Website suggestions

Coleman Photography

So I have my smugmug site right now which i love and do very well with. But i want to move to a flash site does anyone have any suggestions for a good one. I will keep my smugmug for my gallerys for selling and such will just have a link on my flash site for it. anyone have any ideas. Thanks.

Hikin' Mike

Just curious, but why do you want a flash site? You do know that a 100% Flash site is not very SEO friendly, right?

Sam

Interested in hearing the answer, and what the heck is "SEO"?

Sam

denisegoldberg

Sam wrote:

...and what the heck is "SEO"?

SEO = search engine optimization
I have to admit that I hate acronyms!

some info here - http://www.smugmug.com/help/search-engines
and here - http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/Maximize+Search+Engine+Findability

--- Denise

Coleman Photography

Im not 100% set on switching to flash yet. I guess what im trying to do is just get a little more out of my site. I just feel when i go to my site its very boring and may draw people away.

denisegoldberg

Coleman Photography wrote:

Im not 100% set on switching to flash yet. I guess what im trying to do is just get a little more out of my site. I just feel when i go to my site its very boring and may draw people away.

Changing to a flash site won't necessarily be an improvement. There are some very well-done smugmug sites. Have you looked around for some ideas that you can use to change your site?

I just took a look at your site, and you have not done much to draw the viewer in - or to sell your services. I honestly don't think this has anything to do with (the lack of) flash. Your banner tagline says that you do portraits, weddings, sports, and commerial photography. Where are examples on your site? You have some old surfing galleries available for viewing, with a last updated date showing on the category as
Mar 19, 2009. The Portfolio link shows a gallery containing 11 photos. And your homepage shows a single photo.

I think that the first thing you need to do is to decide what you want your site to do for you. Once you have a purpose in mind it will be easier to come up with a new site design - which could be overall look & feel but could also be showing more of your photography.

--- Denise

The Mack

I use photobiz. I left smugmug and went to them.
I love them. They're CS is great and they have lots and lots of options.

You can switch styles w/ the click of a mouse.

Sam

denisegoldberg wrote:

SEO = search engine optimization
I have to admit that I hate acronyms!

some info here - http://www.smugmug.com/help/search-engines
and here - http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug/Maximize+Search+Engine+Findability

--- Denise

Thanks Denise!

You hate acronyms? I thought you people lived for stuff like that. Yes I used the term you people.......geeks, techno-savvy, machine bonded zero and ones speakers just to confuse the techno-dummies, and make us pay youse the big bucks.

Hope your doing well!!!

Sam

Sam

Cody,

I make no claims to having any real insight into web sites, SEO's, etc.

But you asked.............. The first thing I noticed was some of the photos looked off kilter, focus issues, that kind of thing. Upon looking closer I saw it was actually a watermark. I freely admit I don't like large intrusive and centered watermarks that stop me from seeing the image. I would suggest decreasing the opacity a little so it can be read and moving it towards the bottom.

Next you have no images............if your trying to promote your photography you need to show photographs.

Disclaimer: You are free to look at my web site and trash the heck out of it.

Sam

Coleman Photography

haha Thanks sam i take it all postivly. the reason my site is so bare is because im in the middle of redoing it. i have taken most photos down to do some work to it. should be back up and giong soon. Some guys have helped me in the smugmug customization forum and im getting to be alot more happy with it now. And yes i am going to loose the centered watermark and drop the opacity. I have had a few people not like it so i guess its an annoyance.

tatteberry

I built flash sites and flash components to sites for several years, for companies which tracked the success or failure of their sites. What they found out, and indeed what most of the industry found out, is that visitors are typically turned off by flash. In theory it's great - you get to make a little presentation for your business and the visitor sits there in rapt attention, watching the great work you do.

It doesn't turn out that way.

Nearly every study done of people's behavior shows that within a couple of seconds, they know if they are interested in your site or not. And quite often have clicked away after those couple of seconds if they're not.

Which means that they usually land on a flash site and see nothing at all while it loads, and you lose a large chunk of visitors right there. The odds that they'll stick around for the second or third photo is even slimmer. And to make matters worse, as the photos are moving, their eye is drawn to that, and typically they won't even read your name, nor what services you offer before clicking away.

Think about it. How often when you land on a flash site, and you see the words "skip intro," do you click that instinctively.

Web surfers are in a hurry, their mouse is in their hand and they are ready to click. To ask them to sit and watch is quite often completely against human nature. As for why the rest of the industry seems to have moved away from flash while photographers move towards it, I can only guess that it's because we like to see our photos presented that way. I give viewers that option with three of my main galleries, but it's an option, not mandatory. And typically they choose the standard galleries over slide shows.

On top of that, there are over 40 million Americans who are viewing the web on iphones or iphone touches. A large percentage of that group uses these devices as their main method of surfing the web. Flash technology doesn't work with them at all.

Also, flash is notoriously buggy on viewer's computers. If they haven't updated to the most recent version, if they've been on a site which caused their flash plugin to crash, they're gonna see the little blue square as well.

