The Sad State of Web Content
February 26, 2004 | 
20 Comments
I’ve already noted that much of the Web is unusable. Now I want to take a moment to address the poor state of content on the Web.
It’s pretty bad. Scratch that — it’s really bad. But it’s slowly getting better. Mostly due to the extraordinary efforts of plain old Web monkeys like you and me.
Your average Web site is damn near unreadable when you look at it as a whole, and it’s pretty rare to find a site that adheres to the techniques that make good Web content. The sad fact is that most companies don’t pay near enough attention to their content, many times it’s treated as an afterthought, or worse, filler.
How many Web developers and designers have been the first and last line of defense against content that hadn’t been given it’s just due? I’m in this position all the time and while in my day job it’s gotten better (we had to bring Gerry McGovern in to the hospital help things along) I’m still in this position more often than not.
As much as I hate to say it — if you’re a designer, developer or producer working on a large informational site, you’d best be prepared to do some content editing. I realize that shouldn’t be your job, and you might not be fully equipped to do it, but understand that if you don’t do it, in many cases, no one will.
I’ve recently worked on a few projects were the content was so poorly written that I’m surprised anyone looked at it at all before it got to me. There were spelling errors, punctuation problems and stylistic inconsistencies too numerous to count. Style guide anyone?
I would hazard a guess that 95% of the content I’ve received from other folks and placed onto the Web, in my entire career, has been repurposed from sort of print piece. In case you don’t know, tri-fold brochures generally don’t really provide the best basis for content on a Web page. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to deal with something like that.
It’s almost like some people figure nobody reads on the Web at all. That’s just crazy. Of course people won’t read it if it’s no good. Why bother having any content up there at all if no one is going to read it. Chances are your Web pages are going to reach far more people than your print work — doesn’t it make sense to put in the effort needed to make that content the best it can be?
I’ve said before that every good Web site needs an editor. Hell, I need one! Lucky for me you can get away with much more on a personal site than you can a professional one. In the absence of a quality editor it’s up to the “Web people” to do their best with what they are given.
If you’re one of these folks it might be a good time to start learning about writing and editing for the Web, if you haven’t already. I know that is one of the big reasons I started this blog and while I’ve still got a long way to go, I have learned a whole lot. My sites, and the sites of my clients, have improved greatly because of this.
At the very least it might be good to know what to look for and what not to do. Much of the content I see could be loads better just by following a simple style guide and being checked for consistency.
For a great list of resources that will help you with your content, see Quality Web Content’s list of web articles about writing Web content.
Content still is king of the Web and the designers, developers and producers of the Web should be the king’s loyal subjects. Trust me, it’s in our best interests.
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. Mike P said:
As usual your hammer is accurate.
But, as you’ve touched on in the past, quality costs money, and anyone can build a website, no?
For myself, I’m four posts in on my own blog and I now have a much greater appreciation for the quality of writing of people like yourself and Mr’s Shea, Budd, Zeldman, Scrivs and PhotoMatt, for example.
Posted on February 26, 2004 06:30 PM | #
2. Nollind Whachell said:
Keith, I think your content is great. Unlike a lot of other people, I like reading long posts with lots of details. Maybe it’s just because I like hearing the interesting “stories” out there. Now if your trying to sell a product or service, well then focused rich content that gets quickly to the point would be much more appropriate.
With regards to the Web’s content, especially with regards to product sites, I wish it was just a style guide that was needed. How about adding some substantial content in the first place! Most product sites I’ve come across have little to no content for customers to make an informed purchasing decision upon. Usually people have to go to community or review sites that talk about a product to really get the facts about what it can and cant’ do.
Just a side note, which I kind of find interesting. Gabe Newell of Valve Software when asked “When will a official Half-Life 2 site appear?”, replied “We’re more interested in letting fan sites publish information than making everybody go to our sites.” I find it really interesting when developers realize that their fan base are creating better content for their games then their publishers are. Hehe! Now if only those fan sites could make some money for “advertising” (i.e. spreading the word of mouth) the game, since they would need to support themselves (especially if they end up attracting a lot of visitors and rack up bandwidth costs).
