN is already losing most of its credibility
all by itself, thanks to the way they are playing "their
own game" regardless of how many toes they step on.

In fact, too, one can't found an effective grassroots
pressure group by merely attacking somebody else and
recruiting "warm bodies" who won't even read a summary
of what the organization is for. If our goal is to provide
a focal point where people who care about their rights
with regard to the Internet can get together and find a
strong collective voice, that effort is much more like
getting all the neighbours to a barn-raising than it is
like a shoot-out.

>Back to the page and your edits;
>
>I did not change the page around all I did was the text. I didn't have
>the
>style sheet and don't like them anyway. But as I said you did a good
>job on
>the rewording judyth. I like it a lot. Your words were better, and I
>welcomed people to edit. You left the keywords intact. Thank you.

You're welcome -- but surely that was the point? Of course I
didn't want to remove the keywords -- just to make the prose
clearer, more grammatical and easier to read.

>Write the mission statement and by laws please.

Well, nobody seemed all that enthusiastic about any of my
earlier efforts at a mission statement but I haven't quite
given up yet...

>"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want
>tradition. We
>want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a
>tinker's
>damn is the history we made today."
>Henry Ford (1863 - 1947), Interview in Chicago Tribune, May 25th, 1916
>
>ICANN is making history, shall we?

Probably not in Ford's sense. Effective coalitions can change
the course of history but first they need to know about
yesterday as well as today, not to mention care more about
tomorrow than today's sales.

>"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"
>Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963), "Proper Studies", 1927
>
>The reality is as I stated above, a website needs traffic and needs to
>convert that traffic to be successful. Anything else is just a
>showpiece.
>That is reality on the web.
>[...]
>I'm wondering what the website will look like after we run it by
>everyone >on the list before building it.

Obviously, that remains to be seen. However, trying to run this
group as a dictatorship or oligarchy will most certainly fail.
Whether we're talking about the site or the bylaws or what will
be said to ICANN or the other organizations involved in the
Internet, this group will eventually be

a) a viable constituency of Internet users working for their
   common good

or

b) a small clique of ICANN wannabes with no credibility at all.

In my opinion, we're trying to make a Web site that fits a)
rather than b), which means letting people think, discuss, work
out their differences and then decide democratically what they
want to do.

>"Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate
>into hard work."
>Peter Drucker
>"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do."
>Dale Carnegie

I'm with Drucker and Carnegie, and willing to do the work as
long as my efforts won't be wasted.

>Vote on who will do the task then let them do it. Everyone needs to
>quit
>thinking that everyone must have a vote in every single move or we go
>nowhere.

Sorry, but a democratically-elected dictator is still just a
dictator, not a democracy. If we want a dictaorship of the
Internet, we could all spare ourselves a lot of time and
trouble by letting ICANN do its thing.

>"Lack of money is no obstacle. Lack of an idea is an obstacle."
>Ken Hakuta
>"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
>Elbert Hubbard

You've really given your dictionary of quotations a good workout.
I didn't think anyone read Hubbard anymore...

>We have an idea. We need to implement it and stop discussing it so
>much.

Small problem here -- we have lots of ideas and haven't yet
decided which to implement how. Until we do, discussions are
essential ... unless you want each of us to go off and found
our own organization-of-one.

It may be worth noting that we do have an Outreach working group
(I'm in it) which agreed that the time for a big recruiting
drive is **after** we have a clearer sense of what we're
recruiting people to. I'm not personally in favour of going
off half-cocked every time somebody decides the Web site is
now an emergency after months of neglect but I'll keep
offering such help as I can give, just in case it may be
found useful.

And, by the way, Quayle was wrong -- as usual: if we don't
succeed, we are **guaranteed** to fail.

Regards,

Judyth

#######"Judyth la pomme" <espresso@e-scape.net>###########
()  Eliminate computer viruses! Join the ASCII ribbon
/\  campaign against HTML/XML e-mail and risky attachments
#### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### #####
## "You can fix it on the drawing board with an eraser  ##
## or you can fix it on the site with a sledgehammer."  ##
# « Vous pouvez le corriger ou avec une gomme à effacer  #
##   sur le dessin ou avec une masse sur le site ...   ###
####                         - Frank Lloyd Wright     ####
####### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ########





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de