Company forums, personal information and the World of Warcraft

Those of you who have forums on your Web site understand that spammers and trolls can be a real nuisance. Perhaps you can relate to the trouble Activision Blizzard has with dealing with the multitude of undesirable posts on their official World of Warcraft forums.

On July 6th, Activision Blizzard, Inc. unveiled a controversial plan to help regulate the forums: Anyone posting on forums would have their real name displayed. The philosophy is that with real names associated with each posting, personal accountability will come into play and subscribers will be more civil. There was immediate backlash from WOW subscribers and users concerned about this proposed policy change. Personal privacy advocates were particularly concerned about publicly displaying real names in connection with Warcraft. Posters also worried about the possibility of cyberstalking and out-of-game harassment.

In an attempt to show how "harmless" the proposed change would be, a forum moderator posted his real name in the Blizzard Forum discussion on this topic.
Within minutes, community members posted all matter of personal information on him. Using only Google searches and his real name, they found and posted such info as his:

• Cell phone number
  
• Twitter and Facebook accounts
  
• Personal photos
• Mailing address
  
• Maps to his house.

The community used this opportunity to illustrate how much information can be easily gathered, and how it could be dangerous when your real name is displayed in the forums.


There are simpler ways to combat undesirable posters than by publicly displaying personally identifying information. In her post, forum moderator Nethaera provides the basic methods used in forums to ensure that useful information will be seen and found by users:

• Having the community rate posts (the Slashdot commenting model)
• Highlighting posts based on rating (YouTube's "highest rated comment" model)
  
• Improving forum search
  
  YouTube has successfully adopted most of these methods to improve the comments on their videos (highest rated comments, voting up/voting down and automatically hiding spam/comments with a low rating).

The lesson is that spammers and trolls will make it on to your company forums, as they find their way onto EVERY board. The undesirable posters can manage to defeat almost any automated security precautions you can set up. The presence of an active group of forum moderators (employees of your company or a trusted enthusiast of your brand) goes a long way to creating an active, safe community. Even though forum trolls and spammers are a nuisance on forums, you do not need to take the drastic measures of posting your customer's personal information to combat them.

-by Kyle Kulakowski

Stock photography vs. reverse image searches

For companies with respected online brands using stock photography can be a terrible disservice to all Web site visitors and your online reputation. In user tests at Interface Guru, we have found the more tech-savvy users (like engineers and programmers) are particularly intolerant of stock photography and will think less of a brand if they see it used on a Web site.

Stock photography recognition is no longer a skill limited only to the more fluent Web users. There are now tools called reverse image search engines available to all users. With these specific search engines, users can instantly discover the source of an image on a Web site as well as find other Web sites using a particular image.

Caption: A sample Tin Eye search found 77 uses of this image

Here is a quick breakdown of the more popular reverse image search engines:
1) TinEye (http://www.tineye.com/) - Exact match of an image uploaded or image URL linked by the user. Arguably the most popular of the reverse image searches, it even provides plugins for Firefox and Chrome browsers. With a simple right-click on an image, users can check to see if your graphics are used elsewhere on the Web.
2) Byo (http://labs.ideeinc.com/) - Searches for images based on similar colors.
3) Gazopa (http://www.gazopa.com/) - This engine will search based on color and shape similarity.
4) RevIMG (http://www.revimg.net/) - This reverse image search is focused more on art and architecture. It looks for the exact image (just like TinEye), but users must specify the artistic category that applies to the image before they can conduct the search.
5) Google's Similar Image Search (http://similar-images.googlelabs.com/) - While less robust than specific reverse image search images, this functionality is now built right into Google Image search returns.

Caption: Another sample search from Tin Eye

Chris Barton, photography blogger, has an entry where he uses a reverse image search to find all instances of sites using a particular employee stock photograph: http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/03/microstock-why-would-reputable-company.html

In a follow-up entry Chris provides a risk assessment breakdown of all your available options for providing images on your Web site:
http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/04/microstock-how-to-avoid-poisonous.html
He rates stock photography as the highest risk to your organization and creating your own images as the lowest risk.

