website statistics

Archive for the 'Website Design' Category

Expecting the Spectator

I don’t know why, but since last night, the American Spectator’s website at spectator.org has been blocked for being a “reported attack site”:

American Spectator website blocked as “attack site”

Fortunately, perhaps, Google provides diagnostic tools for those curious about where the site has gone:

Google diagnostics on the Spectator as an “attack site”

Alas, I don’t know enough about network security to make a diagnosis. (Dammit Jim, I’m a private eye, not a doctor.)

As of this morning, I can get the website to load in Safari but not in Firefox 3, albeit intermittently. The front page is accessible, but if I try to visit the blog, I get this instead:

American Spectator will cause “harm” to your computer

In the past, Google has been accused of removing conservative-aligned content from YouTube and from Google News, but I see no evidence that this is what’s happened this time. I’m not even quite sure why Google is responsible for providing these diagnostics.

What’s most likely is the Spectator’s webmaster left a security hole unplugged and the site was taken advantage of by opportunistic spammers, which is something of a tautology.

I’ve put an e-mail in to a contact at the Spectator, and if I find out what happened, I’ll provide an update in this post.

Update: Looks like I called this one. The site still isn’t working for me in Firefox, but via Safari, they offer this explanation:

We have received a number of inquiries regarding the fact that Spectator.org has been designated a “harmful site” by Google, because of outside entities attempting to use our site to distribute malicious software. We have been working with our Web hosting company to address the issue, and believe that it has been resolved and that our site is safe to visit, though there is a lag time before Google can remove the “harmful site” status. In the meantime, if you normally find us via Google, you can still visit us by typing Spectator.org directly into your browser, or by entering our site via Yahoo. Thank you for your understanding.

Portrait of the Smear Artists as an Old Boys’ Club

Example of Obama’s Fight the Smears pageIt’s been a few weeks since Barack Obama’s presidential campaign unveiled its much-discussed Fight the Smears microsite. It’s certainly a daring move, and probably the right one. Although a cardinal rule of politics has long been “don’t repeat the charges against you,” there does reach a point where that no longer holds. John Kerry learned this the hard way, and Obama should get credit for adjusting accordingly.

One aspect I haven’t seen discussed in any great detail is the second page of the website, “Behind the Smears”. It’s not easily found — although it occupies the somewhat prominent last spot in the list of links at left, it’s also buried at the bottom of the page, below the main content and just above the site disclaimers.

The main content of said page is a chart showing the relationships between the accusers, and it looks like this:

Network of Obama “smears”

It’s pretty neat, but it’s also under-designed. After all, it seems to claim that the 1992 Clinton campaign itself is is smearing him, when all it means is that… actually, I’m not sure what it’s saying. What’s more, the lines are too light and don’t convey any specific information about how they are connected. There are a few small revisions which would make it more intuitive: a dotted line for lesser connections, or bigger names for those with more influence.

Relationship mapping is becoming a bigger deal in the blogosphere as more rigorous and even scholarly studies are done about the connections between blogs and attempts are made to quantify the influence one has upon another. This is driven in part by curiosity and in part by my own industry, where marketers are desperate to accurately quantify their impact. One example comes from Linkfluence, as demoed at Personal Democracy Forum this year:

Political blog map via Linkfluence

But how useful is this information? It’s nice to see a representation of the political ’sphere at the macro level. Some insights can certainly be derived therefrom, but it leaves a lot unsaid. For example, it doesn’t necessarily help me to know that one site has linked to another. I need to know why. I need to be able to drill down, and find out how they are arranged by a common link or keyword.

Don’t get me wrong, though: I’m all for pretty pictures.

And while the Obama campaign chart isn’t all that pretty and ultimately not that informative, it’s nevertheless a step in the right direction. The more and better tools a campaign can give to its online supporters, the more investment (in time as well as money) they are likely to make in turn.

The New Hotlineness

I’d been hearing the rumors for a few weeks but, finally, the new National Journal site design has had its debut. But on a Friday?

In Washington, bad news always gets released on Fridays. The idea is to bury it just as the week’s traditional news cycle is winding down — as reporters are racing to get out of, or heading out on the, town.

Is that what’s going on here? Here’s the page specific to The Hotline, so you be the judge:

The New Hotline website design on National Journal

It’s certainly much more modern than the National Journal website of old (see below right). You can’t tell from the screen shot, but there is just as much actual content on the page; it’s just been pushed below the fold. Now it resembles nothing so much as a wonkier version of Slate (which has had its own disastrous redesigns, not that I’m calling this one disastrous).

But that red is so neon it looks like it belongs on the cover of Wired, and for the moment it clashes badly with the colors of the sponsor’s advertisement.

