According to the Brian Clark article good online content consists of certain things. These things make your article valuable for the online arena. For example you don't want bland content on your page that no one would read but at the same time you need to involve some sort of common text in which the audience would search by. The example that is used in the article refers to "Green widgets". It brings attention to the fact that you may write about green widgets using metaphors and synonyms but if you don't use the actual words "green widgets" or similar sentences that are normally used when referring to "green widgets" then your page most likely wont show up in peoples searches.
When including reference to the How you will change the world with social networking article one sees that sites that makes things more personal actually are better than sites that don't connect with the viewer. The idea should be instead of trying to make a site or have a site that hopefully reaches two million people in hopes that two thousand care to read it that you be somewhat social and develop relationships to people. The prime example of this is www.twitter.com in which people decided to follow you and read your information based on the personal relationship that you develop with them. one by one people follow you and each person selected to follow you for a reason. There's no accident involved in their watching your posts and literature. In other words the best thing to be may be to be social.
In this respect I would be left to believe that "bad online content" would be content that doesn't engage the reader or draw new readers to the site. In addition doesn't consist of the keywords that are necessary for one to find the page.
Based on the readings I believe that www.nba.com as well as www.nytimes.com are good sites based on their usage of proper keywords and such. If you were searching on a subject that they have covered despite the metaphors or descriptive terms that are used you are still usually directed to their websites. In addition the New York Times allows people to post comments under the articles therefore making the site somewhat more personal. In addition related content is provided on the side and interesting articles help to keep users on the website.
Im not sure what would really constitute a really bad website but an example of a site that I feel is poorly put together is www.supervideo.com/ in which you cant really search the information on the site and all of the links attempt to open a PowerPoint presentation! In addition the site is aimed at a specific group or demographic but even with that being said I still feel as if the website is all over the place.
No comments:
Post a Comment