You've been to WebPagesThatSuck, right?

A more basic question is

What problems can my web site solve for potential visitors?

The answers to your questions are natural by-products of that question. Focus on THAT question. Users don't care who you are, what you stand for, your principles, your sales pitch as to why they should be interested. They have a problem and want to solve it, and don't care about anything else. It's who we are. Be the solution, and the rest will be obvious.

Solve their problems, make it easy to find those solutions. Be the ball, Billy. :-)

Design - meh. If you're talking about architecture, navigation, engineering, that is all relevant, but visual design? I have a BFA in Art, have been involved in creativity all my life, and my opinion is: visual design is the least important part, to the point of being not important at all. See Craiglist.org for a bright, shining (horribly "ugly") example.

Every page needs to answer this, search engines don't send everyone to the home page.

I just wanted to throw that out there so that internal pages aren't overlooked, they're often first to be seen.

edit: my contribution - less is more. Sometimes it's not what you offer that makes a site feel professional but what you do not offer. An example would be a pop-up requesting a visitor to join before they've even had time to read a paragraph. Another exmple might be begging for people to link to a site by placing social network links everywhere.

Hint: look at this page as an example, all of the solicitation is condensed into an area 200 pixels wide by 40 high. Good stuff.

[edited by: JS_Harris at 12:17 am (utc) on April 18, 2009]

They have a problem and want to solve it,...

Not everyone surfing the net because they have a "problem".

Not all are shopping.

Some just want info.... does the site provide it?

Some just want to be entertained, can the site do that?

Not everyone surfing the net because they have a "problem".

But they are. You're not allowing yourself to see the connection. :-) To wit,

Some just want info....

This is their problem. What info do you want? How to get rid of gophers? I need to learn more about [topic]? Need to find a girlfriend, or how about the big one for the MySpace, FaceBook, where can I get free movies and music, let's keep social networking alive crowd: I'm bored?

Some just want to be entertained..

Bingo, that's the "problem." Solve my boredom problem. :-) How well can you do that?

I'm with you on CraigsList but when every site is a CraigsList clone (of sorts) then the answer to "Who are you?" is what? Echo . . Echo . . Echo . . ? :P

Still, I get that once people get past the ugly of CL they get to the beauty of it's . . elegant solution. Google nailed it with their white page + search box. CraigsList nailed it with their mass collection of links. 2 very different, yet equally popular, versions of a homepage that says "we're search utility".

WebmasterWorld lists what the crowd is talking about on its homepage but aren't a bazillion social media sites all angling to do the same, using the same format? Echo . . echo . . echo . . So I'm left to ask "Yes, but who are you, really?"

Did you ever revamp a homepage because it failed to answer "who we are" or "why this site matters"?

Anyone out there currently looking at their own site and wondering about the message - present and missing - on your homepage? Care to share - within the limits of the WebmasterWorld TOS?

I'm struggling with this, a bit, working on a project with my daughter. We are literally groping with the question "who are we" (this site, this project, this effort/creation) and I can see that how we engage that question ourselves begins to shape "the answer" that is found in the design and substance of the homepage. It's pretty damn interesting process. ;)

[edited by: Webwork at 1:14 am (utc) on April 19, 2009]

The "who" is not the most immediate query... it is the CONTENT. I tend to focus on content first, design/layout second, and attribution third (the "who"). Your visitor comes for content first, will generally accept any design/layout that gives them that content, and if really serious, will find that "who" link. The K.I.S.S. method remains the best approach, no matter what venue!

WebmasterWorld . . . So I'm left to ask "Yes, but who are you, really?" .... Did you ever revamp a homepage because it failed to answer "who we are" or "why this site matters"?

In all honesty? How many of you have actually visited this site's "About" link? (SORRY BRETT!) I don't even think I ever have, if I did, I forget. (Old-Timer's disease, you know . . . ) The proof, as tangor says, is in the content, and it solves the problems. The About page doesn't solve any problems unless I have a grudge and want to beef it by finding out who the entity is. Which I never have.