Classic (Old) Hotline website designIt also looks odd next to the darker red, which is more representative of the colors used across the site. Indeed, click over to Congress Daily and National Journal (aka “The Magazine”) and you may think you’re losing your eyesight.

On the other hand, I count two links to my old online column/daily blog report, The Blogometer, apparently the only National Journal feature with two links on this particular page. That alone is enough to get a thumbs-up from me.

Well done, National Journal!

Lost in McCainSpace

A little over a year ago, I wrote a deservedly unkind and undeservedly lengthy post about John McCain’s social network-in-name-only. It was essentially just a personalized donation page, glorified by its socnet-ish name: McCainSpace. Or MyMcCain. That part hadn’t been sorted out by its launch.

In any case, that was then. I hadn’t been back since (who thought back then there would be a McCain campaign right now?) and recently decided that a follow-up might be in order. So what is it now?

It’s exactly the same. The McCain campaign website doesn’t seem to have much interest in making their website into a real destination. As I said then, a campaign does not need a social network of its own, but if you’re going to claim one, actually have one.

Actually, something has changed with the profile I used to illustrate the problem last year. It’s Debaser, the Un Chien Andalou/Black Francis-inspired username of Todd Zeigler at Bivings Group. Here’s the image I posted last year:

The page is unchanged, with one exception. Here’s the detail:

Debaser pulls in $100 for John McCain

Granted, $100 is not a lot, for a presidential campaign or the fourteen months between the first screen shot and the second. But for a website that’s essentially abandoned, it’s a fortune.

I asked Zeigler if he had donated, or knew who had. The first word of his reply: “Weird.” Zeigler logged in and found out that the donor hailed from the Delmarva Peninsula and was not known to him. In an e-mail reply he allowed me to share, Zeigler offered two possibilities:

(1) [Name Redacted] stumbled across my page (or blog post) and gave through it.
(2) Funny business.

I’m going with (1) but for Debaser to reach its assigned goal, (2) may have to get involved.

Can You Diggggg It?

Much is made of the double-G in the name and URL of the popular social news website Digg. The misspelled word is a real asset: it is much more memorable than if it was just Dig.com. But Kevin Rose and company couldn’t have had that website if they wanted it: it belongs to the Walt Disney Company. It’s a corporate page for the Disney Internet Group, which makes sense.

What about spellings with more than two Gs? A few minutes of casual WHOISing reveals the answers:

  • I am actually surprised that Diggg.com is not in use, being that the most plausible misspelling. Something is definitely there, but the server only times out. The domain is registered to someone in Oslo, Norway whose first name is Kristian and last name contains letters that will not render in my browser.

  • Digggg.com is more what you’d expect: A parked domain which serves Google contextual ads. It’s registered to somebody in Boise, Idaho who probably has many, many more pages like this one.

  • How about Diggggg.com? That you can register at your favorite registrar. It’s not taken. If you do decide to pick it up, why not leave a note in the comments?

A Banner Day

This past Tuesday was a banner day for Blog P.I. Yet this past Tuesday was also a day in which I did not actually update the principal site content here (I will concede, that does describe most days at this URL (or in WordPress’ particular parlance, URI)).

For the first time in this website’s history, an actual photographic image has replaced the durable #3371A3 default color from the K2 WordPress theme in the banner of this particular weblog. Additionally, you may also notice that this blog is now fixed by the width of said image. Go ahead, resize the browser, I’ll wait. See that? We’re fixed-width, baby!

I know, you’re overwhelmed. Please try to contain yourself.

Free time dependent, more layout changes are headed thisaway. One of my goals is to introduce seasonal themes to the Blog P.I. banner, so the image atop this page should change within a few weeks. Next up should be a photograph taken by the expectant parents of yours truly when they visited Washington, D.C. in the late 1970s. (That hazy sky will be no mere trick of Photoshop.) Time permitting, I will likewise be updating the blogroll toward a graphical format, but let’s cross that bridge when the metaphorical stones are actually underfoot.

In the meantime, keep checking back for updates. And if your interests run toward Oregon football, then I cannot endorse The Washington Canard strongly enough. Except that updates there are likewise sporadic. To quote the non-paleontologist Jack Horner, it is what it is.

P.S. I would announce this as a “red-letter day” in Blog P.I. history, sure, except in most browsers any followed link here appears in dark red. So that would be pretty much meaningless. Not unlike this post, you may have noticed.

P.P.S. I may as well point out that the new logo is based on the Magnum P.I. opening title sequence, and that it took me more Photoshop time to perfect than I care to admit.

YouChoose… To Watch Hillary?