Posted on February 26, 2004 07:15 PM | #
3. Simon Fodden said:
Too right.
The administration/management thinks it wants a web site. So you talk to everyone about how content is king and how it’s different from print. And then you build the site.
But administration/management has moved on. And no one wants to purpose-write for the web, because that’s an addition to their job requirements. So you’re all dressed up and nowhere to go.
The whole thing is more often than not a pseudo-need created by technology or by web site envy on the part of the administration / management. It’s rare indeed that you can find an organization that know down to its boots that it needs a web site and why it needs the web site and what it needs on that web site. Which typically leaves the web designer like the painter with no paint or the portraitist no one will sit for.
Doing the odd bit of editing – that’s okay. But think of content maintenance and how the web site will look 14 months from now.
It’s a difficult process.
Posted on February 26, 2004 07:15 PM | #
4. Jeremy Flint said:
And the nail said “ouch!”
I have been reading a lot lately on what makes for quality writing, as well as what makes writing quality reading on the web, and applying both of those not only to my personal site, but to client content what I can.
You are right though, most content is repurposed from some sort of print source. That is just the way it will be. What really matters is whether the content is repurposed as is, or if it is actually edited to work better on the web.
Posted on February 26, 2004 07:16 PM | #
5. Keith said:
Mike – You’re right on. Quality does cost money. I still wonder why people think they can get quality Web sites on the cheap. Content management and creation is a process that needs time, money and people to do right.
Nollind – You make some good points. Not only do many sites need a consistent style, but come quality, “meaty” content created specifically for the Web.
Make no mistake in regards to my own content (which I’m very glad you like, thank you) – I would not write in the long winded manner I do for a professional site.
My general rule is “as long as it needs to be” and it’s really hard to keep things short enough for Web reading and get your message across. It takes effort and quality editing. I’m still learning how to write and I do try to keep it as short as I can, but with my conversational writing style, the fact that I’ve got lots to say and no editor – sometimes you get long posts! I’m glad someone likes it. I actually feel a bit self-conscious about it at times.
Simon – You’re right, it is a difficult process, but one I think is essential. Content management is a process. All to often people just think it’s a bit of software.
Posted on February 26, 2004 07:44 PM | #
6. Rick Yribe said:
Disclaimar: This comment has nothing to do with the actual post.
I just wanted to make a post and say that the content posted on this site, as of late, has been a great resource for me and I just wanted to thank you for it. So, thanks. :)
Posted on February 26, 2004 10:15 PM | #
7. Lukasz said:
For God’s sake, I’ve never have seen so much grumbling on one site within such a short time. You seem to complain all the time. Why, the heck, so much bitterness?
The Web is a world spreaded gathering of information and data, among which there’re both pools of mud and gem mines. Why bother since your site is damn good? And all sites you’re linked to are good as well or even better?
I know - you *are* a webdesigner and taking care of websites is your job. But keep in mind that managers are becoming aware of the fact the web standards exist and their companies are being appraised basing on the content of their website. *shrug* It as good as it gets, would you bother?
Anyway, Keith, keep up a good work, but please, be more optimistic in what you write :-)
Posted on February 26, 2004 11:31 PM | #
8. Keith said:
Rick – thanks man, I appreciate it. It’s feedback like that that keeps me going.
Lukasz – I know man. You make a very good point, one that I’m not blind to. I don’t know how long you’ve been reading me but I generally try to keep an optimistic attitude, I really do. Lately, however I’ve been…embattled…for lack of a better term, and that stress is weighing on me.
I really think the Web can make a huge difference in our every day lives and it bothers me that it’s usually treated so indifferently.
Look, I promise that I’ll try and mention the positive for awhile. There is much more good than bad and I know that. Sorry man.
Posted on February 27, 2004 01:47 AM | #
9. Ste Grainer said:
I don’t think your posts have been negative in any way. You simply point out the areas of the Web that need improvement and give some simple suggestions for how to do that; honestly, you *could* be a lot more negative than you have been. Instead, you provide insight that is not only helpful for your peers, but that we can then use to help educate our managers about the importance of things like content and accessibility.