A homepage is like a magazine advertisement. You have to convey your sales pitch instantly, through graphics and words. Do that, test your site with different headlines, different graphics and keep tabs on your stats, and you'll have a successful site.

W.W. Webster

Coleman Photography wrote:

I guess what im trying to do is just get a little more out of my site.

The issue is what you put INTO your site, irrespective of the platform you are on - whether flash-based or otherwise.

The Mack

tatteberry wrote:

I built flash sites and flash components to sites for several years, for companies which tracked the success or failure of their sites. What they found out, and indeed what most of the industry found out, is that visitors are typically turned off by flash. In theory it's great - you get to make a little presentation for your business and the visitor sits there in rapt attention, watching the great work you do.

It doesn't turn out that way.

Nearly every study done of people's behavior shows that within a couple of seconds, they know if they are interested in your site or not. And quite often have clicked away after those couple of seconds if they're not.

Which means that they usually land on a flash site and see nothing at all while it loads, and you lose a large chunk of visitors right there. The odds that they'll stick around for the second or third photo is even slimmer. And to make matters worse, as the photos are moving, their eye is drawn to that, and typically they won't even read your name, nor what services you offer before clicking away.

Think about it. How often when you land on a flash site, and you see the words "skip intro," do you click that instinctively.

Web surfers are in a hurry, their mouse is in their hand and they are ready to click. To ask them to sit and watch is quite often completely against human nature. As for why the rest of the industry seems to have moved away from flash while photographers move towards it, I can only guess that it's because we like to see our photos presented that way. I give viewers that option with three of my main galleries, but it's an option, not mandatory. And typically they choose the standard galleries over slide shows.

On top of that, there are over 40 million Americans who are viewing the web on iphones or iphone touches. A large percentage of that group uses these devices as their main method of surfing the web. Flash technology doesn't work with them at all.

Also, flash is notoriously buggy on viewer's computers. If they haven't updated to the most recent version, if they've been on a site which caused their flash plugin to crash, they're gonna see the little blue square as well.

A homepage is like a magazine advertisement. You have to convey your sales pitch instantly, through graphics and words. Do that, test your site with different headlines, different graphics and keep tabs on your stats, and you'll have a successful site.

That's why my site has the "iphone" version which automatically detects it's on a mobile device and switches them to it.

When you first click or type in for my site, you can choose flash or non flash site. Not my fault if they choose flash and get tired of waiting.

tatteberry

One of the big reasons people buy iphones though, is that it gives you a better web experience. When I land on your site with mine, it looks as good as your landing page on a computer. Then it takes me to the text version of the site. Simply put, every time you force a visitor to click to get content, you lose visitors, and with a commercial site, those are potential customers.

The Mack wrote:

That's why my site has the "iphone" version which automatically detects it's on a mobile device and switches them to it.

When you first click or type in for my site, you can choose flash or non flash site. Not my fault if they choose flash and get tired of waiting.

ian408

The Mack wrote:

Not my fault if they choose flash and get tired of waiting.

Maybe not your fault but it is (potentially) your loss.

The Mack

ian408 wrote:

Maybe not your fault but it is (potentially) your loss.

At this point, I'm really not too worried about it.
If someone doesn't want to chose me because the site loads slow on their iphone, I'll still sleep at night.

W.W. Webster

The Mack wrote:

If someone doesn't want to chose me because the site loads slow on their iphone, I'll still sleep at night.

No doubt this will be an important issue one day but, right now, there are bigger fish to fry!

Most site owners who post here worried why they are not getting the traffic they think they should get, will find the problem is nothing to do with iPhone performance but everything to do with the content, style, navigation and appearance of their sites.

tatteberry

I would be the last person to negate the importance of content, site design and navigation, but from lurking on this forum, the reason I see people not getting the traffic they expect is unrealistic expectations. Even a properly optimized site won't get high in the search results and stay there, without continually adding relevant content and developing inbound links. At this point, in most local markets, there are a high number of commercial and event photographers who have optimized sites with great content and design. What search engines then use to determine rank is keyword dense copy, inbound links and how long your site has been up, as well as how often new content is added to your site. What I see quite often are photographers who build their site, follow every rule they can find and then let it languish while their competition do the other steps that get them higher in search results, and more traffic.

Another thing people forget is that if your whole site is optimized, as most Smugmug sites are to some extent as long as you use keywords and friendly URLs, more often than not a visitor won't land on your homepage, but an internal page. If you don't pay enough attention to your galleries and other pages, it's the web equivalent of someone's first impression of you being you bent over with your crack showing.

And I do beg to differ about mobile traffic not being an issue now. Particularly among the younger demographics - 16-30 years old - a high percentage are using their phones as their primary method of web browsing. And of those, 50% of the U.S. mobile traffic is the iPhone. For a wedding photographer, or even one who does a lot of shots of babies, that's smack in the middle of your main client base.

W.W. Webster wrote:

No doubt this will be an important issue one day but, right now, there are bigger fish to fry!

Most site owners who post here worried why they are not getting the traffic they think they should get, will find the problem is nothing to do with iPhone performance but everything to do with the content, style, navigation and appearance of their sites.