This past weekend, Jeff Jarvis pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s entry for the YouTube YouChoose Spotlight — help choose the campaign theme song! — has been, by no small margin, the most successful entrant. Here’s a chart generated by techPresident/TubeMogul:

techPresident, TubeMogul and PrezVid bring you this chart

[Remember: These are cumulative figures; people are not still watching past Spotlights in great numbers.]

My guess in April was that Romney was lucky to go first, but looking at the whole picture (on techPresident you can drag the scroll bar) it seems that yes, Romney did very well, but Edwards did slightly better (saying something about both their online support). Meanwhile, McCain and Kucinich got some lift but not much (saying something about both their lack thereof).

How many videos is that specifically, and how many views for each? Here’s a handy guide, presented in order of candidate particpation (numbers were accurate as of Tuesday morning):

Romney 441,504 35,594 2,615 11,754 Edwards 371,970 6,412 McCain 301,113 10,871 1,137 1,179 Kucinich 294,352 1,541 511 831 Hunter 292,253 Hillary 546,691 128,632 Huckabee 92,505

It’s no surprise that the candidate’s follow-up videos were much less-viewed than the originial, but Hillary’s sequel did much better than any of her rivals. And yet her first YouChoose video received just 18 responses, far behind the 71 responses to Romney.

Meanwhile, her actual YouTube account is entirely locked down. Where most other candidates list friends, subscribers and some even their own subscriptions, Hillary’s YouTube account has none of these: the communication is strictly one-way.

Yet her subscribers number about 3,470, second only to Obama’s approximate 5,940 (and he hasn’t participated in the YouChoose Spotlight yet). This is interesting — because it challenges the arguments made by Dana Boyd at this year’s Personal Democracy Forum that the “digital handshake” — candidate interactivity and reciprocity — is necessary for an effective online campaign.

These big numbers probably represent curiosity more than anything; and assuming that YouTube’s viewership is less politically charged than the political blogosphere, it helps to have an early presence with casual voters. She needs to keep them. After all, the other big online news for Hillary in this month’s Daily Kos straw poll was that her netroots support doubled: from 3% to 6%.

Note to Paulites: Your man trails Giuliani by ~1400 to ~1100 subscribers. Better get on that!

Update: Blog P.I. gets results! As of Thursday night, Ron has 1334 while Rudy is mired at 1452.

Faster, Firefox! Click! Click!

I don’t want to sound like a broken record about Republican websites that miss the mark — this time the NRCC’s TheRealDemocratStory.com — and luckily, Mike Turk has already made most of my points already, especially the lack of a blog (though he does offer some fair praise). So let me just add one thing, using as example the main content from the page of Jerry McNerney, the lefty netroots-supported representative from California:

NRCC The Real Democrat Story (confusing)

Not that the supplemental bill was primarily about Homeland Security, but if you read the whole thing, you’ll get where they’re going with this. The left-hand column represents a campaign promise and the right-hand column represents the alleged breach. But you don’t know this until you’ve actually read it (and even then it may not be crystal clear). Now try this:

NRCC The Real Democrat Story (clearer)

I don’t know about you, but if I understand what each column means before I read it, the chances are a lot better I’ll start reading in the first place — and then continue to see how the compare-and-contrast plays out. You don’t need to dumb down your materials, but you do need to organize them with the expectation that your readers lack patience. That’s just the nature of the medium.

P.S. What does it mean when, after the first day the site is public, the most popular site linking to it is an upper-middle tier liberal blog, the second-most popular site linking is a Beltway news site? Just asking.

Hey, This Rudy Giuliani Site Isn’t Half Bad

The new website for Rudy Giuliani went live last week, and what was an attractive if perfunctory placeholder has now become an attractive and functional website. This shouldn’t be too surprising — when Bush-Cheney ‘04 blogmeister Patrick Ruffini announced in January that he was joining the Giuliani ‘08 team, that was a good sign the campaign would have a pretty decent website. And it is more than that — but it’s also not without flaws. So let’s take a look:

Join Rudy 2008 The Buzz

Is The Buzz is just a round-up of favorable coverage? Sure, but unlike the news feed from every other top-tier candidate, here the MSM and blogs coexist as equals. Romney’s page does link to favorable blog posts, but segregates them from the proper journalists; the others don’t link to bloggers at all. The Buzz also includes a quasi-Digg counter keeping track of how many times a story has been clicked. I assume this is imported from Ruffini’s 2008 Wire. Neither feature prevents a single user from clicking on a story multiple times to artificially inflate its relative significance. That’s a flaw on Ruffini’s own site, but not so much here.