I’m fortunate in that I work closely with a full-time editor for both print publications and our website. His background is mainly in print, but he is excited about learning the nuances of Web communication. We are both educating (slowly) our coworkers on how to better form their content when they want things put on the web.
Just recently we picked up a copy of Hot Text: Web Writing That Works to help give more weight to our points as well as simply as a reference for our coworkers to peruse as they reshape their idea of Web content. So far it seems to be a great resource, but I haven’t had much time to delve into it personally. (It’s also gotten great reviews on several developer sites I read.)
Posted on February 27, 2004 03:29 AM | #
10. Daryl said:
One tricky spot: If you work for a Web design/development firm, it’s hard to edit the content given to you by clients. Either you set yourself up for liability or you offend the customer, who put a lot of time and effort into the bad writing he sent you.
My background’s in literature and writing, and I’ve had to grit my teeth many times when publishing low quality stuff on the Web.
Now that I work for a single company rather than for a bunch of customers by way of a development firm, I can be more vocal about changes to copy, but I find that the talking heads who write it tend to have their egos tied up in the copy and refuse to change even some things that are blatantly wrong. I’m ashamed of our recently rewritten mission statement; when I suggested some no-brainer edits to it, one of the main authors laughed and told me I couldn’t go changing the mission statement.
So much for quality. Our code’s in good shape, at least. :)
Posted on February 27, 2004 05:55 AM | #
11. mattymcg said:
At least you HAD content to edit and correct. I had to write a good deal of the content on my last project myself. It was embarrassing. I hassled key people and got on their case, and just kept getting “I’ll come up with something on the weekend” and never got anything from then. Luckily, they loved it. But I had to guess at most of it that it was somewhere in the ball park of what they wanted, it’s not my job!
Posted on February 27, 2004 05:56 AM | #
12. Paul G said:
>mattymcg said: “…it’s not my job!”
Heh, the battle cry of the modern IT employee… I get tired of being a content producer/editor and graphic designer/editor, especially when I’m already the web guy (with all that entails), the tech support guy, the application programmer, and the network admin.
Of course, the programming part is my own fault for letting on that I know how to write code. That’ll teach me to keep my mouth shut :)
Posted on February 27, 2004 06:21 AM | #
13. Nollind Whachell said:
pissed off = passionate = change / innovation
Kieth’s “grumblings” are one of the primary reasons that I am here. Keep grumbling Keith! Specifically, I like when he rants because he’s talks a lot about the “human” issues in the industry instead of just the “technology” issues. If all he spoke about was how to “hack” this CSS file, or get this technology to work, then I probably wouldn’t be here as much as I am. People need to start realizing that the Web isn’t primarily about technology (even though that is what is used to build it), but it is about people connecting and communicating. Web designers aren’t coders, they are intermediaries or liaisons which help people get together and communicate on the Web.
If anything, I’ve recently woken up from my “slumber” (or zombie state and Keith’s blog had some help in that) because I’ve decided to get pissed off again and, hell, I’m starting to like it. I used to be upset about a lot of things and I wanted to see changes for the better. Then I just “gave up” and decided that nothing could be done about it. Well, hello, if everyone just gives up, says nothing, then nothing is going to be done about these issues. By being upset and addressing issues, that is how we make the world a better place.
If there is one thing that does upset me about people “grumbling” it is those that do so in the dark without being vocal about it and without indicating how things can be improved. If you don’t like something, say so! But don’t just say “that sucks!” and leave it at that. Explain why you don’t like it and what you think would be a better alternative or solution. When people start doing this then a dialogue can occur which can hopefully lead to change, which in turn leads to better things.
So sorry, I don’t want to be a conformist who follows the crowd, keeping my mouth shut, and not “rocking the boat”. People need to get vocal and get loud. It shows your passion about what you believe in. So horay for pissed off people! :)
Posted on February 27, 2004 08:21 AM | #
14. Lukasz said:
I still don’t get it, anyway. There are sites who are inaccessible, badly designed, with poor guidelines and navigation. This is fact.
Having stated that, I am obliged to ask: why bother about them? Let them be - you can’t turn every single website into perfectly CSSed three-columned accsessible portal available via portable devices and 19” screens. Unless, obviously, either Keith or you put your hands on it :-)
I really appreciate all things you, guys, are doing - all that tutorials, papers, articles. I am learning from that. And tens or hundreds of similar semi-webdesigners are doing the same. Ain’t it enough?
