21 replies to this topic

[HJB]

Hi,

I just wondered if it might useful to make the Web Site Review board private so that it is not spidered. It might encourage more people to request reviews. Just a thought!

[Jill]

We actually don't want to encourage people to post reviews.

[Scottie]

We've had many, many people who find the site reviews constructive and helpful, even if they never post their own site for review.

[qwerty]

I think HJB just means they should be invisible to search engines, like if the forum was only available if one was logged in.

[Hic]

[Added: Please do not post a review if you don't want to see it potentially show up in the search engines under your keyword phrases, or for the name of your site. Reviews often do show up in the results, and we will not remove them after the fact. Don't post a review if you don't want to see/hear negative thoughts about your site as well, because most likely there will be some -- we hope that they will be constructive at least! - Jill]

I knew the rules better than you Mods and Admins
Just kidding ..

[Jill]

'Tis true, Hic. I can't remember the last time I revisited those rules...

[HJB]

I think HJB just means they should be invisible to search engines, like if the forum was only available if one was logged in.

Exactly.

I'm confused. If High Rankings does not wish to encorage reviews, why have the review board at all? If you do wish to encourage reviews, then making the review board available to members-only (so that the threads cannot be spidered) would encourage participation. It doesn't matter to me much, as I probably would still not request a review, but I would be interested to read more reviews.

Any milage in this idea?

[Jill]

Good question as to why we have it all. We did encourage them when the forum was new back in 2003, but now it seems most just want to use it to try to get a link.

This is why we only allow reviews now for members of the forum who are true participants to the forum. We're still happy to help those who are part of our little community.

[HJB]

Good question as to why we have it all. We did encourage them when the forum was new back in 2003, but now it seems most just want to use it to try to get a link.

This is why we only allow reviews now for members of the forum who are true participants to the forum. We're still happy to help those who are part of our little community.

In which case, this is another benefit of having the Web Site Review board available only to members: the board cannot be spidered and indexed, so will be of little link value, and will do nothing to improve visability of a particular website with the search engines.

It seems to me that the Web Site Review board is not operating anywhere near as well as it might. Unless, of course, you would rather just drop the board altogether!? I have found that I've had to make major changes to my forum about every two years - things change. I'd certainly have little resistance to changing a single board on my forum that I felt was underperforming, and merging (or dropping altogether) if changes failed improve the situation.

What do you think of making Web Site Review a members-only board (with an explanation that it is unindexable), and with a lower post threashold for requesting reviews? Of course, this only makes sense if you wish to keep and improve the board. I can understand why you might instead choose to drop tthe board, but I think it would be worth experimenting first.

[rolf]

I'm not strongly for or against, but I can see the logic of what HJB is saying.

I know there have been a couple of projects that I would like to have got opinions from the members here but haven't posted as I felt it could be politically risky to the relationship between me and my client to discuss the issues so publicly. Had it been a members only board I would probably have posted.

[Randy]

Part of the issue though is the amount of time and effort it takes to do a site review. Of course what I call a site review and what others consider one are probably two entirely different things. But in my world where I used to actually offer a service called Site Review, the act of compiling enough information to complete a decent review took at least a few hours and sometimes a day or two. So I really don't think you want to lower the threshold too much, otherwise the reviews themselves become fairly useless.

Not that it affects me one way or the other since I avoid the site reviews area as a matter of practice. And no it's not because of the amount of time it takes to do one, though there is that too. I avoid the area because what I do is a bit different than others and I don't want to open the door to someone being able to accuse me of jumping into their market because I saw their review request and found it a market ripe for the picking. Not that I would do it, but I'm in a lot of markets and undoubtedly will be in more. So to avoid the possibility I don't do reviews unless someone specifically requests me to do so for their site.

FTR, some folks I know do this exactly this type of thing to discover new markets. Especially if the site review process includes any financial or traffic data. And yes it works for them. I seem to have the opposite problem. More potentially lucrative markets I've already identified than I have time to develop a site for.

[Jill]

So would you guys be willing to pay for a private members only website review forum?

If we were to take subscription money for it, I might consider it. Otherwise, I don't see the benefit for High Rankings or the moderators.

[HJB]

I'm not strongly for or against, but I can see the logic of what HJB is saying.

I know there have been a couple of projects that I would like to have got opinions from the members here but haven't posted as I felt it could be politically risky to the relationship between me and my client to discuss the issues so publicly. Had it been a members only board I would probably have posted.

This is even an issue for people like me (amateurs) that do not wish to give away too much about the inner workings and strategies of our non-commercial sites. I have competitors too, even if there is little or no money involved.

Part of the issue though is the amount of time and effort it takes to do a site review. Of course what I call a site review and what others consider one are probably two entirely different things. But in my world where I used to actually offer a service called Site Review, the act of compiling enough information to complete a decent review took at least a few hours and sometimes a day or two. So I really don't think you want to lower the threshold too much, otherwise the reviews themselves become fairly useless.

A more informal review by fellow members about what they feel could be improved is what I am taking about, but with a focus upon SEO, since this what High Rankings is about. I do see it as informal though, because, as you say, a proper review would take serious time by serious people that would usually reqiure remuneration for their services.

So would you guys be willing to pay for a private members only website review forum?

If we were to take subscription money for it, I might consider it. Otherwise, I don't see the benefit for High Rankings or the moderators.

Jill, do you mean forum, or board (these terms seem interchangeable, and mean different things to different people)? I do mean a board within this forum (as is the case now), but accessable only to members of this forum?

You might consider a members-only board, where people can request informal reviews, but with a 'paid' option (and private, if they wish) if they require the services of a professional providing detailed feedback.

I see that you are thinking along different lines to what I envisaged, but whatever you decide to do, it is likely to be improvement over the present setup, and you have little to loose. I hope there is still room for a free informal option for non-commercial enterprises like mine, that are unlikely to have the funds available to hire a professional.

[rolf]

So would you guys be willing to pay for a private members only website review forum?

It's not something I would use very often these days because of the way my business has changed focus over the last year or so, but when I was doing more building from scratch I would have subscribed, and if I happened to get the right project land on my desk then I would still consider it as a serious option.

I suppose it ultimately depends on what's being offered for what price, but in principle I could see there being some value in such an idea.

[Jill]

Jill, do you mean forum, or board (these terms seem interchangeable, and mean different things to different people)? I do mean a board within this forum (as is the case now), but accessable only to members of this forum?

I mean having the site review section be a members only section where people would pay a subscription to get to view it and participate. This would enable us to compensate moderators for their time to do reviews.

The members only forum could be more than just for reviews too, like for any issues where one had to look at the site to help diagnose it.