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

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

hmmm... see you another season, Chris... I hope... the world turns round...
people converge again... I've appreciated your focussed comments... shame to
part, but there's a bigger perspective going on anyway...

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: NameCritic <chris1@telnor.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <espresso@e-scape.net>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Ranking re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-web]...


> 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
>


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