[Webmaster_forum] This date thing is now way out of control

Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:54:18 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C5A1C2.5C025030
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dave,
=20
    You've managed to summarize my sentiments regarding the Web Site =
Awards
quite well.  We've seen similar wide discrepancies in the scores for =
nearly
identical sites/pages.  Discrepancies which resulted in some sites =
winning
awards and others not.  For example, one of our sites received a "3" on  =
"
Identify purpose of USPS" while another site received a "5."  The two =
sites
home pages had word-for-word the same paragraph taken from the national
description of the purpose of USPS.  Such are the vagaries of subjective
evaluations.  	In our case, the obviously subjective scoring contributed =
to
losing a webmaster.  As a result, I suggested last year that we do away =
with
scoring and the awards.  This year, I've been pondering simply =
requesting
that the sites that I'm responsible for not be evaluated--we will =
willing
give up the opportunity to receive a subjectively questionable award, =
for
reducing the risk of losing another webmaster, or the embarrassment of =
being
one point short of winning an award because of the subjectivity in the
judging. =20
=20
    We operate our sites for two clients--our members and potential new
members.  As long as they are satisfied and they can get the information
they need in an accurate manner, I couldn't care less what the judges
think--they're not my target audience.  In that vein, I conducted an
interesting survey last year.  We were interested in redesigning our =
site.
I selected eight sites and e-mailed the URLs to a significant number of =
our
members, without telling them why I selected the sites; only that I =
wanted
them to rank the sites on two factors: utility and attractiveness.  That =
is,
was the data they were interested in immediately and logically =
available,
and did they like the "looks" of the site.  The eight sites selected
included four that received 95% and above scores last year, two with =
scores
in the 75-84% range (below the threshold for an award), and two of the
lowest scoring sites.  Interestingly one of the lowest scoring sites was
selected highest by our members on both utility and attractiveness, =
second
went to a site with a score in the upper 70's, third to the lowest of =
the
four high scoring sites, and fourth to the other site in the 75-85% =
range.
The other three sites with scores above 95% finished in the lower half =
of
the ranking by our members.  Needless to say, we're not modeling our new
site design after any of the sites that national ranked so highly.
=20
    Perhaps a vote of the webmasters is in order.  Possible votes might =
be
1)proceed with the 2005 awards as currently formulated, 2)allow =
webmasters
to opt-out, 3)eliminate the program entirely, 4)express a no-confidence =
in
the scoring system.
=20
Jeff Wise
=20
    =20
=20
 -----Original Message-----
From: webmaster_forum-admin@usps.org =
[mailto:webmaster_forum-admin@usps.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Schuppert
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:48 PM
To: webmaster_forum@usps.org
Subject: [Webmaster_forum] This date thing is now way out of control

This date thing is now way out of control.  Do you know of any other =
USPS
position where you can be publicly humiliated because you don't respond =
on a
24/7 basis.  How many of you have waited days, weeks, even months to get =
a
response from elected USPS officers?  Do they get chastised? No, they =
get
promoted.=20

As a webmaster, and in accordance with the new rules, you could be =
singled
out by an appointed few for a "reduction in points" if your site =
contains A
SINGLE DATE THAT IS ONE DAY OLD. =20

Were you told when you took the job of webmaster that you could bring
embarrassment to your squadron if you took a vacation during the =
evaluation
period and failed to keep a 24/7 website vigil?=20

Common sense has proven NOT to be applied during the evaluations.  I
maintain 8 of the Districts Squadron websites. They are exact clones of =
each
other. There was a 43 point spread between evaluations of those sites.  =
2
were not graded because they linked to a page=20
with an automated  "Last updated" date which was not under their control =
to
change but was beyond the 90 day time limit.=20

And the "decision of the judges is final", no matter how flawed.

***************************************************
New Guide Lines:
The no tolerance situation concerns the websites qualification to be
considered in the current Webawards program.  The evaluation sheet =
indicates
that if the website is over 30 days out of date that it will not be
evaluated.  Less than 30 days will result in a reduction of the points
awarded.

From: WMMILLER@aol.com
To: usps-webmasters@usps.org, webmaster_forum@usps.org
Subject: [USPS-Webmasters] Website Requirement #11

Many websites have an entire year long calendar of events displayed.  =
That
is certainly allowed in this rule, as long as there is some indication =
of
what events have already transpired.  Many websites have come up with
innovative means to make such a distinction. =20

********************************

Since there is no directive that this indication must be on a line item
basis,  placing an automated date at the top of the page and a reminder =
that
anything earlier than that is a "past event"  should fulfill the some
indication requirements.  Also: Using calendars from publications =
excludes
the calendar from time limit disqualification. Example:
http://dwsmark.com/Clients/CalEx.htm

I agree that some regulation on material needs to be imposed, but these =
new
requirements have gone full scale the other way. They do not take into
considerations Squadrons and Districts who require ExComm approval for =
ALL
website changes.  Not all changes will be made the night of the event.
During the summer there could be a 60 day lag between meetings. I feel =
that
the 90 day rule would best suit the "proof of abandonment" which this =
rule
was meant to catch.  Anything else can only be considered a tool for
examiners to use so they can avoid evaluation the site. ORIGINALLY,  =
these
evaluations were designed to HELP webmasters by pointing out areas for
improvement.  Stopping the evaluation base on one item does not fulfill
these goals. A site with a submitted evaluation form is helpful even if =
it
is found ineligible for an award.=20

dave schuppert

------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C5A1C2.5C025030
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080>Dave,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
color=3D#000080>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You've managed to summarize my =
sentiments=20
regarding the Web Site Awards quite well.&nbsp; We've seen similar wide=20
discrepancies in the scores for nearly identical sites/pages.&nbsp;=20
Discrepancies which resulted in some sites winning awards and others =
not.&nbsp;=20
For example, one of our sites received a "3" on&nbsp;<!--StartFragment =
--> "<TD=20
width=3D"5%" align=3D"center"></TD><TD width=3D"61%">Identify purpose of =
USPS" while=20
another site received a "5."&nbsp; The two sites home pages had =
word-for-word=20
the same paragraph taken from the national description of the purpose of =

USPS.&nbsp; Such are the vagaries of subjective evaluations.&nbsp; =
</TD>In our=20
case, the obviously subjective scoring contributed to losing a =
webmaster.&nbsp;=20
As a result, I suggested last year that we do away with scoring and the=20
awards.&nbsp; This year, I've been pondering simply requesting that the =
sites=20
that I'm responsible for not be evaluated--we will willing give up the=20
opportunity to receive a&nbsp;subjectively questionable&nbsp;award, for =
reducing=20
the risk of losing another webmaster, or the embarrassment of being one =
point=20
short of winning an award because of the subjectivity in the =
judging.&nbsp;=20
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080>We operate our sites for two clients--our members and =
potential=20
new members.&nbsp; As long as they are satisfied and they can get the=20
information they need in an accurate manner, I couldn't care less what =
the=20
judges think--they're not my target audience.&nbsp; In that vein, I =
conducted an=20
interesting survey last year.&nbsp; We were interested in redesigning =
our=20
site.&nbsp; I selected eight sites and e-mailed the URLs to a =
significant number=20
of our members, without telling them why I selected the sites; only that =
I=20
wanted them to rank the sites on two factors: utility and =
attractiveness.&nbsp;=20
That is, was the data they were interested in immediately and logically=20
available, and did they like the "looks" of the site.&nbsp; The eight =
sites=20
selected included four that received 95% and above scores last year, two =
with=20
scores in the 75-84% range (below the threshold for an award), and two =
of the=20
lowest scoring sites.&nbsp; Interestingly one of the lowest scoring =
sites was=20
selected highest by our members on both utility and attractiveness, =
second went=20
to a site with a score in the upper 70's, third to the lowest of the =
four high=20
scoring sites, and fourth to the other site in the 75-85% range.&nbsp; =
The other=20
three sites with scores above 95% finished in the lower half of the =
ranking by=20
our members.&nbsp; Needless to say, we're not modeling our new site =
design after=20
any of the sites that national ranked so highly.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D665370721-15082005>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080>Perhaps a vote of the webmasters is in order.&nbsp; =
Possible votes=20
might be 1)proceed with the 2005 awards as currently formulated, 2)allow =

