As a champion of social media I am struggling with the moral dilemma of writing a new post based on the one-to-one conversations I have been having in light of my recent musings. How can I credit you all when you do not want to post your opinions in the comments? Only solution I see is to wrap up my own work and include highlights of what you have all taught me. Everything that you have sent to me has been really useful, thank you. Special thanks to Adam Burr from Logica who has been hugely educational and whom I shall quote extensively.
At the end of my post yesterday, I said that I would tie it all up for you: what I have done so far, benefits measurement and Press Office.
To start with the latter: you need to let them know what is happening, give them lines to take on what you have done with the website.
Benefits measurement: Ben ‘just wikipedia me’ Hammersley (yes I name-dropped, and?…) says that we should be fine with 404 stats. I agree to a point, however, if the technology is OK and we work it well that does not necessarily mean that we have reassured our stakeholders and readers whilst we play online pick-up-sticks. (More on this later).
My suggestion is that you put an error 404 capture on, just to see how you are doing and remedy all 404s as they come in. In addition, you run a customer review on the site, every three to six months. I would use a specialist company to do this. This would enable the e-media team to feel fully confident that the people they are delivering a service for – and the people they are delivering the service to… are happy. Not only feeling confident, they will be able to back it up with real user insight.
How did we get here…
Original post explained the following:
Exec sum – or similar
In researching this subject I spent many hours on the internet looking for the words: keeping your customers when changing url/retention of online customers. Surprisingly, I found nothing that gave any practical advice. Through contacts in Google, in the dark arts of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and in the National Archives, I have found that the answer is:
1. not simple or singular and
2. relies heavily on user input.
The two things that strike fear into the heart of all professional communicators.
In this blog, I have tried to simplify those principles that are imperative to the retention of customers. I have also attempted to provide an action point(ed) list of things to do to complete a diamond, bronze and tin version of customer retention – but would welcome all thoughts… please!
The rest is down to you, your comms team and marketeers.
This blog should also help you avoid time-consuming pitfalls.
Since then I have learned much and have changed my view. The 301 and 410 redirects will do it all for you, but as a business you should reassure your customers through old-fashioned comms. For this you need
- some kind of reverse linking tool to see who is driving traffic to you
- analyse that and ensure that the top 150 referrers are well looked after
- put a page on the site that you can point people to
- ensure that you are retaining your customers through measures
Now, Ben started an interesting (although offline) argument about the value of being this anal. Adam Burr put it most succinctly:
Why the URLs are changing
The existing URLs are, for the most part, not good at all. They are being changed because they are being improved! Anyone who has been on the fco website and clicked around for even 1 minute will have seen the ugly URLs I am referring to.
Why there should be comms
Because authoritative 3rd party sites such as blahblah.gov.uk are trusted by search engines. If these sites continue to have the old links then they are effectively asserting (with implied authority) that we do indeed have content at that URL. Ben is right that things will work, but an outdated link is still an outdated link. The nuances he is missing are…
- Some of the outdated links will lead to the “page gone” holding page. This will refer people to site search and TNA, but this is not ideal. It would be better for 3rd party webmasters to provide a link to the next-most-helpful-page on either our website or someone else’s.
- The 301 redirects shouldn’t be necessary in perpetuity. For one thing, they lead to a slower user experience, particularly if the user in question is in a part of the world that is distant from our servers and not well equipped from a bandwidth point of view. After all this is the FCO site! They also add to the load on the server as the mapping list will be large. It should be possible to monitor the number of 301s being issued and remove the redirects when the frequency of their use reduces to below a set level. The 410s can take up the slack.
- And finally, it is inelegant and not “joined-up gov” or “partnership” to not inform the third party sites of the redesign and consequently leave the Internet littered with harder to type, harder to remember, non-up-to-date, soon to be obsolete and slower-performing links.
I accept that partly it depends on one’s philosophy to web URLs. When an organisation publishes a piece of content at a URL, are they really accepting responsibility to respond to requests for that URL in perpetuity? (I accept that PQs are a separate case as Law seems to mandate the answer – but what is the principle that dictates this for every other URL?) I think change is OK as long as there is a good reason and as long as it is properly managed, which is what we are planning to do!
He was not happy with that and continued:
“Gone off on one” a bit trying to understand whether URLs are some kind of perpetual obligation under accepted webmaster etiquette and bet practice
I found this essay which is interesting. It contains an interesting quote:
“Any URL that has ever been exposed to the Internet should live forever: Never let any URL die since doing so means that other sites that link to you will experience linkrot.”
But also quotes the World Wide Web Consortiums standard that a server may return a 410 in which case the requester should remove their link or a 301 in which case they should amend it. So clearly, there is some room for debate as to where the burden of responsibility actually lies or perhaps how it should be shared.
I think that the practical reality is that no-one wants to maintain forever all the 301 redirects for any page that they have ever had on their domain. I feel that there needs to be a statute of limitations whereby once honour has been satisfied they can be withdrawn.