Join Rudy 2008 widget

A fundraising widget? Now we’re talking. Other candidates will let you sign up to become a fundraiser, but only the Giuliani campaign makes it as easy as cut-and-paste. In contrast, the Romney campaign makes you join TEAM MITT before they’ll let you at their fundraising tool, the cumbersomely-titled QuickComMITT. Hillary wants you to sign up before you can send your friends e-mail pitches, and while I haven’t completed the Obama sign-up page, I get the impression it’s an updating thermometer akin to the old Howard Dean “fundraising bat.” All of these campaigns want to keep tabs on their individual fundraisers, but the Giuliani team can do that through this Flash-based widget, too. But most importantly, if you can put a YouTube video on your page, you can raise money for Rudy Giuliani.

Join Rudy 2008 social bookmarking

Ruffini is no great fan of the social bookmarking buttons that litter the bottom of many a blog post, but if the Giuliani campaign is using these ones, he must have decided these are the ones that work. That, or he was overruled. Regardless, Giuliani’s is the only campaign to make these tools standard across the website.

Join Rudy 2008 talk radio
Considering how important talk radio is to the Republican base — and to the Giuliani campaign — this is a good idea. And nobody else has one. Yet the execution and experience leaves something to be desired — the boxes are small, the “Select City” box is unused, and the final readout doesn’t tell you what time the radio programs are on or on what station. Perhaps a prospective caller should already know this, but if so, why bother with this feature? Bottom line: If you want people to volunteer on your behalf, it helps to connect the dots for them.

And now, onto the less-good:

Join Rudy 2008 clutter

So it’s not perfect. I keep getting this dotted outline whenever I click on links from this panel. Not a big deal, but it does disrupt the browsing experience.

Join Rudy 2008 video problems

Now, this is a bigger deal. I got this message at home last night and again at work today. Both connections qualify as “broadband,” I’m on a MacBook Pro and using the latest version of Firefox. What’s a guy gotta do to watch some video around here? Actually, once I finally got the error message to go away (I was starting to wonder if Amazon’s one-click patent was written into McCain-Feingold…) the video worked just fine. On the other hand, it took too long to load. On the other other hand, the now-you-see-them-now-you-don’t controls worked like a charm.

And the best-laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft agley, but this is still kind of embarrassing:

Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s campaign hurriedly fixed its official Web site late Monday to remove a dangerous design flaw that could have allowed hackers to expose personal information submitted by volunteers. The vulnerability affecting Giuliani’s site, http://www.JoinRudy2008.com, could have exposed confidential information stored in the campaign’s databases. The Web site failed to block commands that can instruct it to improperly display sensitive information, a popular hacking technique known as “structured query language injection.” … “Anybody who knows anything about security could have found these problems in two seconds,” said Marc Maiffret of eEye Digital Security Inc., a researcher who examined Giuliani’s Web site at AP’s request.

Aren’t you glad they didn’t make you sign up to fundraise now? I kid, I kid. So again, it’s a work in progress.

It’s also worth noting what isn’t included. Notably absent are any of the front-page social networking icons that most of the other candidates include. Before My.BarackObama.com and McCainSpace I wouldn’t have thought to mention that there is no social network, but there isn’t one. And there is no blog. A Facebook button wouldn’t kill them, but the one place they really need one is in their social bookmark toolbar — and it is. Meanwhile, a campaign probably doesn’t need to bother with their own blog unless they have a compelling reason to do so. And while I do think a Giuliani-based social network could succeed (call me crazy) it certainly is no requirement.

All in all, not bad. And I bet as the campaign goes forward, it’ll get even better.

Brownback for Prime Minister?

On the front page of Sam Brownback’s campaign site is a box titled “Brownback on the Blogs,” quoting favorable comments about Brownback from the blogosphere. This box amuses me for several reasons. For one, there are only two quotes. This I understand; most of the Brownback commentary I’ve seen could be most favorably described as disappointed.

The feature (if that’s what it is) doesn’t actually link out to these blogs, which is annoying at least. One reason may be that one of the quotes comes from Leon H. Wolf, who is a paid staffer of the Brownback campaign. They do note this, so it’s more sad than scandalous. Here’s the other comment:

"The Brownback Bandwagon"

Now that one is an independent endorsement and even one with a bit of a ring. So what’s the problem? It turns out that Tim Aker writes Thurrock Tory. Yes, from England. That Aker’s website is relatively obscure is no problem — most bloggers’ are. Their ubiquity and connectivity is what transmits “memes” around the web. But when your biggest online supporter comes from across the pond, well, that’s a little different. And actually, there is another problem. Two paragraphs later, Aker writes:

I still support Newt Gingrich.

Here’s a lesson: If you’re going to tout the support of bloggers, first make sure you have support of bloggers.

Update: In the comments, Psycheout from Blogs 4 Brownback points out that it’s not like Brownback doesn’t have the support of any bloggers, and Aker himself confirms that he thinks both Gingrich and Brownback would make fine prime ministers. And both wish the Brownback campaign would actually, you know, link.