webmasters to opt-out, 3)eliminate the program entirely, 4)express a=20
no-confidence in the scoring system.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Jeff=20
Wise</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D665370721-15082005>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D665370721-15082005>&nbsp;-----Original =
Message----- From:=20
webmaster_forum-admin@usps.org [mailto:webmaster_forum-admin@usps.org] =
On=20
Behalf Of Dave Schuppert Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 =
3:48=20
PM To: webmaster_forum@usps.org Subject: =
[Webmaster_forum]=20
This date thing is now way out of control </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">This date thing =
is now way=20
 out of control.&nbsp; Do you know of any other USPS position where you =
can be=20
 publicly humiliated because you don't respond on a 24/7 basis.&nbsp; =
How many=20
 of you have waited days, weeks, even months to get a response from =
elected=20
 USPS officers?&nbsp; Do they get chastised? No, they get promoted. =
 As=20
 a webmaster, and in accordance with the new rules, you could be =
singled out by=20
 an appointed few for a "reduction in points" if your site =
contains A=20
 SINGLE DATE THAT IS ONE DAY OLD.&nbsp; Were you told =
when you=20
 took the job of webmaster that you could bring =
embarrassment<FONT=20
 size=3D2> to your squadron if you took a vacation during the =
evaluation period=20
 and failed to keep a 24/7 website vigil? Common sense =
has=20
 proven NOT to be applied during the evaluations.&nbsp; I maintain 8 of =
the=20
 Districts Squadron websites. They are exact clones of each other. =
There was a=20
 43 point spread between evaluations of those sites.&nbsp; 2 =
were not=20
 graded because they linked to a page with an =
automated&nbsp; "Last=20
 updated" date which was not under their control to change but =
was=20
 beyond the 90 day time limit. And the "decision of the =
judges is=20
 final", no matter how=20
 =
flawed. *************************************************** New=
=20
 Guide Lines: The no tolerance =
situation=20
 concerns the websites qualification to be considered in the current =
Webawards=20
 program.&nbsp; The evaluation sheet indicates that if the website is =
over 30=20
 days out of date that it will not be evaluated.&nbsp; Less than 30 =
days=20
 will result in a reduction of the points =
awarded. From:=20
 WMMILLER@aol.com To: usps-webmasters@usps.org,=20
 webmaster_forum@usps.org Subject: [USPS-Webmasters] Website =
Requirement=20
 #11 Many websites have an entire =
year long=20
 calendar of events displayed.&nbsp; That is certainly allowed in this =
rule, as=20
 long as there is some indication of what events have already=20
 transpired.&nbsp; Many websites have come up with innovative means to =
make=20
 such a distinction.&nbsp;=20
 ******************************** Since=20
 there is no directive that this indication must be on a line item =
basis,&nbsp;=20
 placing an automated date at the top of the page and a reminder that =
anything=20
 earlier than that is a "past event"&nbsp; should fulfill =
the=20
 some indication requirements.&nbsp; Also: Using calendars from=20
 publications excludes the calendar from time limit disqualification.=20
 Example:&nbsp; <A href=3D"http://dwsmark.com/Clients/CalEx.htm"=20
 eudora=3D"autourl">http://dwsmark.com/Clients/CalEx.htm </A>I =
agree that=20
 some regulation on material needs to be imposed, but these new =
requirements=20
 have gone full scale the other way. They do not take into =
considerations=20
 Squadrons and Districts who require ExComm approval for ALL website=20
 changes.&nbsp; Not all changes will be made the night of the event. =
During the=20
 summer there could be a 60 day lag between meetings. I feel that the =
90 day=20
 rule would best suit the "proof of abandonment" which this rule =
was=20
 meant to catch.&nbsp; Anything else can only be considered a tool for=20
 examiners to use so they can avoid evaluation the site. =
ORIGINALLY,&nbsp;=20
 these evaluations were designed to HELP webmasters by pointing out =
areas for=20
 improvement.&nbsp; Stopping the evaluation base on one item does not =
fulfill=20
 these goals. A site with a submitted evaluation form is helpful even =
if it is=20
 found ineligible for an award. dave=20
schuppert </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C5A1C2.5C025030--