ling Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Well, it's not down in the sense that it's disappeared entirely, since that is a maintenance page that has obviously been set up, rather than a default "this site does not exist" that your browser will give you. So it's an internal issue. Link to post Share on other sites
Sacred_Path Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Mebbe also update the Christmas page while you're at it? Link to post Share on other sites
KS987 Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Well, it's not down in the sense that it's disappeared entirely, since that is a maintenance page that has obviously been set up, rather than a default "this site does not exist" that your browser will give you. So it's an internal issue. It's back up now but the ads are still there, so either it was something else or the attempt to remove them didn't work. Link to post Share on other sites
Elena Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Mebbe also update the Christmas page while you're at it? how about next december? It's back up now but the ads are still there, so either it was something else or the attempt to remove them didn't work. can u take a print screen for me? I have no idea how the ads look like I never seen any. Link to post Share on other sites
Sacred_Path Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 how about next december? how about my Christmas message from 2012 showing up in December 2013? I'd rather not Link to post Share on other sites
Elena Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 how about my Christmas message from 2012 showing up in December 2013? I'd rather not if it's not up by now well then when? Link to post Share on other sites
Sacred_Path Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 if it's not up by now well then when?good question. Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Repetitions are liked here...... Oh, and did I see right: the last message to Emma on her official homepage dated from 12. December ?? Edited January 19, 2013 by Jonny Claus jr. Link to post Share on other sites
Sacred_Path Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The latest messages I can see are from December 4. http://www.emmawatson.com/Messages Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 The latest messages I can see are from December 4. http://www.emmawatson.com/Messages Sorry, my mistake. But I could not believe it in the first moment. Was there not a special thing, called "Emma asks US, her fans, questions"? Any idea, what happend to that? I only remember the first question (singular, NOT plural) about the christmas song..... Link to post Share on other sites
Elena Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Sorry, my mistake. But I could not believe it in the first moment. Was there not a special thing, called "Emma asks US, her fans, questions"? Any idea, what happend to that? I only remember the first question (singular, NOT plural) about the christmas song..... maybe we flooded all the servers with carols. talk about bad behaviour. Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 maybe we flooded all the servers with carols. talk about bad behaviour. And there was nobody to fix it ("delete" is a function, also known in GB)??????? In my former job I was "grilled" by my boss, when the homepage of the company was not updated DAILY. Link to post Share on other sites
Elena Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 And there was nobody to fix it ("delete" is a function, also known in GB)??????? In my former job I was "grilled" by my boss, when the homepage of the company was not updated DAILY. i still have hope. Link to post Share on other sites
Sacred_Path Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Also, this has been broken for quite some time it's starting to look a bit of a mess Edited January 19, 2013 by Sacred_Path Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 i still have hope. I know, hope dies last..... But in this special case....... Link to post Share on other sites
Elena Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I know, hope dies last..... But in this special case....... I'm not working there. I wish I was, at least with the editing.But hey they'll solve it, coz I am sure emma's pissed off. Link to post Share on other sites
Sacred_Path Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 But hey they'll solve it, coz I am sure emma's pissed off.If she even knows it. In one recent interview she said she used to research herself on the web, dunno if that includes her own site though. It's just something that made me kinda happy as a fan Link to post Share on other sites
ling Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 In my former job I was "grilled" by my boss, when the homepage of the company was not updated DAILY. Did your boss live in a fantasy world? Most websites are only meant to be dynamic in a certain sense. Changing content for the sake of changing content helps nobody, and in fact can affect SEO negatively. Not to mention, the very minimal things most internal staff can do to "change" a website... I'm not sure how many businesses actually feel like shelling out $150/h MINIMUM to their agency to make a small change. It's impractical which is why so much content that appears to be dynamic on the web is sourced from elsewhere OR is a COMPLETE ILLUSION. Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Did your boss live in a fantasy world? Most websites are only meant to be dynamic in a certain sense. Changing content for the sake of changing content helps nobody, and in fact can affect SEO negatively. Not to mention, the very minimal things most internal staff can do to "change" a website... I'm not sure how many businesses actually feel like shelling out $150/h MINIMUM to their agency to make a small change. It's impractical which is why so much content that appears to be dynamic on the web is sourced from elsewhere OR is a COMPLETE ILLUSION. You have really no idea. But I will try to explain. The page was a page for a bank with 56 branches in 3 countries. The internet was recognised as a fast moving medium, so a team of 6 editors and 60 "freelancers" (one in each branch) was build. One of the editors was responsible for economic research. Each day he checked more then 30 newspapers and pages on the internet for relevant economic reports and presented them on the homepage. When we did special events in our branches or had acitivities with our sponsorships (more then 100 contracts), we created picture-sides from the event. First within 24 hours on the homepage, in the last time before my breakdown we changed to Facebook, because it was easier to load the pics up there. So we could give our customers the promise, that they could "watch the pics as you come home". We had great success with that feature. Another editor was in charge of "interaction" with our customers. When we said "we are asking questions to our customers" or "customers can as us questions" we were online daily to change and update the content. It was impossible for us to start such a thing and stopping it after a short (or very short) time without explanation or without real interaction for a time promised (we always stated the time and we kept our promise). There was also the possibility for our costumers to send us messages about quality, mistakes in branches ecc. Our quality promise was, that the sender got a personal (not automatically) answer within 12 hours and that his question was answers / his problem was solved within 5 working days. That means, on of the editors was online also after office hours to keep this promise. When we opend branches in Slovenia and Italy, many pages were translated also in these languages. So every update was made three times (german/slovenian/italien). And it worked. For technical problems we had a team of experts ready on a 24hour duty-basis. So each technical problem was solved in a vey short time. We also constanty produced short clips about our sponsorships, events ecc. and put them on the homepage. We had "live reporters" at many events and occasions and when I droped out, we had just started to use Facebook a lot.Press conferences of the board were reported with full content of the press-release within 4 hours after the conference. We also started live-coverage with cameras of the real "big" things, as one of the first banks in Austria. For the page itself we had a powerfull content-system, which could be used from every computer in the world after connecting through a secure server. This was just a short overview (not mentioning many other daily updated features like stock quotes, interest-rates ecc.). And it worked. So please do not tell me, that it is not possible/usfull to update a page on a frequent basis. We did not change the layout every day (because it was user-friendly and good), but the content. And this is it, what a homepage makes usfull. Edited January 20, 2013 by Jonny Claus jr. Link to post Share on other sites
ling Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Yeah, but what you're describing (B2B, commerce) is VERY different from the official "business card" website of a celebrity. That's not even comparable to the topic at hand. I'm still correct in assuming that Emma wouldn't want to pay anyone $150/h+ to update her website. I also know that any agency running her site would not have a dedicated team, we know that Jo is mainly responsible for content which means she updates it as time will allow given it is not her full time job, etc. Those things are not the same things. For the average person/company what you're describing is not possible or practical. I mean, yeah my bank's website has a similar setup.... they also have a million employees they pay to take care of all of that INCLUDING a dedicated IT team. Do you think Emma has the money to employ such a service? As for "For the page itself we had a powerfull content-system, which could be used from every computer in the world after connecting through a secure server." This describes every Content Management System in the world (except perhaps "CuteNews" ). So, YES, I am VERY familiar with large scale B2B/B2C websites used by large companies, but that is NOT what we're discussing here. Don't even TRY to insult me by saying " have really no idea." I've been doing this for half my life and I'm VERY good at it. I'm just NOT going to recommend solutions for a project of the scale of Emma's site based on the recommendations one would make for an international banking system. THAT would be RIDICULOUS. Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 OK, I accept, insults are only permitted when they came from you. Otherwise it is forbidden.... Well, let's talk about Emma's official webpresence, her "official homepage". I am under the imagination (and please correct me, if I am wrong), that this side is professionelly maintained and serviced by a agency or at least people, knowing what they are doing. In my sence Emma is the "company" and we, her fans are the "customers". We should buy the "product" Emma Watson. I am further under the imagination, that somebody (Emma or her agency or her publicist) is paying for running this side. You say $ 150,-- per hour. Ok. And THIS is this the way, they keep her page "properly maintained", ling? Starting something, disappearing, no updates on underpages, daily used by the fans (messages) for over a month? And you know, such things happend twice in 2012 allone ("ask Emma" and "Emma asks you"). There must be thousands of Christmas- and new Year-wishes for her. Not ONE posted on her page? What would happen, if you treat a page of one of your customers like that? I think, they would fire you on the spot. But, as Sacret said earlier, I think too, that she is not visiting her side often. This might be a explanation for all this things..... Maybe she should invite some of her fans to run the side. What a change would that be! Within short time she would have the best web-presence of all movie-celebrities....... Link to post Share on other sites
