[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 748 KB, 3000x1688, temple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
72174200 No.72174200 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

I've had a webpage up for a few weeks. It is a "Ranked Choice Poll" page. No registration, accounts, etc. Just an easy as possible ranked choice poll creator.

I put up a Google ad for it and thousands of people have clicked the add and they've created hundreds of polls. That's good. However, Google never shows my site to anyone. I can tell in their search portal that I've never even been shown in a Google search, let alone clicked on.

How can I fix this and get my site to show up in Google searches? I thought they would learn the association through the ad. I have keywords and metadata on the page.

Here is a link: http://rankem123.com

>> No.72174286

The only thing I can think to do is get my page linked to from other websites - but it's not clear to me how to do that.

>> No.72174342

What's Line 350 about?
>Endpoint = http:// localhost 8080 ?
also, there's no Google Analytic code on the site itself

>> No.72174355

line 398, i meant

>> No.72174364

When I'm running it locally I have the endpoint running at that port on localhost. When I'm working on the site I rearrange that comment so that the client points to my local host and does the operations on the server under development.

>> No.72174394

Also - I don't have any Google analytic code on the site. I don't want to do any analytics. I just want the site to show up in google searches. I can use the Google Search Console to tell that it hasn't.

>> No.72174427
File: 47 KB, 600x677, 1564839316550.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You payed to advertise something that looks like a self-taught "coder" whipped up their first week of doing html+css tutorials. Go back and spend a few hours making your site pretty, as opposed to the ugly mess you have up now, then come back. Aesthetics matter.

Also how much did you spend to advertise.. Asking for personal reasons.

>> No.72174457

What part of it do you think is ugly? What would you suggest I change in those few hours you suggest I take to improve the site?

Regarding advertising, I spent a small amount - about 50 dollars in total. I'm only using keywords that have very low competition so I am getting pretty good traffic from the ad.

Slightly less than 10% of people who visit the site from the ad actually create a poll - which I don't think is a terrible number.

>> No.72174498


You do need to work on your site OP, in fact let's take a poll and see if /g/ agrees with me and the first anon that suggested it.

Vote: http://rankem123.com/?voteId=sTpXeDBs

Results: http://rankem123.com/?resultId=sTpXeDBs

>> No.72174518

Make the buttons smaller, color schemes could be way better. Go look at other sites that are similar and get ideas and try to improve upon them.

>> No.72174530

I'm aware the site needs work. I'm keeping a list of "todos" to keep improving it. I'm also always interested in specific feedback about items that could improve it.

As is, the site does work to create a ranked choice poll. There is no registration, account creation, etc - as there is on other ranked choice poll websites. Mine is more like the strawpoll of ranked choice polls.

Improving the site has to come secondary to getting other people to see the site though. If literally nobody ever visits the site then what good does it do to improve it?

>> No.72174532

Am I retarded or is the math off on the poll. It says 75 percent said 'no' and 50 percent said 'yes' with 4 voters and 3 total votes?

>> No.72174541

If people see a shitty site they won't come back, imho. This is a good beta.

>> No.72174556

>I don't have any Google analytic code on the site.
Google like it's analytics, and you need to suck as much google dick as you can, your color palette is awful, the result colors are too similar, also you might want to limit the width of the page when the resolution is >720p

>> No.72174559

The serious answer here is that noone has definite answers, but what we do have is "best practices" that are often bullshit.

For example, we know forcing SSL is a ranking signal, so that's something you should be fixing. You don't have a sitemap, and you don't have a long enough <title> for meaningful SEO.

That said, SEO is largely bullshit. Google any common image and pinterest will dominate the top dozen results. Now grab any possible SEO best practice and verify pinterest fail to implement it. Particularly with Google crawled links not going direct to the right page, which is supposed to be a black listable offence.

You're supposedly punished for autoplay videos, but for any major news story some shitty blog with videos will outdo some guy's well written write up on a minimal page. The whole industry is a fucking scam where noone knows what the fix is desu.

>> No.72174570

The math isn't off and you aren't retarded. I could definitely explain this a bit better, and I've gone back and forth on exactly how this should work.

Because this is a ranked choice poll, the percentage number is your group's preference. You could rank an option as a first, second, all the way to n - or not even rank it at all (deleting it while ranking with the red X). If everyone ranked an option 1st, then that option has 100% preference. The further you get from everyone ranking the option 1st, the further from 100% preference it is.

The preferences are not cumulative, in other words. Instead, each preference percentage is specific to that one option.

>> No.72174585

Idk much about %'s ... But I imagine people are clicking on your site with the intention of making a poll after reading the advert. 90% are going fuck that and exiting after clicking? Doesn't sound good to me.

The design is bad because it looks very basic. Basic means low-effort, which is what you communicate with that design. Notice I said basic and not simple. Simple is good, but yours looks like something from the early 90s. If you wanna improve it, look at modern popular sites. People can complain about nu-design choices but those companies do that for a reason. It works. Look at competitors(any self-polling site) and the top 10 most popular websites on the net. Nothing wrong with some copying, if it works. You can take artistic liberties afterwards. When people click on your site they will feel like they're still browsing a familiar nu-web site, not being sucked into the 90s.

How long did you advertise for to get +1000 clicks?

>> No.72174681

Unfortunately they aren't getting the chance to look at the site and decide if they think it is ugly or not because it doesn't really show up on Google at all. Some people do visit the site and some people do make polls on it.

I have some metrics and analytics of my own on the site and theories about how people interact with it. I'd like to get some more traffic to test my theories and iterate on the site to improve it.

I'm afraid I don't have much sense for colors. The current palette is already the result of multiple iterations. I used this page (https://coolors.co/app) and found colors that I liked along with a pdf of a design textbook chapter discussing what colors are supposed to represent. The dark and light blues are supposed to inspire confidence, while the lighter yellow suggests an action (fill in that text). The create button is a distinct color to draw your eye to it.

No matter how many times I rotate colors I always seem to get the feedback that the palette is bad. I think I could also try reducing the number of colors (e.g. moving the create button to the same yellow as the placeholder text).

The results colors are chosen randomly. I've added a "to do" to myself to see if there is a way to pick random colors that are also different from one another. Something like choose n points on a 3 dimensional space that are evenly spaced. If so, I think I could solve this.

Regarding limiting the width, I agree that is something to look at. I'm not sure what I'd do with the extra width other than have it be blank though.

>> No.72174727

I think ~1,000 clicks is about a week or so. Maybe slightly longer. I'd definitely like to get the percentage of people who create a poll to go up, but at the moment I don't have any idea whether 10% is good or bad. It doesn't seem too bad to me.

I'm not sure I agree with you about simple versus basic. My goal was to be simple. I can't imagine what could be simplified about it. I do think it is a good idea to look at competitors, and strawpoll is pretty much the gold standard in terms of competitors for instant polling. Their website is pretty similar - they have a title and a space for options. https://www.strawpoll.me/

>> No.72176007

Your site works fine, but you might want to change styling. Just slap some react/vue/angular whatever and you'd be good to go. /g/ probably hates them but that's what most websites use and a lot of people are used to those interface.
It appears in google search at first position if you search rankem123 and at third position for rankem 123. Maybe it still needs time to show up for other keywords.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.