Mormon Church website a good example of SEO
kyleclouse.com
kyleclouse.com
They have a strongly, user-driven dev process that brings high fidelity mock-ups into the process well before development starts. UX works directly with the customers (different organizations in the church) to make sure they get what that want, leaving the program managers to ensure delivery.
The underlying CMS (which I worked on), on the other hand, is something else. :)
I don't like the new site.
Just yesterday they fixed one thing that bothered me about it, which is that anytime you highlight, you would get a fade-in pop-up on the side of the text about journaling or highlighting it. This was pretty irritating since I am in the habit of highlighting text while I read. Now there is a constant black bar that tells me to sign in to journal and/or highlight, which is also annoying, but less so.
Secondly, the new layout is not fluid horizontally -- it is horizontally centered and seems to be tailored for 1024x768 audiences. It's much worse attempting to read scriptures or articles on my 1920x1080 screen with gobs of excess space on the screen, now only occupied by blue gradient. The text used to flow well and take up all available screen space due to the simple layout of the site -- the revision not only horizontally centers everything, but even cuts the container down, with "Share" and "Download" links on the sidebar. The text is spaced awkwardly and it's just a great big waste of screen real estate. I read the print version most of the time (now I use the old one since they brought the old scriptures back), but it doesn't have footnote toggle and the spacing is still weird; at least, however, it doesn't waste 50% of my horizontal screen space. Loading footnotes can be tiresome, as the site makes an AJAX call on load; I'd much prefer preloaded footnotes. The new chapter selection page makes it harder to find the chapter you want -- you can either scroll a lot and use the same number of clicks or click on the jump menu and add an extra click in there.
There are some cool things about the new site, and I like the use of HTML5 font faces and other things like that, but for the most part it's less usable for more shininess. Compare http://scriptures.lds.org and http://classic.scriptures.lds.org and tell me which you'd rather read from.
Clearly the first one (ignoring for now that scrolling on Safari was jerky when I tried). The old one is fluid which is just a bad idea for long texts. Much more than about 100 characters per line reduce readability, using all the space on a 1920 pixel wide monitor is just a bad idea.
The new version could maybe have about one third wider lines but the seventy or so characters are a good number for texts on the web. The new version is beautifully typeset and has about the right line length.
Using all the available horizontal space on the web for text is nearly always wrong.
The guideline is to have about 100 or so characters on one line.
All that being said, I do find that raw text that spans the screen to be harder to read...mostly because it's easier to get lost ending a line on the far right of my screen and returning to the far left (especially if the font it small, something that zooming the page up doesn't seem to have as much problem with).
I think a better middle ground are n-column layouts, like in newspapers, or most holy books. http://randysimons.nl/125,english/129,multi-column-text/
But yeah, in terms of site architecture, it's an impressive website.
The two major factors that likely influence the high ranking are : as mentioned. (1) the SEO is affected by links pointing at the site from external sources like LDS bloggers, and (2) the comprehensive system of cross-referencing that the site has implemented through its web-based scriptures. For example:
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng
because the LDS Church's major "message" is how the Book of Mormon is supplementary and complementary to the Bible, as it is a record of God's dealings with people on the American continent during "ancient" American times.
> While overseeing the redesign of LDS.org, the LDS web team asked me to step in towards the end of the project to add my take on the visuals, resulting in a few comped ideas within a very short timeframe.[1]
That sounds like he did just a bit of work late in the game. (Maybe you meant that, but my first take was "designed the whole site" from reading your "The designer of the LDS website.")
[1] http://www.cameronmoll.com/portfolio/
[2] The comparisons: http://www.cameronmoll.com/projects/lds/
And did they just reach a high rating with their front page (which is not impressive considering the tremendous backlinking they must have), or are all their pages and all the terms on all their pages ranking equally well?