ling Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Celebrity web presence, in regards to websites, is a VERY rare thing with the emergence of Facebook and Twitter. It's no longer necessary to have a website that is more than, as I mentioned, a "business card" format. I.E. You get info, filmography, contact information for representatives. THAT is standard. They are NOT a fan site, but a PROFESSIONAL ENTITY. My point in bringing up an agency fee is not that the agency would be CONSTANTLY making $150/h, but that they get paid for updates at that rate. So, perhaps there is an update someone would like to make that comes in quoted at $7,500, and Emma decides she doesn't want to do that. That's her prerogative. But it's not the agency's job to then keep the site current FOR FREE. That's not how businesses work. The way most agencies bill out is that you pay a licensing fee for content management systems (just the system, not the actual content) and any other fees to keep the site physically running on the web (server space, domain names, etc). You pay that every year. Obviously you pay for the actual design (which can be $20K+) only once. But then any additional changes to a site are billed on a case-by-case basis with small hourly changes starting in the $100s/h, moving upward. The point being that perhaps Emma would not want to pay that fee for changes, which would not be a bad move considering the way websites such as hers are losing popularity because you can simply follow her on Twitter, which as you may know is a free service. ... Having a fan other than a trusted fan such as Jo run the site would be a ridiculous idea. Not only just with legal issues, but just... It takes a certain kind of fan to run a good site. Dook does an excellent job and he's very professional about it. I never see him treating Emma with anything but the utmost respect. He works under a pseudonym for the most part, puts forth money to run the site without really gouging any of us in terms of ad revenue, so I know he's not doing it for personal gain. I've kept tabs on this fandom since the beginning (when I was part of it) and it's really rare to find someone with that integrity. Many, many, MANY fan sites do not do the same thing and many fans would be even worse if they were set with such a task. Again, as we've mentioned a few times, a fan site is VERY different from an official presence because fan sites owned by individuals can get away with a lot more. Dook can post a photo from a premiere and not pay a licensing fee and not get sued (and I know that he is still a step better than some other sites because he is conscious of how much he uses, he doesn't use illegal photo sites, etc), but Emma cannot. Even if Emma simply copied, verbatim, the content of Emma-Watson.net onto her website, SHE would be in trouble with the photographers, and Dook would likely walk away unscathed. That's just the reality of it all. Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) The point being that perhaps Emma would not want to pay that fee for changes, which would not be a bad move considering the way websites such as hers are losing popularity because you can simply follow her on Twitter, which as you may know is a free service. If this is true, her PR-people are..... well, you know my opinion. Jo is only a "fan", working for the page? I cannot believe it and I think, this is not the point. Emma should decide if she wants a homepage or not. If yes, the page should be good, otherwise.... Twitter is not really a substitute for a good homepage. Short messages, sometimes only for insider, are not really enough to follow her. Without knowing Dook I agree, that this page is perfect. So, Emma, why not paying Dook some money and let him run your official page? Emma-Watson.net needs only some extensions (more informations and pics about her movies, fashion, carity...., a half-yearly chat with Emma.....) and would be perfect as "official net-base". Edited January 20, 2013 by Jonny Claus jr. Link to post Share on other sites
ling Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Uh, no. That's not what I'm saying. I know Jo, and I know that she does THE BEST MOST AMAZING JOB *WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT SHE IS ABLE TO DO*. Bringing in another person wouldn't change the way that things are. Link to post Share on other sites
Jonny Carinthia Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Uh, no. That's not what I'm saying. I know Jo, and I know that she does THE BEST MOST AMAZING JOB *WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT SHE IS ABLE TO DO*. Bringing in another person wouldn't change the way that things are. Nothing against Jo. But the last message from 4. December 2012?????? Only ONE Emma-question for the fans?? Did Emma order a "silence in the net" from 5. December? Well, there are reasons why the page is not maintained, but ....... I really do not understand it. Oh, and making Emma-Watson.net to her official page would make sence. Because we, the fans, could participate in the content on a free basis (thinking on edited pictures, "Emma-Watson daily", ecc. ecc.) Edited January 20, 2013 by Jonny Claus jr. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now