IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

Just received from Dave the results of the Best Web Site competition. Many congratulations to the worthy winner.

I note that 182 clubs have a website but only 36 entered. Might it not have been better if all the clubs with sites were automatically entered rather than have just those few that bothered to enter? I fully appreciate that this would have involved the judges with a vast amount of work.

However . . . Perhaps readers might like to discuss this point.
Pete

We got our results too and personally, I think they're very fair, and congratulations to Surrey Borders club!

However, looking at the winner's website, I can feel fairly confident that there's nobody in our club that would be willing to write so much content and keep it up to date as years pass, so we could never hope to have such a website as that!

So in a constructive manner, rather than a spoilt brat manner, What would be the point of us or any other similar club entering if the competition was launched again? Of course we could make a nice new website, that's beautifully graphically designed, but it wouldn't have the wealth of information that the winner's website has, as it's not designed to be that sort of website.

Which brings me onto another thought for discussion... What's the purpose of a club website? The winner's website has a good deal of information about the club, and it's very well presented. But I expect it also won points for it's excellent and informative articles and tips on how to make better films etc. But is that the job of a club website? There are a number of professional websites out there whose specific reason for existence is to give articles on making better films, so in a way, what's the point of our club website duplicating that? Fair enough, it might increase our search rankings and help with advertising revenue, but as a club, we simply don't have the resources to write and publish such well made articles.

Off the top of my head, I think all we want our website to say is:

• We're a club for fimmakers.
• We have a well equipped hall
• Look how friendly and helpful we are!
• we meet at *** on the *** of each week/month
• This is our calendar for the future
• these are our contact details:

Have I missed anything out?

So assuming (and I could be barking up the wrong tree) that this is a yearly competition, how do you attract clubs like ours that have a much simpler purpose than to be a full-featured commercial[1] video-making web portal?

Maybe have two categories? One for web portals, and one for simple club sites with a maximum number of pages or some other qualification?

Maybe a most improved website prize or something?

It's a tricky question, and I don't intend it as a criticism, just a bit of honest talk about what's going through my mind to get a discussion going?

Also, Please note the disclaimer at the bottom of my post. This is my PERSONAL opinion...

[1] I say commercial a little tongue in cheek because I'm so fascinated with the idea of having google adwords on their website! I have a fairly successful unrelated Blog website, with around 15,000 visitors a month, and I've only earned around £20 from ad-revenue in 2 years! I'm interested if they get any significant revenue, or was it just an "I wonder if...?" sort of decision?

I have to agree with that, I think. I had a look at the Surrey Borders site - and yes, it is extremely comprehensive, well planned ... and busy. Which I feel makes it a bit more difficult to find anything quickly - but maybe that's the idea: you have to search around and see how much information is available in order to get to what you're looking for.

I also thought that the prime purposes of a Club website are to attract newcomers and to inform members of events - and perhaps also to air members' movies (as part of the 'see what we do' aspect for potential newcomers).

It is a great site - no doubt about that. And I wonder, if I were suddenly interested in film-making would so much information be interesting or a put off. Frankly, I think it would be interesting and impressive, and I would be hooked into finding out more about the club rather than be put off.

In other words, much as I see the point and agree that a simplistic site gets over all that 'needs' to be got over, an informative site can also say a lot more about the club.

But ... it does need a totally dedicated webmaster to keep it fresh and up to date. And that, from experience with my own almost derelict and well outdated site (because I've lost it on my old computer and it won't download into the new software) can be one MASSIVE millstone round the neck! I have to totally re-write and refresh my site, and that is such a daunting task .... One day. Maybe!

Those are a couple of very interesting and well-reasoned postings. However they didn’t actually cover the main point I raised.

Thinking now onwards regarding clubs & websites. My little club, like many others sadly, consists of about 18 members almost all collecting their old age pensions. Of those not many do a lot in the way of actual filming. They like to attend the club and be shown movies, discuss and look at equipment and so on. Trying to get any club project of actual movie making underway, is extremely difficult. Luckily there are a few who do like making their personal movies and these generally are quite good.

When filming projects are discussed, everyone is very vocal in their enthusiasm but usually nothing comes of it. The same with the club website. Everyone was so keen to get it started and are keen that it should be maintained but, as always, getting any input for a News page is like getting the blood from a stone. Just the usual couple offer anything. The same with getting member’s videos onto the site. Therefore our site consists of the usual basic pages plus, when possible, items in a News page and an item in a video page. This can be a video from one of two members who offer anything and occasionally something from outside sources. One member frankly refuses to have anything to do with You Tube or similar. That, as he says himself, is his own illogical prejudice.

This being the situation with many clubs, the idea of having a wonderful website such as the IAC winning site, really is fantasy. A really good site needs a keen and skilled webmaster. Clearly the winning webmaster is such a talented person. I assume he has the necessary whip to get input from the quite large and keen membership of around 60.

I take it that most small club webmasters are chaps like myself who have learnt by trial and error to create an adequate site and then constantly struggling with lack of input and interest from the members. I suppose they might point out that their interest is in video, not websites and that’s the way it is.

Gloom & Doom . . . Pete

I'm sorry I didn't address your question, but I guess I didn't really understand the question...

The competition is a free and voluntary one, that the Judges give their time for free to judge, so why would they want to give themselves 5 times more work, judging a website that didn't want to be judged?

By all means someone could write an article about club websites in general, but I know I wouldn't want to give myself 5 times more work when it's not asked for!

I agree with your point in your second post though, It's difficult to judge a full-featured portal website against a simple (by design) static informational website.
However, I guess it's the same as Judging a 20 minute Drama film, with a cast of 20 and crew of 10, in the same category as a 3 minute documentary about the history of your own road.

It simply can't be done fairly, and after all these years, we still haven't found a fair way to do it!

This brings to mind the old question: "Why do you have a committee meeting once a month?" Answer: "Because we always have a committee meeting once a month". In other words nowadays there is a general feeling that any organisation must have a web-site wether you actually need one or not. I suppose a web-site is what you want it to be and my own feeling is that it is an excellent means of getting publicity for your club and attracting new members. However, the problem is that creating and maintaining a web-site is a massive amount of work and if you want to encourage repeat visits the content has to be updated on a regular basis. For clubs there is the problem that everyone will agree that they want a web-site and that it is a good thing to have so long as someone else does the actual work and, as Peter said, getting contributions is like getting blood from a stone; but that is always the way of things, as editors of club or regional magazines know only too well. I thought, and still think, that the competition was a good idea which, hopefully, will have encouraged clubs to compare their own web-sites against those of others, and re-appraise their own designs and content.

Dave and I are pleased that the Website Competition has generated a reaction and we have responded - specifically on this website. Apart from announcing the winner, we have also published our criteria and listed those clubs who came close. We hope this helps to make it clear that we assessed each site on the basics and not on the basis of loads of additional info which appears to turn the site into a portal. Our criteria would come as no surprise to anyone who has read all the articles we have written for Film and Video Maker and this website. Please let us know if you disagree and have a look at the runner-up sites to see what kind of qualities we rated.

Meanwhile we hope that these articles plus this competition and subsequent debate will help webmasters by encouraging other club members to give them support.

Incidentally we don’t agree that setting up a good website is a fantastic amount of work. It’s like making a film – you need planning plus enthusiasm plus ideas - so plan it carefully, write good clear material and try to reflect the best of your club activities. On the other hand, if your club has lost its mojo then the website will probably reflect that and well, you can guess the result.
If you have done your planning carefully, maintenance should be like other routine club tasks - takes a little thought and a little time but is hardly backbreaking.

Peter Kidman, Dave Watterson