Edit: to note that I eventually realized that it was the article, not the LDS.org site that was slow. I'll leave my notes in place, because it's an interesting traffic pattern to see.
which is video streamed in several languages and audio streamed in many dozens of languages. It has been getting better every year for at least 7 years now. It's now to the point that it doesn't really matter whether I'm watching it on my TV through satellite or over the internet.
lds.org 6,236 Linking Root Domains 190,722 Total Links (followed, nofollowed, 301'ing pages)
catholic.org: 4,029 Linking Root Domains 61,409 Total Links (followed, nofollowed, 301'ing pages)
Source: SEOmoz' Open Site Explorer
Please. Warez/malware/porn sites all have great SEO chops too. Why again are we applauding these particular moronic snake-oil salesmen?
furthermore, you really need to question your belief system and analytical processes if you follow a church founded by a guy who thought he could find treasure by looking at a rock in a hat (he was also a convicted fraudster).
This is a church: http://www.st-elisabeth-bonn.de/
A diocese: http://www.bistum-regensburg.de/
The Conference of German Bishops: http://www.dbk.de/
One of the many German Catholic portals: http://www.rpp-katholisch.de/
All German but the content isn’t important here. I think the patchwork is obvious.
the truth hurts i guess.
it's pretty funny that you revisionist history mormon apologists will claim that his 1826 trial records are fake, but think gold tablets sent by angels and never seen by anyone are real. that's super consistent.
Again, it's not that I doubt their SEO prowess, but how are people able to separate what an evil organization the LDS is from their SEO practises? I don't want to side-track this thread too much, but I'm genuinely curious about the way people are coming at this.
Please follow the guidelines instead.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The first two words of the "In Comments" section covers this thread.
I might not word it quite as nicely, but this is stuff that I would say face-to-face. I'm not really an abrasive person when it comes to most topics, but there are certain things which I have absolutely no patience for, and the LDS is one of them. Any group which sees gays, blacks, and women as fundamentally inferior loses its case for respect in my mind. Civility has its limits, and doesn't mean that we're never allowed to express negative opinions (sometimes using strong language) toward anything.
It's a good thing the LDS don't believe that. They have actively come out to defend against gay harassment. The injustice to blacks was fixed back when slavery was abolished. Men are taught to cherish and respect women, not that they are inferior. Stop your trolling.
Their scripture is still full of outright, undeniable racism, and they consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. That's all the proof I need. They may have eased back on public racism, but for them to disavow their religion's racism would be to disavow their church entirely.
Mormon men may be taught to respect women, but women are taught that they should more-or-less stay at home and make babies, and for most of the community, if a women gets past her early twenties and isn't a housewife, it's seen as a failure. I consider that sexism.
The LDS church is a devastating force of oppression to millions of people. Thank you for pointing it out for what it is. Thank you.
The rest sure, you can interpret it that way, but most mormons are very nice people. They don't take the scripture literally and is instead suppose to be symbolisms.
Actually only in the very beginning of the Book of Mormon is the dark skin used to identify "sinners". Later on, as in past the first 50 pages, skin color was a non-issue.
And finally, women can get past their 20s and be perfectly fine people. They can never marry and be normal people. LDS people do put a strong emphasis, if possible, on a traditional "stay home mom and working father", but that is not sexism.
Women are treated as inferiors in the LDS church. Polygamy would have continued for generations without the intervention of the federal government. The LDS church spends millions of dollars to support continued discrimination against gays.
Until 1978 blacks could not hold the priesthood in the LDS church. Some quotes from the "Book of Mormon": 2 Nephi 5:21-23:
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."
"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."
"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."
3 Nephi 2:15 reads:
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."
Mormon leader ("Elder") Mark E Peterson:
"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a 'Nation of Priesthood holders'...."
"If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."
Etc etc.
Notwithstanding the cowardly, brain-dead, head-in-the-sand intellectual compartmentalization others are advocating here, I doubt any of us would be commending the SEO efforts of other organizations that have the kind of sordid history and unfortunate social passions the LDS church has had...and isn't shy about paying for.
Being able to compartmentalize and analyze different facets of something is (I think) an important intellectual tool. Example: I can enjoy Richard Wagner's music even though he was a demonstrably terrible person.