At Interface Guru, we agree that using stock photography is a risk - you do not know what other Web sites have purchased the image and are using it on their site. Your images on your Web site should be as unique as your company; create your own graphics and images on your Web site and tailor them to match your content.

- by Kyle Kulakowski

Verizon: I love the Droid. I hate the Web site. How do I register for My Verizon?

On hold with Verizon for the second time after a dropped call... the problem is not my new phone or your great employees. It's - guess what - the My Verizon Web site! This is a great example of how brand experience must remain consistent from the Web (great promo site), to the physical store (great customer service), to the product (the rockin' Droid), and then back to the Web (broken Web site for account self-service). After much research on the Android phones, I finally settled on the Droid. I've had it for 24 hours and I love it. I got great service from Steve Liermann at Verizon's Park Place Tucson store (where I set a record for number of contacts transferred). And then... I tried to register for My Verizon Business version. Big mistake.

I've completed the registration form six times (twice in Safari, four times in Firefox). The Verizon rep is experiencing the same errors. Either the form asks me to input the business contact number (already there) or the wireless number (already there). There is clearly a bug in the form since the error toggles. Plus common interface problems (fields for phone number entry) that sure do look like sheer laziness.

After an override by the rep we finally got the My Verizon account set up. Time lost: Nearly one hour.

Verizon: Your network rocks. The Droid rocks. Your employees rock. Your My Verizon registration experience does NOT rock. The little laminated card you gave me with registration instructions says, "we've got your back." Not so much! It says all I need is my phone number. Not true.

This problem could easily be solved. We at Interface Guru would be happy to help.

If this is what buying the Droid via ecommerce would have looked like, I probably would have given up. Verizon! Wake up! Love ya mean it but fix this Web site!

How rules of engagement protect your brand online

The common definition of "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) is a military one. From wikipedia: "Actions a military commander may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command')."

What the heck does that have to do with your Web presence? Everything.

Note the definition: Actions that may be taken without consulting a higher authority, and actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered. Given the freewheeling nature of the Web, companies and organizations must create some sense of order so that - as my colleague Sean Fitzpatrick is bound to say - there is "freedom within structure."

We commonly find that companies that are otherwise well-run have never created Rules of Engagement for their digital media teams. The result: Dilution of brand values, and a lack of consistency that is obvious to the user. In other words, lack of ROE leads directly to poor user experience - or worse.

Companies that allowed the Web to grow "organically" - which is to say, with no rhyme or reason - struggle the most with ROE. Managers are loath to approach staff who have become accustomed to doing whatever pleases them on the company Web site. This is a serious mistake.

The ROE conversation (here are the rules we all need to abide by, in terms of workflow, approval, tone) is not an easy one, but it is crucial. Avoiding the conversation, and the subsequent rules, will inevitably damage your brand.

The Web is rife with embarrassing missteps that companies would never have allowed to see the light of day in print or broadcast. Protect your brand by creating ROE, and enforce those rules. The issue is serious enough to merit a signed agreement, with termination as a consequence if staff deliberately ignore the rules.

ROE are a natural byproduct of Web strategy. Let us know if you need help establishing them.

Shiny New Toy Syndrome: Crippling your Web presence?

Is your Web presence hobbled by Shiny New Toy Syndrome?

Used to be that the CEO was most prone to Shiny New Toy Syndrome. (Actual quote from a major media boardroom: "ESPN's doing it... it must be working for them... why can't do that too?"). We tech types breathed a sigh of relief when Chief Technology Officers became commonplace, since the CTO is supposed to disabuse the CEO of the dancing sugarplums that usually surround Shiny New Toy.

Turns out CTOs are just as - if not more - susceptible to Shiny New Toy Syndrome (SNTS). Especially when pushed in a flashy new demo from an 800-pound-gorilla vendor. Why does this happen?

Vendor schmoozing aside, this happens because the company has not established requirements. Sure, the toy is shiny, but: Does it meet your requirements? Does it duplicate the functionality of an existing, better-developed tool? Will it create ROI, or will it add a maintenance burden that you didn't plan to meet? Or is this yet another instance of the technologist's worst nightmare: Wishful thinking?

