Talk Fantasy Football

dode74 wrote:http://static.googleusercontent.com/med ... -guide.pdf

Interesting stuff about the sitemap, will definitely do that. With different titles for each page, I think Wordpress might scupper this, but will look into it.

Thanks.

Oh, you meant the comment about the site, not google.

Like I said, it might be just me.

The confusing part is that there is so much text and links on the frontpage.
As a Newbie, not even knowing what the NAF is, this seems to be to much information.
I'm not a professional webdesigner but I think a website has to LOOK interesting first to keep visitors on the site and then BE interesting to keep them coming back.
Know what I mean?

Also, it is quite uncomfortable to be a member to contact NTOs or RTOs.
Think about people who didn't even know that the NAF exists and now want information before becoming part of it.
The accessibility of the site is not very user friendly and is designed for people who know wht the NAF is and does.
Hope that clears up a little of what I mean.

Regash wrote:Well, I just typed "blood bowl" in the search box of google.

Mike, being no. 37 on the list is not good enough for the NAF!

And yet it's on page 1 for me. Google searches are tailored to the searcher.

Regash wrote:Oh, you meant the comment about the site, not google.

Like I said, it might be just me.

The confusing part is that there is so much text and links on the frontpage.
As a Newbie, not even knowing what the NAF is, this seems to be to much information.
I'm not a professional webdesigner but I think a website has to LOOK interesting first to keep visitors on the site and then BE interesting to keep them coming back.
Know what I mean?

Also, it is quite uncomfortable to be a member to contact NTOs or RTOs.
Think about people who didn't even know that the NAF exists and now want information before becoming part of it.
The accessibility of the site is not very user friendly and is designed for people who know wht the NAF is and does.
Hope that clears up a little of what I mean.

OK, that's more helpful, thanks. A little surprising, but helpful!

lunchmoney wrote:And yet it's on page 1 for me. Google searches are tailored to the searcher.

That means what for someone who never even looked up the NAF?
Better or worse than no. 38?

Improvement on search ratings is never a waste of time if you want to be found, is it?

sann0638 wrote:A little surprising, but helpful!

In what way is it surprising?

It is No.20 for me. Bottom of page 2.

I did notice that the first reference to the NAF on the wikipedia page is not a link. Blood bowl is not mentioned in the title on the NAF home page.

It is going to be tough though if Google is going to be guiding people towards stuff that they already know about.

koadah wrote:It is No.20 for me. Bottom of page 2.

I did notice that the first reference to the NAF on the wikipedia page is not a link.

It is now!

koadah wrote: Blood bowl is not mentioned in the title on the NAF home page.

Whoops! Will see what we can do about that.

Regash wrote:In what way is it surprising?

I thought there was a nice balance on the homepage of enough words to be descriptive, but not too many to be overwhelming. I quite like words though, so it's a subjective thing.

Regash wrote:Do I really need to spell out "Improve your search ratings!"

I'm not sure how the release of BB2 (and subsequent reviews of BB2 from sites way bigger than the NAF) pushing the NAF site down the ratings is Mike's fault.

And for the record, the NAF showed up on p.2 of my "Blood Bowl" search, 4 entries above FUMBBL (bottom of p.2), so given that searches are also user driven...

you can see what a "neutral" user would see by going into porn mode, ah, "incognito" and doing your search. And the NAF is pretty far down on that list.

Darkson wrote:I'm not sure how the release of BB2 pushing the NAF site down the ratings is Mike's fault.

I never said that.
Mike asked how he could reach people that don't even know about the NAF.
I said he should improve the search ratings.

No ones fault, just a thing I realised.

rolo wrote:you can see what a "neutral" user would see by going into porn mode, ah, "incognito" and doing your search. And the NAF is pretty far down on that list.

Just tried that and "blood bowl NAF" brings the NAF site in as result one. "NAF" brings it in as result 4, behind something to do with horses.

I've asked the tech bods to change the title

lunchmoney wrote:Just tried that and "blood bowl NAF" brings the NAF site in as result one. "NAF" brings it in as result 4, behind something to do with horses.

You're missing the point.
We're talking about people who don't know that the NAF even exist.
So searching for "NAF" is not an option!

I just think that a search for "blood bowl" should bring the NAF on results page one.

sann0638 wrote:

koadah wrote:It is No.20 for me. Bottom of page 2.

I did notice that the first reference to the NAF on the wikipedia page is not a link.

It is now!

why not a wikipedia page for the naf?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAF