I have to put down in words some of the anger I feel when I am on the receiving end of other people's impulsive suggestions for web sites. This happens often, but most recently manifested in an emotional meeting related to people's feelings in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks. The emotion we all feel regarding that horrible event is understandable, but apparently it resulted in this case in an ill-formed idea for a website, as many more less dramatic circumstances do.
Fortunately, I was volunteering elsewhere and was not present at this particular meeting, which was a good thing, because my presence would have put me on the spot in a very awkward position. I was told later that people were suggesting "some kind of a healing web site." Nobody knew quite what should be on it, nobody quite knew what other web sites there were on it, and nobody really knew how to go about building the web site. But there was apparently a distinct emotional reaction of "Let's build a web site!"
Ultimately (and excuse me for not getting into the specifics -- I want to keep this generic), we decided to link to someone's else's web site....a site with an appropriate page dedicated to healing after the attacks (although two days after it went up is still empty). Meanwhile, many other web sites have sprung up, many claiming to have the authoritative list of World Trade Center survivors. And now, it turns out, some of those so-called survivor lists are not official or accurate at all. And the lists are on so many sites that families and friends aren't quite quite what site to go to for the official list.
Here is the problem with "Let's build a web site!"
Chances are, somebody else has already built the web site, and done a better job of it than you can.
If they haven't, it may be because nobody is interested in the topic--and nobody will come to your web site either.
Finally, if the proposed web site has a specific purpose and meets a specific need, it still requires content. A lot of website proposals fall down at this point. Somebody has to actually write and/or edit something to go on the site, and it follows you must first make decisions about how that will happen and who will do the work.
The web site must be also built, and widely publicized in order to attract an audience. This takes time. A basic web site of text and perhaps a few pictures can indeed be constructed from scratch reasonably quickly, as can new pages on an existing site. However, adding elaborate graphics, databases, and search engines requires programming, time and planning. Once the site is launched nobody will see it unless they know it is there. Putting up a new web site does not automatically bring an audience, and search engine indexing takes several weeks, even months.
So, I loathe knee-jerk proposals for websites because they are almost invariably half-assed and not thought through. Most people, at this late date, still think the web is easy. It's not.
Fortunately, I was volunteering elsewhere and was not present at this particular meeting, which was a good thing, because my presence would have put me on the spot in a very awkward position. I was told later that people were suggesting "some kind of a healing web site." Nobody knew quite what should be on it, nobody quite knew what other web sites there were on it, and nobody really knew how to go about building the web site. But there was apparently a distinct emotional reaction of "Let's build a web site!"
Ultimately (and excuse me for not getting into the specifics -- I want to keep this generic), we decided to link to someone's else's web site....a site with an appropriate page dedicated to healing after the attacks (although two days after it went up is still empty). Meanwhile, many other web sites have sprung up, many claiming to have the authoritative list of World Trade Center survivors. And now, it turns out, some of those so-called survivor lists are not official or accurate at all. And the lists are on so many sites that families and friends aren't quite quite what site to go to for the official list.
Here is the problem with "Let's build a web site!"
Chances are, somebody else has already built the web site, and done a better job of it than you can.
If they haven't, it may be because nobody is interested in the topic--and nobody will come to your web site either.
Finally, if the proposed web site has a specific purpose and meets a specific need, it still requires content. A lot of website proposals fall down at this point. Somebody has to actually write and/or edit something to go on the site, and it follows you must first make decisions about how that will happen and who will do the work.
The web site must be also built, and widely publicized in order to attract an audience. This takes time. A basic web site of text and perhaps a few pictures can indeed be constructed from scratch reasonably quickly, as can new pages on an existing site. However, adding elaborate graphics, databases, and search engines requires programming, time and planning. Once the site is launched nobody will see it unless they know it is there. Putting up a new web site does not automatically bring an audience, and search engine indexing takes several weeks, even months.
So, I loathe knee-jerk proposals for websites because they are almost invariably half-assed and not thought through. Most people, at this late date, still think the web is easy. It's not.
