|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 3, 2004 19:29:11 GMT -5
The point is that our current website is about three steps behind college sites at peer institutions. We've had X years to get it right with our in-house website. How have they done with it? The point is also that your run-of-the-mill College Sports site is a major improvement over our current website. The current site lacks a sophisticated layout and interface and is close to purposeless because it only serves as a source of information. Sure, it has links to other things, like the Pro Shop, but those are external to the site, whereas College Sports seems to integrate those features quite nicely. |
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Dec 3, 2004 19:37:44 GMT -5
Ah, 007, that's why I put the ACTUALLY in all caps, because I knew from your previous post that it was SUPPOSED to be up and running a while ago. I was looking for some possible insider information on when it will finally be a reality. I'm not reffering to the initial launch date. I thought I had explained the latest details to you. As of the second week of November the latest news was that it would probably take at least 3 more weeks before it was launched. So who knows how much longer the wait will be. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 3, 2004 19:38:53 GMT -5
It's not an in-house web site per se, but a site which used College Sports (then Fans Only)'s 1998-era template. The template only does so much and that's all. A fully redesigned, internally supported solution could have worked as is the case at RU and UConn, that's all, or something as simple as my.georgetown.edu |
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Dec 3, 2004 19:41:33 GMT -5
I'm not a specialist on this stuff, so could you explain what is better about the Uconn and Rutgers sites? The college sports network ones typically look really nice with the pictures and graphics at the top and these two aren't as nice. I'm assuming these two have more capabilities and can handle more info, but I really don't know why they would be better otherwise. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 3, 2004 19:47:06 GMT -5
I'm not a specialist on this stuff, so could you explain what is better about the Uconn and Rutgers sites? Three things: 1. Usability. The sites (particularly UConn) are easier to navigate, to read, and to print pages. Photos are also larger. 2. Flexibility. The College Sports templates are all the same--same sections, same formatting issues. If UConn wants to change their front page to reflect a bowl game or an NCAA bid, they've got more flexibility to do so. 3. Cost. Long term, schools always save by doing it in-house rather than outsourcing it. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 3, 2004 19:50:11 GMT -5
BC and UConn's sites are pretty awful. I completely dislike the ESPN/Rivals look. Could the page get busier?
Terrible design from a usability standpoint. And wow, can BC make it's colors look any more annoying to my eyes?
However, market research studies have shown websites are ALL about content. How it looks is overrated.
One of the world's more traversed websites is The Best Page in the Universe and it looks exceedingly simplistic.
Frankly, though, I have little to no use for official sites. Stats, rosters, news. The video clips are cool.
Otherwise, hoyasaxa and the "other" site are always going to blow away the official one in terms of content.
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Dec 3, 2004 20:04:42 GMT -5
I actually like the BC site, I guess Im a fan of all the color and stuff (But BC's colors are obviously annoying ;D).
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 3, 2004 20:10:45 GMT -5
Three things: 1. Usability. The sites (particularly UConn) are easier to navigate, to read, and to print pages. Photos are also larger. 2. Flexibility. The College Sports templates are all the same--same sections, same formatting issues. If UConn wants to change their front page to reflect a bowl game or an NCAA bid, they've got more flexibility to do so. 3. Cost. Long term, schools always save by doing it in-house rather than outsourcing it. I think to some degree these arguments miss the point. Official websites, for GU's purposes, are not to attract fans who decide who to support based on the quality of a website. I suspect that very few people are into such things. As such, playing a game of making a decision based on the quality of a site vis-a-vis some other site is close to meaningless. The point is that the current GUHoyas site does not get the job done. It does not facilitate easily any kind of participation in Hoyas Unlimited. It does not include timely updates on all programs. It does not include professional game write-ups in many cases, unless they are copied from the AP. It does not include any information for student fans other than announcements about when games are held. I can go on. Then, the point is to compare that to what College Sports does. I suspect that you would find improvement in each of these areas. As a result, GU fans will be more capable of supporting the program and channeling their support instead of pecking around on a site that is woefully difficult to navigate in spots. In terms of cost, that is a valid point. However, we can't get all flustered by spending more money, when at the same time, we decry the lack of institutional support for athletics. Will we be a better program as a result of this change? Absolutely. And that's all that matters... |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 3, 2004 20:16:05 GMT -5
If college sports does not provide content -- it ain't going to help.
