• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Creating a "good" web site.

Tim Armes

New member
Look here. His "Artisans" series involved getting to know and enter the world of dedicated workers and try to engrave that experience in an image. He's not flitting here and there or snapping.

Thanks for the good press Asher :)

Since that thread was about good websites - and you were mentionning mine - I'll take the opportunity to redirect the conversation somewhat and hopefully share my experiences. My site as you linked to it a month or so a go was actually a bit of a mess; I've just finished a complete make over. This is probably the first time that I've ever truly been happy with it.

I think it's very hard to create a good web site. The biggest problem that I have had in the past was my desire to share too many types of images; my professional intentions were thus unclear to prospective clients, and this is never a good thing.

On the other hand I wish to show my personal work, such as the Artisans project, and I believe that clients do benefit from this. I discuss this problem and offer suggestions in a recent blog post:

http://www.timothyarmes.com/blog/2009/09/specialise-or-generalise/

Briefly though, my solution is to make a clear statement of my profession intent on the front page, and to present a focussed commercial portfolio that only presents the speciality that I wish to undertake professionally. Personal work is placed in it's own gallery. Other images are placed in the blog; I do this to show my technical competances to prospective clients in an informal way that doesn't get confused with my portfolio or professional objectives.

Another issue I had when redesigning the site was that of actually presenting my images. I like to generate my galleries directly in Lightroom - it's easy and convenient - unfortunately there weren't any Lightroom "Web Engines" that met my needs (mainly because I refuse to use Flash). In the end I had to write my own, which I've since turned into a donationware product. Again, I blogged about my efforts:

http://www.timothyarmes.com/blog/2009/09/elegance-a-new-web-engine-for-lightroom-2/

Good web sites need good images, that goes without saying, but they also need a lot of thought to make them work. They should be easy to navigate, compelling to visit, a pleasure to read, and they should have a clear objective. It's hard to achieve.

Until recently my site was quite confusing, containing an ambiguous mix of professional work and personal work and even Lightroom plug-ins. The previous colour scheme - an attempt to be offer something more unique - was totally inappropriate for my commercial work. All these issues have been addressed. I don't know if I've yet achieved what most people would consider a "good" site, but it's certainly a big improvement and it'll continue to mature and evolve.

Hopefully this post will help any others who are struggling too...

Tim
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tim,

I love your old website as it was simple and focussed. I like seeing the best images and that you have chosen a package for us, not every picture you didn't want to throw away. That experience is a key to a good experience. The next thing is a promise that the site will be updated regularly with a picture of the week and link to your blog.

The absence of flash avoids problems with getting indexed by search engines. Do you have places for text and word clouds for SEO?

Asher

BTW, what's the community levels of donation that work for software programmers and the non-rich?
 

Tim Armes

New member
Hi Asher,

Tim,

I love your old website as it was simple and focussed.

The old site wasn't focussed, that was the problem. What do you think of the new one?
I like seeing the best images and that you have chosen a package for us, not every picture you didn't want to throw away. That experience is a key to a good experience. The next thing is a promise that the site will be updated regularly with a picture of the week and link to your blog.

The absence of flash avoids problems with getting indexed by search engines. Do you have places for text and word clouds for SEO?
Avoiding flash also means that my gallery can be seen on mobile devices such as the iPhone.

I need to improve my SEO.

BTW, what's the community levels of donation that work for software programmers and the non-rich?
Huh?
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
hi Tim,

I have been through a simila process and decided to go for a non obstrusive java scripts css xhtml site which degrades gracefully. There are many ready made tools out there, like your very nice plugin, but none which does it as I want to have it. so i'll take one as a starting point and modify the template to make it work as i want it. Does your license allow this?

Cheers,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
hi Tim,

I have been through a simila process and decided to go for a non obstrusive java scripts css xhtml site which degrades gracefully. There are many ready made tools out there, like your very nice plugin, but none which does it as I want to have it. so i'll take one as a starting point and modify the template to make it work as i want it. Does your license allow this?

Cheers,

Cem,

What features are missing besides a shopping cart?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tim,

I liked your old site and your new one is better! I hope ideas like those from Cem, might be added as plugins for this program if they are of general utility, like having extra building blocks.

How far is it from iPhoto, Aperture, Photoshop, Microsoft Expression etc to load pics from them too?