I'm not an LDS, and I don't like some of the things that the church does, but I can still appreciate the things they do well.
I just find this casual discussion about the self-promotion of a group which at its very core believes that friends of mine are inferior, sinful, damaged goods because of the way that they were born a bit upsetting. Even if SEO practise is a separate topic from their scripture, I think that this kind of discussion attributes to them an undeserved level of legitimacy.
Actually, Wagner's music was used to promote his prejudices, however Wagner himself didn't have much of a role in said promotion (as he was dead long before the 1930s).
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/37...
In short, gay people are sinners, are "subject to church discipline", but can be forgiven if they repent for their sins (i.e. stop being gay -- i.e. stop being themselves). Church leaders should tell them to "control unrighteous thoughts". And they aren't allowed to attend Church. The only substantive positive change is that church leaders are no longer told to send gay members to counselling, which they were up until a month ago. How is telling someone "you can't be a real Mormon or go to heaven unless you stop being gay" not telling them they're damaged goods?
I don't want to say you're lying about your gay Mormon friends, but presumably they can't actually go to church, and through some kind of Stockholm syndrome consider themselves a member of an organisation that thinks that "Homosexual behaviour can be forgiven through sincere repentance".
Sure, you can talk about how you think everyone is good and precious and deserves love, but beyond platitudes, the Church's policies on homosexuality are pretty clear.
Secondly, there is a distinction between being gay and having sex. Mormons, gay or straight, can't have sex outside of marriage. If a gay person has outside of marriage they are subject to the same discipline that a straight person who has sex outside of marriage would have. Some of my gay, believing Mormon friends are simply chaste. Some of my gay, believeing Mormon friends are in heterosexual marriages. They do this with the full knowledge of their spouses, and with no hope of becoming straight, just because they feel like it's the right thing for them.
Nobody is telling anybody they can't go to heaven or be a real Mormon unless they stop being gay. They're saying, "be chaste." I know that's a distinction that will probably be lost, but it's a real distinction, and a real requirement that all Mormons try to live up to when they're not married.
All that notwithstanding, I assure you I'm not lying about my gay Mormon friends, if you're ever in the Salt Lake area look me up, I'm sure they'd love to meet you :) One of them is always looking for good hackers for various projects.
You're probably right here. I've heard contrary, but I haven't done my research on that, and I know there's a tonne of misinformation on both sides.
> Secondly, there is a distinction between being gay and having sex. Mormons, gay or straight, can't have sex outside of marriage. If a gay person has outside of marriage they are subject to the same discipline that a straight person who has sex outside of marriage would have. Some of my gay, believing Mormon friends are simply chaste. Some of my gay, believing Mormon friends are in heterosexual marriages. They do this with the full knowledge of their spouses, and with no hope of becoming straight, just because they feel like it's the right thing for them.
By "just because they feel like it's the right thing for them", I'm assuming what you mean here is "because they have no other option". I can't imagine an openly gay person choosing to be in a heterosexual marriage because it "feels right". What you just said might sound perfectly natural in Salt Lake City, but it would be an utterly ridiculous, and possibly offensive idea in, say, Toronto.
> Nobody is telling anybody they can't go to heaven or be a real Mormon unless they stop being gay. They're saying, "be chaste." I know that's a distinction that will probably be lost, but it's a real distinction, and a real requirement that all Mormons try to live up to when they're not married.
But if you say "you can't get married to someone who's the opposite sex" and "you can't have sex unless you're married", what you're really saying is that gay people are never allowed to have sex with the gender they were born attracted to. I consider that cruel and inhumane. And I'm not buying the "gay people can go to heaven thing". The church's stated policy is that "Homosexual behaviour violates the commandments of God". That's a pretty clear indictment.
> All that notwithstanding, I assure you I'm not lying about my gay Mormon friends, if you're ever in the Salt Lake area look me up, I'm sure they'd love to meet you :) One of them is always looking for good hackers for various projects.
If I'm ever in SLS, I might, I really do want to understand the thought processes here, but I can't say that it's at the top of my list of travel destinations, with all due respect :).