Major American businesses, associations, and scientific projects are losing time, money, and opportunity to SNTS. We see it on far too many projects. The cure: The creation of objective requirements - based on a coherent Web strategy - that set a standard for selection and implementation of technologies.

Play is clearly more fun than work. But CTOs are paid big salaries to make responsible decisions that affect the livelihoods of hundreds of people - not to mention the company's brand.

Toys are for kids.

Internet to the rescue of print? HP's MagCloud

Recently some of our brightest colleagues have been singing the praises of HP's MagCloud platform. The true value as we see it is the ability for publishers to leverage archived content, allowing readers/users to assemble customized print products that meet *their* priorities. According to HP, "MagCloud is a tool for a professional or mainstream publisher to create a publication that is sold before it is printed, but it can also be a consumer-driven self-publishing tool."

It's a logical step given what we've seen in the usability lab over the last ten years. Users will gravitate toward what interests THEM - *not* towards what publishers want them to see (thus the great value of "Related Content" links). There's a clear correlation in the music industry: People got tired of buying albums when they really just wanted a few songs. The industry fought the trend. Enter Napster and iTunes.

The publishing industry continues to be hobbled by 20th-century rules of engagement. What could happen if publishers, sitting on years of relevant content, allowed their readers to self-serve a product that is truly meaningful to them? What if educators could assemble special issues for their students? What if "love mark" readers - those who are diehard fans - could assemble their custom editions of anything from Arizona Highways to Playboy? Happy users. Targeted advertising opportunities. What a wonderful world it could be.

Attention to detail - careful with the clip art

This URL for a goth dating service was being passed around the office not long ago. I shall refrain from expounding further on who among us has the goth-iest tendencies but let's just say that black clothing, Neil Gaiman, and Smeggs are not unknown to most of us.

The first thing I thought when I looked at the home page was "Hm. This font seems suspiciously... corporate for being the '#1 alternative dating community on the net'." And while the word "goth" was sprinkled liberally throughout the content something just didn't seem authentic. I decided to find out more about the people behind GothScene.com who profess such dedication to bringing together single goth members of the gothic lifestyle scene. It wasn't easy. I couldn't find any "About Us" page and the FAQ focused just on technical and payment questions. The lack of identifying info fueled my suspicions that these goths were just skin deep. I continued searching for company info, clicking through various links and wondering how the division was made between "goth chicks" and "goth babes".

My suspicions were rewarded when a pop-up window appeared, asking if I'd like to chat live with a customer service representative about GothScene. Attention to detail had failed here - the pictured representative was a smiling, tanned blonde in a blue polo shirt.

Aha, in the privacy policy I found IP DatingMedia LTD is the owner and operator of this site. Further whois research led me to the parent company's site. Lo and behold, the very same headset-wearing lady is smiling at me from the front page! As I suspected, GothScene is just one of many "Premium Niche Related Sites". Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But when you're positioning yourself as the premium site for a selected niche that prides itself on individuality and being different, it's attention to detail that can make or break you.

We have a Web site, and that's our strategy

Why do US companies waste millions of dollars every year on Web projects that never had a strategy to begin with?

I'm writing this while flying Chicago to Dallas on a Southwest 737. Everything around me has been designed and tested to meet the needs of humans in flight: The cabin, the lighting, the tray tables, the seats, the doors. The cockpit instruments meet the critical needs of the pilots. The soft-drink glasses stand securely and don't leak. Why do we fail to bring this sort of thinking to the Web?

Many of our potential clients come to us saying there's no time of budget for strategy and planning. Please take note: You *must* make time to plan Web presence. If you do not, the end product, and your brand, will suffer. At best, you will miss opportunities.

Our process for Web strategy is simple in concept, difficult in execution: Get all the stakeholders in a room, and get them to consensus. You may (and should) cringe at the thought of doing this at your company. But it must be done. That's why companies hire people like us - to take the sting out of hard questions, while ensuring we get to an answer.

If your company has not developed a defined Web strategy based on business goals, it's not getting the most from digital media. We guarantee that.