Asher
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Cem,

What features are missing besides a shopping cart?

Asher
It is not just a matter of features which are missing. It is about the coding of the java scripts, good use of CSS, degrading gracefully when java scripts are not allowed to run, etc. All the answers I need are out there but not all together in one package so I need to create a best-of-breed integrated application for myself.

Cheers,
 

Tim Armes

New member
It is not just a matter of features which are missing. It is about the coding of the java scripts, good use of CSS, degrading gracefully when java scripts are not allowed to run, etc.
Cheers,

Well, if it's any help mine degrades gracefully when javascript is disabled.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
As long as you don't redistribute it I have no problem. The source code isn't there however, so I'm not sure how you can use it.
I was referring to adjusting the html, css and js files distributed with your package to adapt them to my taste for once and all. For example, I don't want to go into the slideshow mode when one clicks on the image. Etc....

Well, if it's any help mine degrades gracefully when javascript is disabled.
Tim I did not want to create the impression that yours didn't do that, it does that and much more indeed. :) The point I was trying to make that in each and every ready-made solution I miss this or that. That happens when you have a picture in your mind of how it ideally should work. This is also what you've discovered yourself in your search, didn't you?
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Smugmug

I have a Smugmug Pro Site that is fully customized. I had it completely re-done and I have done a bit of SEO so I am even on page one of google in a few of my search terms. All the layout there is NO smugmug branding anywhere. I have had the web designers (www.wolfsnap.com) do some SEO on the site also. On top of that the Smugmug features are a pro lab now (Bay Photo) and some other nice features. Hosting starts at $40 but the Pro account - which uses your own URL is $150.

www.flashfrozenphotography.com
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
I have a Smugmug Pro Site that is fully customized. I had it completely re-done and I have done a bit of SEO so I am even on page one of google in a few of my search terms. All the layout there is NO smugmug branding anywhere. I have had the web designers (www.wolfsnap.com) do some SEO on the site also. On top of that the Smugmug features are a pro lab now (Bay Photo) and some other nice features. Hosting starts at $40 but the Pro account - which uses your own URL is $150.

www.flashfrozenphotography.com
Hi Kathy,

As a good friend I have to tell you this. I have just visited your site using my regular Opera browser and it doesn't show the pictures. If I had been a prospective client, I'd promptly move on to the next site and you'd have lost my business. Since you have had a professional take care of the customization, I suggest you have a chat with him about compatibility issues.

Re. the smugmug, I have been their customer in the past and they are good indeed. But the site access was regularly very slow so I have eventually moved onto a private web server, mainly for having a complete freedom in what I do and how I do it.

Cheers,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Kathy,

I clicked on your URL and it literally flashed over to your website, Flash Frozen Photography, then came back to OPF. I couldn't believe it! Happens every time. I'm using Safari 3.2.1. However, when I copy and paste the URL to a fresh page, it works fine. Your website is rich with pictures and shows an amazing maturity since your first started! I am sure your clients will be equally impressed too. I do feel that loading could be faster. Maybe slow folk down by having more exciting content on the first page. Else get a private hosted server. We are talking here with Cem, Nicolas and Sean about loading speed of OPF so we do consider this key to retaining readership.

Asher
 
I need to improve my SEO.

I have never understood the worry about SEO when the code is wrong:

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.timothyarmes.com/

Until those errors are fixed, why worry about SEO when you do not even know if your page will render reasonably in most browsers? Random renderings of webpages in their typical crazy fashion render visitors into 1 click and leave non-visitors. Get the basics right first:

1) Does it render cleanly? Does it render cleanly for the blind? NO, it utterly fails. Check out how your homepage looks without images: http://www.seo-browser.com/results....w.timothyarmes.com/index.php&action=Parse+URL Note how it is basically blank except for an error about JavaScript to scare of the masses.

2) Does your site work without scripting? No, then search engines will likely not bother to index it. This is clearly the case here where only your blog is indexed by Google:

http://www.google.com/search?&num=1000&q=site:www.timothyarmes.com

3) Get the content right, then worry about SEO. Currently you have Zero non-blog content and this is what is hurting your baseline SEO for your website.

