In the upper right, you might expect a phone number or a cart button or a ‘my account’ link.  You look in the footer for the guts of the site, like if you want a site map, or need to drill down for contact information. Navigation is generally along the top, with some secondary navigation on the left column. Can you imagine if things were rearranged, how irritating that would be? You’d be looking all over the page for things that aren’t where they should be.  What if the navigation was on the bottom, and picture galleries ran from right to left to advance?

These things, web conventions, evolved over time. They became standardized, in a monkey-see, monkey-do fashion since one thing designers look at is a lot of sites to see what other people are doing. They’ve now hardened up into established practice and you violate them at your peril. The best way to dump your visitor is to upset her ability to easily navigate.

So you’re an internet expert at getting around and recognizing standards. However, this knowledge doesn’t mean you know everything about websites. Sneakily, it tends to make us think we know it all, since we’re on sites every day. We form opinions about websites based on our own aesthetic preferences, but this is not science.  And it takes science and testing data to build a great website.

Did you know that vast amounts of testing data exist which have revealed the best color for a ‘buy now’ button? Go to the Target site. It’s not random. They tested every color in the rainbow to find which color sold more items. Target and other e-retailers rely on data, not aesthetics, to drive their choices. Data drives revenue. That’s the science to optimizing: test results.

Aesthetic opinions of the uniformed layman are the great crippler of websites. Aesthetic preferences are just opinions. You may think you’re morally right believing that a blue site is inherently more attractive than a green palette. But you’re not right unless data and testing tells you so.  You only know which is best when you A/B test a blue versus green site and see what your traffic does. It’s easy to discern when you have a high bounce rate – meaning, people bail immediately upon entering. But what if you have lots of blue site users who click through to your shopping but don’t buy. Maybe fewer green site visitors stay, but more buy. This is what data analysis can do for a company. You let your visitors vote and their aesthetic prevails. Makes a bunch more sense than battling it out between marketing and sales in the conference room doesn’t it?

When we design a website we make certain recommendations based on our industry and testing knowledge. We’re not trying to just make a beautiful site, but one which performs because of the user psychology and testing results we understand. We’re going to abide by web conventions because otherwise you’re slitting your throat. We’re also going to suggest things you may be lukewarm about because you have a certain aesthetic vision.

Example: Flash websites. Oh, how we tried to proselytize against those! Oh, how we pleaded no! no! to clients who wanted them. They were bedazzled by the lure and visual impact of Flash and had no clue that Flash doesn’t index in search engines. So if you have an all Flash site, you’ve just made your site invisible and will have zero organic ranking.

Today Flash is used as an embed, an element of a site which functions wonderfully and there are things you can now do to tailor your Flash to index better, though it’s still a bit imperfect. And remember, no Apple product can see Flash. You’re flushing all those iPad and iPhone users.

This is the stuff we know about. Likely, you don’t know about it. That’s why you’re not building your own site. You don’t code, you don’t script, you don’t know search engines. And we’re not experts in your business. So please trust that our advice is always based in data, not opinion, and represents your best user scenario while at the same time balancing aesthetic concerns.

We’ll listen to all your ideas and then give our assessment as to whether it’s in your best interest. As internet experts, our view of your best interest is getting you traffic and keeping them on your site to engage with your content and take action. We don’t support our opinions by arguing aesthetics, but with data and that’s really the difference you should be looking for when you engage someone to architect and build your site and do your SEO. It’s not about fluffy pretty stuff. It’s about functionality, usability and the science of web interaction.

So how in the world as the buyer can you make sure that you don’t get taken? Great question, especially since a lot of people who do get taken don’t even realize it. Taken can mean grossly overpaying, or getting a functionally deficient website such as an all Flash site (which is out of the box invisible to search engines). The best place to start is by getting a referral from someone who is happy with their site and enjoyed working with the designer. A one-person shop can be comforting because you will always work with the same person, but individual designers can also be problematic. They are balancing multiple clients and often it’s hard to get their attention for an emergency.

You’ll pay the least when working with a freelancer. Make sure you look at their online portfolio carefully, and understand that if you don’t see something there that you like, probably this person won’t be able to create it for you. Many sites aren’t coded from scratch these days, but stay away from companies that offer you a choice of templates and host for you. You absolutely must have your own hosting, so that you control your website.

You should host your own website for multiple reasons, most importantly because a hosting account is the keys to your car. You don’t want anyone else in control of this if your income is tied to your site; you need full control. Situations where designers host websites often end in tears – you don’t need that hassle.

Most important things to discuss:

1. Updates. Do you want to update your site yourself or not? (If so, this will cost extra but can be a great thing. Your designer will build an interface or set you up with software or a content management system like WordPress or Joomla).

2. Expandability. Can they help you grow? Ask them for ideas about monetizing your site. Advertising and pay per click campaigns might be part of the picture. Talk to your designer about additional ways to squeeze money from your online presence.

3. Design rounds. How many free designs will you receive initially? Usually you should expect to see at least 2 concepts. Once you choose a design, how many rounds of input on the design will you get? Will the designer include a logo for you or will you provide your own?

