Drew Rattray
| News and views on design vs. functionality balance across the communications and technology space.
Web Development
The Misconceptions about SEO
April 14, 2011I have a love/hate relationship with SEO. I probably spend about half of every day researching strategies from around the Web and analyzing my own data to adjust company strategies. I spend the rest of that day either consulting, or actually getting in the trenches and hammering out some physical Web elements to boost internal efforts. It’s invigorating trying to solve the puzzle, but the inconsistencies and what I call “Search Engine Mood Swings” are infuriating at a level only a married man can relate to. Everyone has their own opinions. Everyone has their own strategies. Everyone has their own “Company Secrets”… sort of.
Lesson number 1 for all of the SEO experts out there: There are no secrets. If you think you came up with something new… you didn’t. There are only different combinations of the same old actions we’ve been reading about for years. If you did, by chance, discover something groundbreaking, congratulations! It won’t last. People like you and me are in the business of figuring out the search engine algorithms, and positioning ourselves appropriately for the highest return in our placement on those search engines. If you make an adjustment and skyrocket past my site, I’m going to sit down, open up your site, and dissect you. Once I figure out what you did, I’m going to do it. Then the guy down the street will do the same to me. And, then we’re all back at square one again.
Another thing people have to remember: The search engines are not here to help your business make money. They are businesses themselves. They are concerned with providing users with the most relevant results, not the most gamed results. Relevance in Search = Traffic; Traffic = Impressions; Impressions = Ad Sales; Ad Sales = $$$. That’s where the reality of gaming comes in. Search engines LOVE when you game them, as long as you do it on their terms. No search engine will argue with you if you ask to pay them top dollar to be placed at the top of their searches. The problem comes when you try to game them without buying in. They punish you, or worse, they punish all of us with drastic algorithm changes.
The only way to win is to actually have what you say you have. If you’re trying to be the top resource in something, be that top resource. Have the original content. Have an easy to navigate website. Have your information categorized intelligently. Have an interface that promotes return usage. Build a site for the user. Above all else, make an investment in yourself and your site. This stuff takes time.
TIME. Oh man, does everyone in this business hate that word. But it’s true, sustained organic ranking takes a lot of effort over time. It’s like going through a lengthy and grueling initiation. You have to prove yourself. “THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!?”
THWACK!
The only advice I can give you when it comes to time in regards to SEO, is ‘don’t give up.’ Keep your efforts up and consistent. You will be rewarded eventually. Also, try to think of more inventive ways to tell your boss, “We just need more time.” They really, really hate that answer. You’ll get that whole “We don’t have time… We need immediate results… Time is money… Yadda, Yadda, Yadda,” speech.
Here’s how I figure it based on my own research: SEO is about 60 percent relative and original content, 10 percent site architecture, and 30 percent sustained effort over time.
10 percent architecture… WHAT??!! I know… probably not the smartest thing for a Web Director to say, but think about it folks. Look at your own competition. I bet your site is being beaten by some god awful website that hasn’t been updated since 1992, or a site where you couldn’t figure out the navigation even if you had a map, or better yet… a pdf. Hell, you may be getting schooled by all three, multiple times.
There’s a lot out there about SEO. Books, Blogs, Expos, Shows, Websites, etc. It’s an ever evolving part of online business and it will always be a constant battle. We want to figure out the search engines so we don’t have to buy into them, and they don’t want to be figured out because they want our money. It’s that cut and dry.
Do your research, make an investment, be vigilant, get a helmet, and try to smile.
Written by Scott Bouchard, Web Director of TMCnet
IE6 Needs to Go
August 11, 2009
I seriously dislike Microsoft products for the most part. Especially their browser. As a web designer, Internet Explorer has been a thorn in my side for the better part of a decade. But, as sad as it is, the world needs Microsoft. What we no longer need is IE6.
If you've read any of this blog, you know that I am a big proponent of using the next best thing. Moving forward with technology, ideas, solutions, and standards. Right now, supporting IE6 specifically is the biggest hurdle I have to overcome on a daily basis. It's old technology that doesn't support current web standards, yet 15-20% of web users still use it as their primary browser.
No one wants to build a site that doesn't work properly for 1/5 of their target audience, but the time and money wasted on building a site that holds up in today's markets and is IE6 compatible is ridiculous. It's 2009! Designers and programmers should not have their creativity and ingenuity handcuffed because people still choose to use a browser that doesn't support advanced CSS or XHTML. The research, the hacks, the workarounds, the extra lines of code, the extra processes that slow the site down... they aren't worth the money spent by companies and developers. Especially when their user base can upgrade their IE browser for free. Yeah that's right, it's FREE.
Afraid of upgrading your IE browser? Upgrading your OS to Vista left a bad Microsoft taste in your mouth? I don't blame you. OK, here's another solution then. Download Firefox...