I could continue on, but since you have no pages indexed by google on your site (excepting the blog), you have no content to do SEO on. JavaScript should NEVER be used to deliver baseline public site content, it is for private content (AJAX sites) or for enhancing the user experience. If your site does not work without JavaScript (or some other scripting technology), then your site will not get indexed. This is very important and photographers shoot themselves in the foot by disregarding this principle all the time as they get greedy about protecting their images (no personal reference, this is generic and not aimed at Timothy).

If your site does not work without client side scripting and you did not spend inordinate amounts of time making a search engine friendly script design, then you have wasted your time and perhaps money.

a partial analysis until I found the SEO blocker,

Sean
 
Last edited:
It is also helpful for SEO to use the optional title attribute on <a ...> tags. SEO starts with communicating information and that is done w/ X/HTML. If you get that wrong, then the search engines may not see your content just as a house with a faulty foundation may collapse or a boat with faulty hull may sink. The web sits at the top of the OSI stack and such, there are well defined standards for how such software should be written. The validator linked above should give you a good start. For an even more critical analysis try http://www.totalvalidator.com/ as a start.

The basics of SEO are engineering the X/HTML to work (even Microsoft finally supports the standards by default with IE 8). This is not art, it is not science, it is engineering. The content itself is art and much more. Getting external links (good for SEO) is a place where the art of working with people and having good content reign supreme.*

But losing visitors and search engines to error messages rather than degrading gracefully when scripting fails is bad practice and hurts more site's SEO than any other practice I have seen. All the inlinks in the world will do little for you if your lose visitors to error messages (i.e., googlebot).

more thoughts on the basics,

Sean

* Bolded in reference to http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/07/attentional_set_set_in_stone.php, which I found intriguing, for a little Saturday morning fun. <smile>
 

Tim Armes

New member
Hi Sean,

Thanks for taking the time to help, I really appreciate it.

Until those errors are fixed, why worry about SEO when you do not even know if your page will render reasonably in most browsers?

Wow, that's embarrasing. I normally check this but in my anticipation it completely slipped my mind. I did of course ensure that it rendered correctly in the major browsers, but I didn't validate the HTML.

I've fixed the errors for the principle pages. Any others will have to wait till next week since I'm off to Italy for a few days.

1) Does it render cleanly? Does it render cleanly for the blind? NO, it utterly fails. Check out how your homepage looks without images: http://www.seo-browser.com/results....w.timothyarmes.com/index.php&action=Parse+URL Note how it is basically blank except for an error about JavaScript to scare of the masses.

2) Does your site work without scripting? No, then search engines will likely not bother to index it. This is clearly the case here where only your blog is indexed by Google:

http://www.google.com/search?&num=1000&q=site:www.timothyarmes.com

Actually, this is one thing that I did test. The message lets the user know that they're missing out on the improved user experience, but all the content is available. Even the Javascript galleries will have a nice fallback.

I'm therefore surprised that my main page wasn't being indexed. There was actually an error that stopped the links to my "About me" page from showing up at all in the link above, I assume that this was the cause. Nevertheless, all the pages are defined in the site map, so they should have been indexed.

In any case, all your points are very valid. Hopefully I've addressed the most pressing issues. Now I just need more incoming links.

Regards,

Tim
 
Hi Sean,

Thanks for taking the time to help, I really appreciate it.
You are welcome.
Wow, that's embarrasing. I normally check this but in my anticipation it completely slipped my mind. I did of course ensure that it rendered correctly in the major browsers, but I didn't validate the HTML.

I've fixed the errors for the principle pages. Any others will have to wait till next week since I'm off to Italy for a few days.
No worries, it is just a nice place to start. Passing validation is not a necessity, but it is a great start.
Actually, this is one thing that I did test. The message lets the user know that they're missing out on the improved user experience, but all the content is available. Even the Javascript galleries will have a nice fallback.

The gallery fallback works. I would suggest adding a small additional amount of margin to the images. A dark border on images might help with the white skies in the commercial gallery which blend into the background.

I'm therefore surprised that my main page wasn't being indexed. There was actually an error that stopped the links to my "About me" page from showing up at all in the link above, I assume that this was the cause. Nevertheless, all the pages are defined in the site map, so they should have been indexed.

In any case, all your points are very valid. Hopefully I've addressed the most pressing issues. Now I just need more incoming links.

I would expand the alt text to be non-blank for all clickable images. The self portrait on the homepage should have non-blank alt text or a title on the link to provide screen readers with copy to read out loud and to provide. The alt text can describe the image, the title should describe the link destination. Both are great places for keywords.

