Check out this pretty cool roundup of “40+ Inspirational Non-Profit Website Designs“. They’re all great looking even if not all of them are non-profit (that’s Change.org). Unfortunately, while the designs are inspirational, their beauty is only skin deep. I did a very cursory inspection of these 41 websites (excluding Change.org). I checked to see if they use META description and keywords properly, had a <TITLE> tag and if they were using any tracking software like Google Analytics, Mint, Quantcast, Statcounter, GetClicky or even if they were using something .NET Web Parts for tracking. It’s a pretty sad and sorry record.
Of these 41 sites:
- 39% were using <META> keywords
- 41% were using a <META> description tag
- 66% were using tracking software
- 85% were using a <TITLE> tag
- average Pagerank was 4.6 but the median was 4
This is frankly, quite unbelievable to me. The <TITLE> tag has been with the Web since its inception and compliance with using this tag should be in the upper 90% range. Most designers know that <TITLE> and <META> tags are de rigeur for web design. It should be a set of givens that complete any web design. My guess is that if you’re not going to bother to use <META> or <TITLE> tags, you’re most probably not going to submit an automatically generated sitemap to Google every time you add content. And if you don’t do all those things, your Google PageRank will be low unless you’re in the news a lot or have linking arrangements with other nonprofits in your area. This will also blunt the effect of your nice new design in terms of attracting more people to your site.
The combined neglect of these simple technical fixes result in a low median PageRank score of 4 for these pretty sites. For comparison, the Google PageRank for this blog is a 6. Those of you who follow NTEN should be happy to know NTEN has a Pagerank of 8 which befits its status in the nonprofit technology community. This means the traffic these sites are getting are lower than they ought to be. All that money spent on design but nothing on the basics. Tsk tsk.
So about that top 5 list:
- Your site should have keywords.
- Your site should have a description tag.
- Your site should use a <TITLE> tag.
- You should use tracking software.
- Your Pagerank should be higher than a 4.
Here’s a quick screencast I made (go here for the page that’s in the screencast) so that you know your site is compliant with the first three things on the list. As for tracking software, just ask your designer to at least install Google Analytics and make sure you have a user name and password to get into the account and see the reports.
To find your PageRank, go to this PageRank Lookup site. Enter your site’s URL into the box, fill out the Captcha and it will return your site’s PageRank.
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ...
Google doesn’t use META keywords, per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_tag#Meta_element_used_in_search_engine_optimization
Spending time on keywords is most likely a waste of time, better to spend time on a good META description (which Google definitely uses), and making sure you’re emitting semantically clean (X)HTML so that your pages get parsed accurately.
You know, Jon. I normally would agree with you but then I hit upon this: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66358
Google still seems to support keywords but to what extent nobody knows. I say you should at least use it if Google still considers it relevant enough to discuss it.
Yeah, I didn’t even consider the possibility that these sites are XHTML compliant. I know nonprofittechblog is not. Part of the problem is when you start using other people’s WordPress plugins or doing video embeds. It’s too complicated an issue to get into at the level I’m at (writing for a more general nonprofit management audience). I think we should push for XHTML compliance of course but considering the sorry statistics I just compiled is it too much?
Thanks for linking to my post. Obviously, the criteria for inclusion in the list was based on design (since that’s the focus of my blog), but I agree that the results of your research are surprising. Personally, I don’t put much weight in meta keywords, but it doesn’t hurt to have them.
No problem Steven. My post wasn’t intended to be snarky or a criticism of your picks. It’s just that a lot of nonprofit managers get kinda hung up on how a web site looks and not on how their site ought to be managed for performance. I hope this information was startling enough to wake a few people up.
[...] some small things, standards for web design Nonprofits should bother having on their web presence. You can read the post here. And heres my comment about it: All in all, NGOs should consider using one of the plenty available [...]
Allan, I read the link you posted about Google and keywords. This does not talk about the META tag at all, but seems to discuss the use of keywords within your page. I would not fault any site for not using the keyword META tag. The description tag is generally a good idea because Google uses the content from this tag in the results pages.
I'm all for standards-compliant code, but I think it's way more important to have a decent looking website with accessible information. Everything comes down to the goals for your website. I don't think too many donors are basing donations decisions on most of the criteria you mentioned.
In terms of web analytics packages, it is also possible some of these website could have server-side software doing this task.
Your overall point that orgs need to think about functionality, not only form is right on. It takes more than a good design to make a website that works. And a website that works really needs to include title tags.
Carlos, I looked up "keyword stuffing" (just to jog my memory) on Wikipedia and it states:
Historically, people used to do keyword stuffing within the meta tags. At least, that's how I remember it back in the day. People did end up doing it within content (hidden divs and other crap like that) but the "original" attempts at keyword stuffing were within the meta tags.
And no, donors don't make donation decisions based on whether a site has <TITLE> tags. However, Google does make decisions on your PageRank based on those simple tags being used properly. Basically, they just ask you not to abuse HTML for your nefarious SEO purposes. I tend to agree.
I think some of these sites were using CMS software yet not using them properly. You can see them having a space for META description or keywords but there was nothing in there. It was weird to look at.
Sure, some of these sites could be using server log files on the backend. I've found server log files to be useful but they're not as accepted as Google Analytics is these days when you're discussing your site traffic. This is a decision about the social acceptability of your stats more than a discussion about the technical merits of log file analysis vs. Javascript-based trackers.
We definitely agree — let's get nonprofit managers thinking more about how their sites can be managed to their mission statements and not to their egos.
The real issue that vendors – whether they offer networking, web sites, software etc.. take advantage of the fact that nonprofits don't usually know what a complete end product looks like. They charge full rates for half finished work, because its easy, quick and no one usually finds out until the next vendor comes in. I won't even get into the number of sub par CMS software packages that have been dumped on nonprofits. SMH. Quite a few IT employees at nonprofits are also taking advantage of their employer's lack of knowledge.
Understood, O Boy. I think that's one of the reasons I started blogging. It was kinda clear to me that nonprofit management tends to think of technology as an afterthought and a whole lot of issues break down in the manner you described. It has always been my hope that nonprofit management would read blogs like mine so that they can avoid many of the pitfalls that can occur when dealing with technology issues.
[...] you should certainly shoot for the strong graphical quality of the websites listed here despite what I have to say about them. Being a good looking website has all sorts of benefits to it like getting people to buy into [...]
[...] a contrary note, as Confessions of a Nonprofit Executive Director points out, web beauty is only skin-deep and whilst the 40 inspirational website all look great, they’ve not all been well coded (but [...]
I'm currently undertaking a similar exercise with the websites of 120 small nonprofits in Victoria, Australia; very few of them are beautiful or inspirational but it will be interesting to see whether I find more or fewer coding errors than you did. Few so far have valid HTML.
The good news is that I now see more CSS than table-based layouts. The main technical problems I've found are:
- No CMS or sometimes an awful custom-built CMS;
- Meaningless URLs.
- Uninformative title tags or they're identical on all pages.
- they' never check the stats or don't have the password.
- Website created in Microsoft Publisher (ok, only one of those so far).
I hear ya! Please report back on how it all turns out either on your blog or here. And trust me, this isn't something limited only to Australia or the US. It's somewhat endemic to our sector (although the for-profit sector has its own egregious examples).
[...] you should certainly shoot for the strong graphical quality of the websites listed here despite what I have to say about them. Being a good looking website has all sorts of benefits to it like getting people to buy into [...]