If you've read any of this blog, you know that I am a big proponent of using the next best thing. Moving forward with technology, ideas, solutions, and standards. Right now, supporting IE6 specifically is the biggest hurdle I have to overcome on a daily basis. It's old technology that doesn't support current web standards, yet 15-20% of web users still use it as their primary browser.
No one wants to build a site that doesn't work properly for 1/5 of their target audience, but the time and money wasted on building a site that holds up in today's markets and is IE6 compatible is ridiculous. It's 2009! Designers and programmers should not have their creativity and ingenuity handcuffed because people still choose to use a browser that doesn't support advanced CSS or XHTML. The research, the hacks, the workarounds, the extra lines of code, the extra processes that slow the site down... they aren't worth the money spent by companies and developers. Especially when their user base can upgrade their IE browser for free. Yeah that's right, it's FREE.
Afraid of upgrading your IE browser? Upgrading your OS to Vista left a bad Microsoft taste in your mouth? I don't blame you. OK, here's another solution then. Download Firefox...
Cancelling eFax, sort of
July 7, 2009
I had a need for an internet faxing service earlier this month and after a little research, I decided to try the eFax trial service. Basically, you sign up for a full eFax account, give them everything including your billing information, and if you decide you don't want it, you cancel your account before the 30 days are up.
Today, I decided it's time to cancel before I get nailed with a fee. While eFax proclaims "Easy Faxing Anywhere", it should also state "Canceling Near Impossible". There is nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE, on the eFax site that gives you an option to cancel. After much frustration, I decided to try contacting eFax to get it done. On the top navigation on the site, I went to "Contact" and then clicked the live chat link.
This is the conversation I had with a delightfully blunt customer service representative. Actually with the speed of the replies, it might have even been a bot:
Please wait for a site operator to respond. You are currently number 1 of 1 in the que. Thank you for your patience.
You are now chatting with 'Soi'
Soi: Welcome to our sales chat. How may I help you?
Scott Bouchard: Hello Soi, I'd like to cancel my eFax account and can't seem to find the option on the website account page.
Soi: I am sorry to hear that you wish to leave us. We have a special support team to assist you with the cancellation process. Please use the following webpage to get Chat support for cancellation. https://www.efax.com/en/efax/twa/page/chat
Soi: https://www.efax.com/en/efax/twa/page/chat
Soi: Thank you for contacting the Sales Team. Hope you found the session helpful. Goodbye!
Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.
Well... I tried the link, and it didn't work. I tried on Safari, Firefox, IE... none of the browsers were able to launch the chat after I filled in my name and e-mail. Fun times. So I decided to try the "FAQs" option at https://www.efax.com/help/faq.
In the search I typed "Cancel" and received 2 choices for an answer. I chose "How to Cancel your eFax Account (2901)". This page stated the following:
How to Cancel your eFax Account
If you are considering cancelling your eFax account because you are having a problem using the service, keep in mind that the solutions to many common problems can be found in this "Help" section.
If our online help is insufficient or you wish to cancel your eFax account for another reason, please click the blue "Chat Now" button below or click HERE and a Customer Service representative will assist you.
Today, I decided it's time to cancel before I get nailed with a fee. While eFax proclaims "Easy Faxing Anywhere", it should also state "Canceling Near Impossible". There is nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE, on the eFax site that gives you an option to cancel. After much frustration, I decided to try contacting eFax to get it done. On the top navigation on the site, I went to "Contact" and then clicked the live chat link.
This is the conversation I had with a delightfully blunt customer service representative. Actually with the speed of the replies, it might have even been a bot:
Please wait for a site operator to respond. You are currently number 1 of 1 in the que. Thank you for your patience.
You are now chatting with 'Soi'
Soi: Welcome to our sales chat. How may I help you?
Scott Bouchard: Hello Soi, I'd like to cancel my eFax account and can't seem to find the option on the website account page.
Soi: I am sorry to hear that you wish to leave us. We have a special support team to assist you with the cancellation process. Please use the following webpage to get Chat support for cancellation. https://www.efax.com/en/efax/twa/page/chat
Soi: https://www.efax.com/en/efax/twa/page/chat
Soi: Thank you for contacting the Sales Team. Hope you found the session helpful. Goodbye!
Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.
Well... I tried the link, and it didn't work. I tried on Safari, Firefox, IE... none of the browsers were able to launch the chat after I filled in my name and e-mail. Fun times. So I decided to try the "FAQs" option at https://www.efax.com/help/faq.
In the search I typed "Cancel" and received 2 choices for an answer. I chose "How to Cancel your eFax Account (2901)". This page stated the following:
How to Cancel your eFax Account
If you are considering cancelling your eFax account because you are having a problem using the service, keep in mind that the solutions to many common problems can be found in this "Help" section.
If our online help is insufficient or you wish to cancel your eFax account for another reason, please click the blue "Chat Now" button below or click HERE and a Customer Service representative will assist you.