I would also suggest a paragraph about each image. This with the alt and title keyword usage are a way to tell your story in words. It also helps differentiate your page of images from spam images trying to sell stuff. Albeit, you could achieve most this with and more with a blog post about each image linking to the gallery. But if you had that, then each gallery page should link to the blog post about it. Images without alt text or copy are practically invisible to search engines as they are so commonly just layout elements devoid of content.

Consider this text rendering of your portfolio gallery:

http://www.seo-browser.com/results....galleries/commercial/sports/&action=Parse+URL
[blank.gif] [blank.gif] [blank.gif] [logo.png] No-Script:
[_MG_8974_Edit.jpg] [20090820_193410_5D_Edit.jpg] [IMG_1033.jpg] [20090820_194442_5D_Edit.jpg] [_MG_9551_Edit.jpg] [20090820_200310_5D.jpg] [Tim_112_Edit.jpg] [20090820_194651_5D.jpg] [_MG_9094_Edit.jpg] [_MG_9925_Edit.jpg] [20090820_203130_5D_Edit.jpg] [_MG_9304.jpg] [IMG_1131_Edit.jpg]

[_MG_8974_Edit.jpg][20090820_193410_5D_Edit.jpg][IMG_1033.jpg][20090820_194442_5D_Edit.jpg][_MG_9551_Edit.jpg][20090820_200310_5D.jpg][Tim_112_Edit.jpg]
[20090820_194651_5D.jpg][_MG_9094_Edit.jpg][_MG_9925_Edit.jpg][20090820_203130_5D_Edit.jpg][_MG_9304.jpg][IMG_1131_Edit.jpg]
[_MG_8974_Edit.jpg] [20090820_193410_5D_Edit.jpg] [IMG_1033.jpg] [20090820_194442_5D_Edit.jpg] [_MG_9551_Edit.jpg] [20090820_200310_5D.jpg] [Tim_112_Edit.jpg] [20090820_194651_5D.jpg] [_MG_9094_Edit.jpg] [_MG_9925_Edit.jpg] [20090820_203130_5D_Edit.jpg] [_MG_9304.jpg] [IMG_1131_Edit.jpg]
The whole page is images with no text at all. This stands little chance of competing with your blog.

I would actually suggest for your gallery that you use <div>'s with id's and then hide all but the current with JavaScript so that not even a noscript is needed. This follows the idea that JavaScript should provide behaviors and not content outside an AJAX context (i.e., gmail).

When the page above reads well, then I would consider inbound links of more value. For now the page is devoid of content.

Strangely your landing page has a PR of 3 and your blog has no PageRank from Google with everything else unlisted. So beyond alt text I would ensure you have no nofollow links and that nothing is excluded in your robots.txt and give the search engines some time.

enjoy Italy,

Sean
 

Andrew Stannard

pro member
Sean - I've just been tweaking around with my own website, tidying things up and doing a bit of SEO.

Just wanted to say thanks for the various links/tips that you've posted in this thread - together they become a really useful reference.


Cheers,
 

Tim Armes

New member
Yes, Sean's advice was much appreciated - Thanks Sean!

Example:

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=en&c...s+lifestyle+photographer&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=

(and there are many other terms that work that well too)

A good start. Next step is Google Trends which will provide you with relative information about search volumes. Consider:

http://www.google.fr/trends?q=sport...e+photographer,+sports+lifestyle+photographer

Which shows us that both lifestyle photographer and sports lifestyle photographer are low volume searches.

Comparing the single word search photographer to sports photographer again shows us that even sports photographer is a lower volume search term.

If your locality is added (Drome), then on google.fr you are not on the first page, but on google.com you are:

http://www.google.com/search?q=sports+photographer+Drome

So some work on getting in keywords in your copy about locality could be of value in finding clients. Perhaps adding a sentence about the location to every image and then using the location in your link text would help improve local search and get you onto the first page at google.fr.

some thoughts,

Sean
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
]

So some work on getting in keywords in your copy about locality could be of value in finding clients. Perhaps adding a sentence about the location to every image and then using the location in your link text would help improve local search and get you onto the first page at google.fr.

some thoughts,

Sean
So Sean,

We need guidelines for posting here to add words in the text box and key words so that our pages get higher rank. Any ideas would be great!

Asher
 
Top