
In conducting a comparative analysis of two competing websites I will be focusing on the world renowned journalists John Pilger and Naomi Klein. More specifically, a comparison of their personal websites will be achieved by drawing upon relevant theory and relating it to featured aspects of usability and design. An assessment of both websites will therefore involve an analysis of elements such as: SEO (search engine optimisation), SMO (social media optimisation), UGC (user generated content), interactivity and multimedia. By comparing, contrasting and evaluating these specific elements I would hope to ascertain which individual website fosters the most effective and ubiquitous presence on the net. As Brinck et al. (2002, p2) states “highly usable websites are intuitive. They are transparent. They support the users and allow them to accomplish their goals quickly, efficiently and easily.”
Both websites demonstrate a concise, uncluttered and easily navigable homepage, with all relevant sections clearly signposted. Sections of the websites which demand greater attention are also placed closer to the top of the page to emphasise their importance. For example, an advert for Pilger’s new film takes up the majority of space on the homepage, likewise for Klein’s latest book. As Brinck et al. (2002, p175) argues, “Sites benefit from strong orientation cues, such as an obvious site logo, a large title page and a distinctive layout.”
Taking both websites into consideration, the sheer number of available articles would imply a significant amount of original content. For example, Pilger has posted over 100 articles spanning 16 years; likewise Klein’s archives reach back ten years and cover a plethora of different topics including war, environment, banking and politics. Such a far reaching reporting agenda is also likely to increase user traffic to both websites as a higher frequency of relevant keywords will produce higher rankings in search engine results. In addition, both individuals have several articles published in respected newspapers such as The Guardian, The NY Times and The New Statesman (direct links to original articles are present on Klein’s website), suggesting that the content is not only vast, but also authoritative. As Pierce et al. (2010) argues, “Content or information is the main product of an online news site, and it is the primary determinant behind a user’s selection and satisfaction.”
In terms of interactivity and UGC neither website seems to be fully engaged with the processes involved. On Klein’s website for example there is a “Democracy Now” video/audio blog present, but it has not been updated for almost a year and there is no option to comment. Again this points to improvements that can be made by keeping site content fresh as this is one of the factors which will contribute to more backlinks and higher search engine rankings (Jones 2008). In addition, neither website makes use of a discussion forum which would provide the potential to understand more about visitors, inviting a greater variety of perspectives on the topical content of the website.
I would argue however that SMO is being put to good effect by both websites with the presence of sharing features that allow users to post content onto social networking sites. Klein’s website for instance allows users to link content to Del.icio.us, Digg, Reddit, Newsvine, Facebook and StumbleUpon. The situation is similar for Pilger whose site displays icons for Digg, Del.icio.us, Reddit, Facebook and Twitter. Clearly, reaching such an expansive audience will reap benefits for the website by generating buzz, traffic and backlinks. Aside from this, a prolific use of social media also shows transparency and a willingness to engage with diverse members of the online community. Klein for example links all her tweets to her Facebook page which reaches a combined audience of almost 72,000 people. By doing so she also provides a space for interactive debate and UGC which will often spark further discussion amongst fans and followers.
By contrast, despite Pilger utilising Facebook and Twitter to promote his new film “The War You Don’t See,” his combined audience only totals a mere 1400. As Jones (2008) argues, “Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be used as a vehicle to manage reputation, build recognition and promote products.” Seemingly however, Pilger has only concentrated on the latter and in this case could benefit from a more salient approach to social networking, using it to promote himself and his work more effectively. Not only this, but Rusbridger (2010) asserts that many of the best reporters are now habitually using Twitter as an aid to find information, pointing to Pilger’s failure in realising the potential to generate more resources and therefore more relevant content.
To conclude, theory used in conjunction with observation has demonstrated that both websites feature desired characteristics that enhance usability and design. The evidence suggests that although many aspects colluded to increase the authority and effectiveness of the websites, there were still various elements which could have been improved upon to optimize the experience for the user. However, in terms of the website that I believe fosters the most ubiquitous presence on the net I would argue that Klein wins the title. Although Pilger does have slightly more content on his site and it is perhaps marginally more effective in terms of design and usability, it does not detract from the fact that his use of social media is insufficient in comparison with Klein’s. Not only this, but by focusing all social media efforts on the release of his new film It moves attention away from the idea of a “news website.” This in turn means that social media is being used for the purpose of promotion rather than a tool to foster a community of dedicated online followers.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.