Posted on February 27, 2004 09:36 AM | #
15. Nollind Whachell said:
Because we care, that’s why. We care about the people who are struggling to achieve something on the web with their businesses, who are trying to connect and communicate with their customers. Many web designers just want to help. I like helping people. That’s me in a nutshell. It doesn’t matter if its web design, computer support, or opening the door for someone.
On the other hand though, I agree with you, why rant about all these problems when it is some kid posting his favorite movies on his blog. Who cares if it is badly designed, as long as you can read what the kid is saying and his passion comes across. The passion, or what this person really cares about, is really all that matters.
To me, no not really. Why? Because those articles and tutorials are scattered all over the Web and they are difficult to find. For that web designer who is making the switchover to XHTML/CSS and is pulling out his hair, he may be saying “If web standards are supposed to make things easier, why do I have to spend so much time on hacking these pages to get them to work? And even trying to find these hacks is difficult enough!” Companies who make these web browsers (primarily Microsoft but others just as well) need to all start communicating with one another, so that designing for standards does become as simple as it should be. We aren’t there yet. We are slowing reaching critical mass, but haven’t gotten over the hill yet. Until that day comes, I don’t think we can just sit idly by, letting things slip back into complacency, especially if you are truly passionate about seeing the change occur.
Posted on February 27, 2004 10:45 AM | #
16. Nick Finck said:
“not my job indeed” …but ask yourself this. How many companies have you worked for where they didn’t have an Information Architect? Ok, now, did you resort to simply not having good site architecture and launch a website that was nothing more than a fancy interface and a pile of pages of poorly organized information? Probably not, you took it upon yourself as the web developer to build “some” kind of structure to the information, even if the files were a mess, you made a navigation… you helped do some IA, even though it was “not your job” ….well, I see this as no different than web content. Heck look at what Rudy does for Digital Web Magazine, just the other day he caught a few typos and made corrections that everyone else including myself missed… but he’s just the web developer and we have a full staff of editors (Keith being one)… Rudy didn’t just leave the typo in there and say “sorry, it’s not my job.” Have some pride in the web sites you create… at least “some” pride.
Posted on February 27, 2004 12:06 PM | #
17. Keith said:
Thanks Nollind, you pretty much echo my thoughts. I’ll add two, or three points about the articles and tutorials bit.
One, part of the reason I have this site is to create my own knowledge share and bookmark sites and articles I find useful. This helps me daily. I like to keep an history of my lessons learned, etc. for myself and think most folks appreciate that I share.
Two, many of the articles that are scattered all over the Web are difficult to find, many times wrong, not complete, out of date, impractical etc.
I try and cut though all that.
Oh, and Three, I really find all the discussion to be very helpful, stimulating and educational.
If it doesn’t work for you, don’t read. My hope is that you will, but one of the beautiful things about the Web is that it further enables people’s freedom of choice. Something every human has a right to.
Posted on February 27, 2004 12:10 PM | #
18. Elaine said:
The thing that gets me is when a print piece is put out with the text “for more information see [URL]” … but the Web site only has the exact information as the flier/poster/brochure, etc.
I have a hard time getting folks to think about something *more* when they’re adding Web to their promotional repetoire.
Posted on February 27, 2004 01:10 PM | #
19. Lukasz said:
Nollind, few words about that scattered information: I would disagree; from the mathematical point of view similar sites tend to cluster. Thus sites containing similar type of information are linked to each other making it easier to browse and navigate through them (check out for example asterisk*’s related sites. An open-minded web user would find information he’s looking for in more than a five minutes, literally.
Posted on February 28, 2004 02:46 AM | #
20. Atle Salte said:
I agree with this article, it’s so much “humble bumble” content out there… We recently did a job for a oil company here in Norway. They did a redesign of there web-site. And they used a person full time just going through the content, re-writing the most of it. Check out the result on the following address: http://www.total.no
We are happy with the end result.
Posted on March 4, 2004 01:29 AM | #
Comments are now closed