Would they be assigning a writer? I wouldn't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by dairishhoya on Dec 3, 2004 20:22:13 GMT -5
The main problem with guhoyas.com has always been and will continue to be having individuals in charge of a medium for which they have little to no understanding of how it works or how to leverage it to build community and create great experiences for their constituents.
The in-house content management system (CMS) used to manage the site is extremely robust, however, you need to consistently -- and constantly -- populate it with good and engaging content. SFHoya99 is absolutely right "content is king." The graphic design was a hold-over from their last experience with a third-party vendor, yet, they never bothered to use the designers of the University's in-house design service (they created my.georgetown that DFW linked to) to give it a face-lift or the information architects, application developers and user-experience experts to make it more usable and relevant (such as the RSS feeds the main website now offers).
Unfortunately, now they've moved the site back to a third-party vendor (which will provide some benefits for infrastructure -- streaming in particular if they signed a smart contract), but have ignored the most important parts of doing web development -- defining goals and building a capacity to meet those goals. At the moment, it appears that they are only concerned with upgrading the "look" of their site (in large part due to the vocal members of this board) and not actually developing a site users can become vested in. Hopefully this isn't the case, but they haven't yet brought a professional into the SID to ensure the University's goals and user expectations are balanced and met.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 3, 2004 20:53:08 GMT -5
Streaming would be great, dairish. I'd use the website for lots of highlights, streaming video feeds of games, press conferences, hoop club meetings, etc. (Bold used in case someone is actually reading).
When you talk about users vested, though, I'm curious about how an official site goes there.
The most obvious way, is something like a message board/community. The issue is censorship, frankly. We keep it reasonably clean on this board, but no one wants to hang on a purely "rah-rah" board. If we can't argue about the virtues of one player over another, I don't foresee a very good board.
I know there are other things they could do, but they seem either one of two things:
1) Minimal interaction points like contact info, polls, etc.
2) Real content.
The polling should be done at minimum -- amazing what the web offers in that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dairishhoya on Dec 3, 2004 21:28:08 GMT -5
Its important to get visitors vested by providing them a value that they can't find anywhere else. I think DFW has done a great job in doing this through a couple of methods: his content is unique (opinion, history and tradition) and other content is well-culled from disparate sources to provide a one-stop shop for people wanting to know what's going on. And, yes, this board is great for the reasons you've mentioned, but also for the value of information exchanged between visitors (the notion of insiderness).
While I agree you can't replicate a board like this on an "official site," a couple of other examples of creating *premium content* would be:
1. customization -- being able to pull and push information based on a users preferences creates a more meaningful exchange, especially when you make it accessible via a variety methods -- email, RSS and, even, IM and SMS updates.
2. online chats -- set-up chats with current players and coaches before or after games, allowing registered fans greater access (I realize this can be problematic, but its important to humanize Hoya athletics to increase support).
3. online chats redux -- another take on this would be to create a "Hoya Legends" series; bring back alumni to share their experiences and discuss important moments in Georgetown sports history (including recasting old audio and video footage).
4. polls and contests -- yes, somewhat cheesey but they do get people involved and everybody loves free stuff (check out the success of freeipods.com in viral marketing).
5. behind the scenes -- show what goes into being an intercollegiate athlete (photos, video, blog, etc.). If done right, could be pretty interesting and even inspiring to young fans.
Again, these are just a few ideas thrown together extremely fast ... hmmm, should I protect my IP rights on these ....
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Dec 3, 2004 22:45:06 GMT -5
Jonathan Wallace > Matt Causey I think three games is not nearly enough to judge how a player will turn out (remember how great DO was last season for awhile?) for the year, let alone their careers. If he plays as many minutes the rest of the season as he has played the first three games, then we'll probably have a more accurate read on his future here. But at least they didn't call him "Josh".  |
|
