July 8, 2004
Your Mileage May VaryPosted by
This this 999 entry made here a Spare Change. (That of course is including the entries that were imported from Clarity.) That is quite a milestone or almost a milestone (and there was a temptation there to wait for the big 1-0-0-0), one that I am personally no where near (I am at 370 at WIT). I want to take some time to thank our host Bryan. I would like to thank him for his transparency and openness. Without his undeniable wit and wisdom, Spare Change wouldn't be quite as cool as it is. Oh, who am I kidding? It wouldn't be cool at all.
So thank you Bryan for sharing Spare Change with me and thanks for making it a great place to hang out.
Well what are you all staring at? You want something more? Some content? Ah... I have been having trouble coming up with content at my own site. As Bryan so astutely pointed out, I have been hitting the quizzes pretty hard here lately.
Well let me see what I can scrounge up... How bout a repost?
Holy Sites
Originally posted at WIT on June 12, 2003
The logo for my church was recently redesigned so that means it is time for a website redesign so everything will have the basic look. I have been looking at all kinds of church websites for ideas. I've looked at the Missouri Baptist directory of churches with websites, I have done a Google search looking for ideas.
After looking at a ton of websites I still don't really have an idea that I like, but it did help me to define some things that I don't like.
1. Animated GIFs. One think that can be readily found on church and personal websites are those annoying and cheesy animated GIFs. This was a rule that I learned the hard way. I've used a few cheesy animated GIFs in my time. I have since asked for forgiveness.
2. Scrolling text. It makes me dizzy. There seems to be a large number of church sites that use scrolling text.
3. Huge pictures a the church's pastor. There seems to be a trend among larger churches who have money to spend on websites (and some smaller ones), is to have a rather large pictures of the senior pastor on front page. Usually the pastor is in some dressy-casual clothes on. The image seems to me to be the focal point of the page giving undue attention to the pastor. It gives me the impression that the church may have some priority issues, but that is a personal opinion.
4. FrontPage sites. FrontPage websites have a certain look and feel to it. They always feel... cheap to me, even though that may not be the case. Now when I see a FrontPage website that is not a church website I don't have near the aversion than if it is a church webpage. Don't ask me why, that's just the way I feel.
5. Church sites with the weather. What's up with that? I don't think that really belongs there.
6. Finally the thing that I hate the most: background music! It doesn't matter whether it is wav or midi (though midi is particularly horrible). The quickest way to get me to leave a website is to plop some background music on there.
There is a delicate balance between getting a webpage out there and making it presentable. Some folk get over zealous with a page, but that may be because they have a passion for the church, so you have to be careful when critiquing a church webpage.
What on websites make you recoil in fear or make you close your browser window? Let me know in the comments.
Class dismissed!
July 8, 2004 4:42 PMFirst, thanks for your kind words...I don't think I would have realized the next one was 1000. Now I guess I'll have to get all serious and find something memorable to post. no C&P jokes for 1K.
Your repost is actually quite interesting to me. I think that as a church should strive to be a commissioning point for the individual and community of faith, that same mindset should be reflected in a church's website as well. With that in mind, a church should have things on its site that draw people end, but also compels people to go out. Maybe weather reports can fit in this concept.
Probably not.
I totally agree with everything else, by the way.
That said, what content should go onto a church website?
Posted by: Bryan at July 8, 2004 6:49 PMFire Ant has an entry that was posted today that relates to church websites. It is worth a read.
http://www.ericsiegmund.com/fireant/archivesmt/001073.html
Posted by: Christopher at July 8, 2004 11:54 PMtake a look at www.cedarhillschurch.com ... it has a nice look ... it just needs content...
Posted by: Tony Rosen at July 9, 2004 12:17 AMThe Cedar Hills site does have a good look to it...did you do it?
does anyone have a problem with a church having a .com address? I really don't want to be legalistic about it...it just causes me to think twice. Everytime I go to Riverside's website (riversidebaptist.com) I think about it.
I haven't read fireant's yet...so more comments to follow, probably.
Posted by: Bryan at July 9, 2004 7:59 AMGood comments, Christopher, and all valid points as far as I'm concerned...even the weather item. I think Bryan's observation that a church website should be something of a portal for the whole community is valid, but I see a lot of churches overdoing it and it's hard to know where to draw the line. I would never visit my church's website to find out the current weather conditions (not that it has a link to them), but some people might. The question is whether they'll visit your site (or re-visit it) because that feature is available. I'd guess not.
Regarding the .com question, I've become more sanguine about this lately. I once thought it was an abomination for a church to have a .com domain, but now I understand that sometimes churches have no choice due to competition for domain names, but usually it's just because someone without much experience or insight got the name and now they're kinda stuck with it. However, I think some of us are just more sensitized to the distinctions between TLDs...the vast majority could care less and probably have never given it a second thought. Incidentally, I notice that riversidebaptist.org is available for purchase...for $288.00! A new .org at GoDaddy.com goes to $8.95/year.
Posted by: Eric at July 9, 2004 1:58 PMokay...newbie question here...I "bought" my web domain. But did I really? Aren't I really renting it? And since I've not had to "buy it again" next year, yet, I don't know how that works? Does the server set the price, and is there anything controlling their choice to raise the price of it? What controls are in place to keep from extorting me, especially since its the Spare Change content that establishes value?
Sorry for chasing the rabbit, but not too sorry to keep from doing it.
Posted by: Bryan at July 9, 2004 3:15 PMBryan, those are good and legitimate questions. Yes, you have licensed or leased (maybe better terms than "rent") your domain name from a duly authorized registrar, of which there are several dozen, last time I checked. They all access the common domain name database, and they are all independent businesses with the right to set their own fee structures. The only thing that keeps them from charging exorbitant fees is the competition from other registrars who are able to provide exactly the same basic registration service.
You may have actually allowed or used your webhost to register your domain on your behalf, but they had to get the domain from an authorized registrar.
Some registrars like GoDaddy.com seem to have been able to drop their registration fees to near breakeven levels, hoping to stay in the black via volume and extra add-on services (like webhosting, spam control, etc).
There is also a secondary market for domains that have been duly registered and are now "for sale" by the registrant. That person can ask whatever he or she thinks the market will bear...but the "buyer" should understand that he is really only getting the right to have first shot at renewing the annual registration. For domain names, at least those which don't violate any copyrights, possession is 10/10ths of the law (or something like that).
By the way, at least one registrar (Network Solutions) now offers a 100-year registration option. I posted about it here: http://www.ericsiegmund.com/fireant/archivesmt/000891.html.
So if you think Spare Change is good for a century, you oughta check it out! ;-)
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Eric at July 9, 2004 5:27 PM