Those are just a couple of things to consider when you’re shopping for a developer to design your website. And don’t forget to ask about SEO! It should be done with every site build, but commonly designers don’t tell you this.  Make sure to ask your designer to recommend someone who does SEO specifically.

The big tactic in link spam is fawning before the site owner and engaging in ridiculous flattery to get that post comment approved. And – guess what? – it’s hard to resist! Your own vanity can do you in.  It can be hard to discern what is link spam and what is a real comment. Uh, it’s typically ALL spam.  Here’s a sampling of just a few of this week’s fulsome commentary….bad English is one way to figure out you’re not dealing with an actual reader.

Submitted on 2010/03/02 at 7:01am
Nice post! These are vital things to stay in mind, it’s usually easy to forget about the easy things after you get consumed by a project.

Submitted on 2010/03/02 at 5:54am
It’s been a while since I browse a really glorious blog post. Not only well written but relevant. Congratulations.

Submitted on 2010/02/28 at 7:30pm
Your blog is very interested. I am to find for website how your site, and it is good.

Submitted on 2010/02/28 at 12:26pm
Great Blog! I have a similar site, and get a lot of spam. Do you face such problems? Can you please recommend some steps I take to combat spam. Thanks.

Submitted on 2010/02/25 at 3:59pm
Your blog is very interested. I am to find for website how your site, and it is good.  (they came back for another crack)

Again, approving these comments means you are outlinking to spam sites (low value, junk sites) and these outbound links can tip the balance on your own good link profile. You should ONLY link out to high quality sites to associate yourself with valuable web properties. It’s just one of many positive signals you can send an engine to help your own search engine placement.

Alas, you are probably up against the dreaded link spammer. Not that your piece wasn’t great, it’s just that they prey on sites with comment moderators who are asleep at the wheel. The commentary will go something like this: “Wow, I am awed by your masterful post on the weavil (sic)! Did you know that you can make ten billion dollars in the forex market? Thanks for your genius post!” There’s either a link embedded in the post or the name is hyperlinked or you’ve got a field where they can drop their URL. There are different ways they play it. An appeal to your vanity: “Saw your post on Reddit. Great link.” Or perhaps something is wrong with your site and their guise is one of helpfulness. “Your site isn’t displaying properly in my (insert name) browser. You may want to look into that.”

While tempting to jack up your comments on a lonesome post, don’t fall for it. Why? Because it can hurt you. Approving spam comments willy nilly will mean your site can have an overload of outbound links to bad neighborhoods: known spam or phishing sites, banned servers, farms, etc. Don’t think Google doesn’t know because Big Daddy knows all. This will tarnish your own sterling reputation within the Google algorithm.  You may see rankings impacted if you cross a certain threshold.

Moral of the story: Link out to quality sites and don’t let the spammers overrun the kingdom.

Welcome to the bizarre conundrum of the ugly site.  Eye and click tracking studies find people make instantaneous judgments about the quality or trustworthiness of a site in fractions of a second. For some people, it seems that ugly = trustworthy. Making a site too slick (in some instances) may interfere with a positive first impression because the user perceives sophistication as a negative.

Maybe people suspect a slick site of trying to manipulate them, or screw them. Maybe the mentality is, that’s a big corporation and I’m going to stay on guard. Maybe they are too intimidated to ask for more information because they think their business is too small for the site to be interested.

I have seen a downright fugly site just trounce a nationwide brand selling the same thing. Why?? Generally speculating….because this is much of what SEO is about, spawning ridiculous theories and then testing them….it might be that the user feels a connection to the humanness that is implied by an ugly site.

The interesting question from there is, what percentage of people might be subject to this effect….and might it be large enough to skew results toward the ugly versus glossy? If 95% of visitors don’t care, but 5% do, then measuring the preference would allow you to eke out a higher conversion rate. What if more than 5% care? Would you consider building a hideous site? If you say no, is it vanity over…sanity?

I have one very ugly site that ranks incredibly well. It’s hard to make an ugly site on purpose but it can be done with the right talent. The objective is to make it seem too homely to be untrustworthy, too pitiful to deny it a much needed sale, too openly honest with its pleadingly terrible graphics. Did you know that the number one tactic of psychopaths is an appeal to….your pity? You’re far more likely to be conned if you first feel sorry and superior to, the person doing the conning. It’s a matter of allaying fears. I believe the same principle may be operating with ugly sites. Not that they are purposely conning you. In probably 99% of transactions all is well. But phishing sites can also look homemade, the one real downside that I can see to the ugly vibe.

Most ugly sites are naturally ugly, versus  intentionally so. Still I did once work on a site where our objective was to seem very bush league and fly under the radar. We had a blast sitting around coming up with ways to make it look handmade.  But handmade as IF it was striving to be good. Making the graphics off kilter, mocking up old banners that invite you to hit a moving animal with a mallet, speed up your computer links, a color palette that didn’t match. And a series of other tricks I won’t go into. It was really fun.

Ugly sites work really well for ecommerce that’s niche, as well as niche information (such as conspiracy sites). A brazenly template-looking ecommerce store solution with its simple grid format and in the box fonts would be something to consider. The French have a saying, jolie-laide, meaning beautiful ugly. That about covers it.