SEOmoz's New Homepage Design - Sink or Swim?

[A.N.Onym]

Rand, I hope you take this thread not as something said behind your back, but as a collection of ideas that sprung to the minds of the folks in the industry.

You did listen to someone else before (probably at conferences?), so why not listen to someone else now

Cheers.

[jrothra]

Rand,

Thank you for your response. I now understand that which I did not understand before. Your input is always welcome. Blessings to you!

John

[randfish]

Appreciate the votes of confidence, gang. I know we can't please all of the people all of the time, but I certainly take critiques very seriously and will try to do something to address them, particularly on the page strength tool wording

[jrothra]

Originally Posted by randfish

Appreciate the votes of confidence, gang. I know we can't please all of the people all of the time, but I certainly take critiques very seriously and will try to do something to address them, particularly on the page strength tool wording

I'd rep more, but gotta spread.

In the end, when everyone mentions things that they notice, the web becomes better, sites improve, and quality increases. You know we love you (as a friend, nothing weird) and wish you all the best!

[pops]

Originally Posted by randfish

Appreciate the votes of confidence, gang. I know we can't please all of the people all of the time, but I certainly take critiques very seriously and will try to do something to address them, particularly on the page strength tool wording

Without getting too sappy, I think the comments are really a reflection of how much the people here care about your site. It's when they don't comment that you need to start worrying.

[skitzzo]

Rand, I think I finally put my finger on what has been bothering me. The spirit of SEOmoz is what is so attractive to myself and others. Open and transparent is such a core value to your site (and from what I gather, your company). However, putting the premium membership level in seems to create a bit of a barrier or glazed window. Where as everything was so transparent before, there's parts that aren't now and I think that's some of the difference.

That being said, it's not many blogs/companies that will openly point people to a conversation that's been dissecting their actions so you get big props for this. It's this type of open candid discussion that either hasn't been happening lately, or just hasn't seemed quite like it used to be.

Does that make any sense at all?

[randfish]

I'll do my best to make sure we keep providing the same level of transparency. It's a tough balance between growing & monetizing a business and providing as much as possible for free, but we're going to try our best.

[dazzlindonna]

The problem, as I see it, is that Rand became the poster boy for transparency and "free". So, anything that veers from that in any way is going to be a problem for some. There's always some people who will bi-tch about any attempt I may make to earn a penny or two from SEO Scoop. Yet, they seem to forget the million times I shared for free. That's the same concept with you Rand, only more so, since you're on a bigger scale. You can't please all the people all the time.

Do I wish all your tools were still free? Hell yah! But do I begrudge you for making some of them paid? Hell no! Do whatcha gotta do and don't let anyone get you down.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by randfish

I'll do my best to make sure we keep providing the same level of transparency. It's a tough balance between growing & monetizing a business and providing as much as possible for free, but we're going to try our best.

Rand, real quick if you could please... the text that is now on the kwd difficulty tool is all fine and dandy. However, on http://www.seomoz.org/term-target tool...

You see the message that it is only allowed for premium members after you try and use it. The message is pulled in via AJAX, which means it had to be deliberately coded into the tool. It's not the same as accidentally forgetting to put the message on a form that it won't work without being a logged in premium member, it had to have been designed this way on purpose.

Putting up a message now on that tool won't change the fact that initially it was designed to lure people into wanting to try it, giving the impression that they could, and then delivering the sales spiel afterwards.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's not a bad sales tactic, and personally I don't even think it is unethical. Hell, you could even increase the draw to it by allowing logged in non-premium members to run it exactly one time to test it (I would add in a confirm though when you give them the notice that this will be their only shot, in case they have another URL they would prefer to run it on). I'm just curious why you would act so concerned about the whole transparency thing and make like the lure on the other tool was unintentional.

I mean, yes, as an end user I do find it annoying as hell when what I was mooching off of before is no longer free for the taking, or when I hear about a kickass free tool from someone else, but when I check it's paid members only... but c'mon, that's life.

You might want to consider, however, adding in a Day Pass option on the tools for, say, $1.99... might actually get a fair bit of traffic that way as well.

-Michael

[leadegroot]

The day pass and one-try ideas are good ones.

I'd bet money that it isn't an intentional spiel (or if it then the intention didn't start with Rand!), but just incorrectly implemented. Everyone makes mistakes.
(Damn, I have much too high an opinion of you, Rand! You can't be that shiny and pure!)