When you begin comparing clones of clones, I still revert to the original question and it's answer: solve problems, and solve them better than anyone else. I've been to some of those WM clones. They all divert from what I consider the prime objective (no, not to seek out and destroy new life, which some of them do very well.) Clogged with ads, all seeking to "monetize" - there is one particularly annoying one that has answers to my problems and always comes up in the results, but has "register free trial to see the answer." I will never, ever, EVER register on that site, I see right through their game. :-)

Let's take this from another approach (and remember, it's always my position I am no "expert," and am constantly learning, just sharing my experience.) One of the biggest problems I have is keeping my clients focused on this, and other site objectives. I have one client that has been developing and re-developing a site for seven years. I'm not kidding. Why does this happen? Because he cannot allow himself to move forward, and keeps getting lost in diversions.

He's always "playing" with a new design. Always toying with the idea of this widget or that, seeking a "silver bullet." The biggest problem is that my advice goes sideways his ego takes precedence, so here we are, seven year later, and it's still not "finished."

Diversion is your greatest enemy. IMO, the questions of "who we are" or "why we matter" are just that, diversions. There is something in your motive that feels a need to explain who we are, why we matter - what is that motivation? Is it on mark, or does it come from some internal need? Can you see anything that demonstrates this as a central requirement of a web site? I'm not arguing the necessity for these elements on your site - who we are, what we do goes right along with a business policy and contact links. They are vital elements, but they are not core directives.

See original post - humans are inherently selfish, tunnel vision critters. It takes the equivalent of an emotional atom bomb to get us to look beyond our own needs. Solve our problems for us - better yet, for FREE - and we will love you. :-)

Bear with me.

Saying "the content is the answer” or answers the question "why bother entering here" is a bit like saying "love" is the answer to the world's problems.

If love is the answer then what is love?

Ditto for “content is the answer”.

We can launch into a dialogue about “quality content” – about how "the answer" is actually quality content - but that too begs the question.

Quality? For whom? If we're targeting or talking about investing is the content "quality content for Harvard economists"? For folks with BA degrees in fine arts? For folks who assemble circuit boards for a living?

So, content or quality of content has some relationship to target markets, demographics, etc. Which may work out on the Web since those who just "too soft, too hard, or just right" tend to be self-selecting.

But do I know that going in? Do I overstate my case on my homepage? If I wish to speak to "just right" then what?

“Solutions” – solve problems – same analysis as above.

I can see where this is going as it mirrors where I left off in my conversation with my daughter about the fundamentals of life, business, website design, the universe and everything.

"Who we are" (this site) and "why does this site matter" is married to "who are we speaking to", who “are we” (fully measured for the task ahead) and "what is the lingua franca" of this site or enterprise, i.e., what is this site really about? Something like “Sure, your website offers a solution(s) but . . aren't you really selling me something", or “Sure, the site's content is well crafted . . but it's a bit biased or slanted or . .”

So, I guess that I'm saying is that at this stage, where my daughter and I are at in the design and development process, the “matter to” question looks a bit like this: Matter to who? Why?

Which in the age of social media and its many buds and sprouts – by which I am suggesting that business models, practices and assumptions are very much in flux right now – throws me even further into the design and development abyss. In the “what is real is the conversation” age/world, "quality content" encompasses more than the craft of authorship. Maybe what works for WebmasterWorld isn’t just that Brett has assembled some pretty amazing minds (present company excluded). Maybe what works for WebmasterWorld - maybe why this site matters - is because the conversation exists in a context of respect, anti-self-promotion, etc. So, when you get down to what matters it could be said that it isn’t the content but the context - the context that allows and enables that content to take root, grow, flourish - that matters.

So, maybe it’s the context – not the content – that comes first in the age of social media and conversation commerce. “This site matters because we have a commitment TO it mattering and to the conversation."

Maybe the quality of the content is a secondary effect.

And maybe "who we are" and "what this site matters" is a bit more complex and nuanced and challenging to master and present on any page, especially a home page.

Sure wish it was all simpler. Probably would be if I thought less . . but I see plenty of that already . . so I intend on making new, better and bigger mistakes, partly as a result of asking myself or my daughter questions that may . . or may not . . matter. :P

[edited by: Webwork at 12:46 am (utc) on April 20, 2009]