Michael Jackson Dies and Takes the Internet with Him
June 26, 2009
A handful of the largest sites were brought down last night by the surge of traffic that ensued after news of the death of the King of Pop hit the wires.
Google went down for over a half hour for some users due to the weight of traffic, and many were receiving the message "Your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application". The search term "Michael Jackson Died" had bombarded Google's servers so fast, so frequently, and in such a volume that it's automated system shut down the keyword. It wasn't until the term was manually released that users could receive their news on M.J.'s death again. Google trends described the "Hotness" of the search term as volcanic: http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?q=michael+jackson+died&date=2009-6-26&sa=X 7 of the top 10 searches had something to do with Michael Jackson throughout the day.
The Michael Jackson Wikipedia page also had to be brought down do to the increased traffic and the bombardment of requests to update the page. As conflicting news reports were released, users and fans began an editing war on his page trying to get the latest and correct information up.
Twitter also crashed (not a big surprise actually), with unconfirmed reports stating that there were 66,500 tweets containing the words "Michael Jackson" within an hour of the first news of his hospitalization. Supposedly twitter registered that M.J. based tweets were 15% of the global total yesterday, the highest ever single subject tweet volume.
TMZ.com broke the news, and later that night broke itself when the traffic became too much for it to handle. The LA Times was the first to confirm the reports, and also succumbed to the influx of traffic shortly after.
One site that managed not to break was Bing. But, that's because Bing didn't pick up on the story for hours after the event.
While I think M.J.'s lifestyle and choices became somewhat questionable later in life, I can't deny that his talent and music were a large part of my childhood and he will be sorely missed by millions. Rest in Peace M.J., you left your mark in more ways than we ever thought you could.
Google went down for over a half hour for some users due to the weight of traffic, and many were receiving the message "Your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application". The search term "Michael Jackson Died" had bombarded Google's servers so fast, so frequently, and in such a volume that it's automated system shut down the keyword. It wasn't until the term was manually released that users could receive their news on M.J.'s death again. Google trends described the "Hotness" of the search term as volcanic: http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?q=michael+jackson+died&date=2009-6-26&sa=X 7 of the top 10 searches had something to do with Michael Jackson throughout the day.
The Michael Jackson Wikipedia page also had to be brought down do to the increased traffic and the bombardment of requests to update the page. As conflicting news reports were released, users and fans began an editing war on his page trying to get the latest and correct information up.
Twitter also crashed (not a big surprise actually), with unconfirmed reports stating that there were 66,500 tweets containing the words "Michael Jackson" within an hour of the first news of his hospitalization. Supposedly twitter registered that M.J. based tweets were 15% of the global total yesterday, the highest ever single subject tweet volume.
TMZ.com broke the news, and later that night broke itself when the traffic became too much for it to handle. The LA Times was the first to confirm the reports, and also succumbed to the influx of traffic shortly after.
One site that managed not to break was Bing. But, that's because Bing didn't pick up on the story for hours after the event.
While I think M.J.'s lifestyle and choices became somewhat questionable later in life, I can't deny that his talent and music were a large part of my childhood and he will be sorely missed by millions. Rest in Peace M.J., you left your mark in more ways than we ever thought you could.
Bing Isn't Too Friendly to Other Search Engines
June 16, 2009
I found an interesting feature of Bing this afternoon.
First, go to Google and do a search for Bing. My search found about 47,800,000 results and displayed the first 10. Now do a search for Yahoo!. This search turned up about 2,460,000,000 results for me. That's a lot of real estate Google allows for other search engines in the market, and rightfully so. A search in Google gives you everything you could possibly want that it has in the index in a fairly logical order of importance. The user gets to choose what to ignore. Sounds like a true search to me.
Now go to Bing and search for Google. I don't know about you, but I get 1 result displayed. It says it found 184,000,000 results, but only opted to show me 1. No supporting stories, no news listed underneath, no other websites, just Google. You have to click the link below to "search for other results containing Google" in order to see more. Now search for Yahoo!. Again, I get 1 result displayed. It's the same for Ask.com. However, if you search for Bing, you get a full display of the first 14 of 6,270,000 results.
I also found that a handful of news sites are treated the same way. CNN, Fox News, ESPN, The New York Times, and probably more. Thankfully my main source of news, BBC, has been excluded from this treatment, which actually helps me prove my point. A search for BBC gives you a ton of results on the first page including, sub sites, news articles, and video clips.
Seems like Bing has restrictions built into it that greatly limit the exposure of certain competitive companies in its search results. I'm not sure who the genius is behind that one, but come on Microsoft... do you really have to be that petty? You want to be the next best search engine next to Google? Then take a page from their book and treat just about every search the same. Find everything you can, lay it all out there for us in an order that makes some kind of sense, and we'll figure out what we want from the results. Hell, we might even learn something new a few pages down.
First, go to Google and do a search for Bing. My search found about 47,800,000 results and displayed the first 10. Now do a search for Yahoo!. This search turned up about 2,460,000,000 results for me. That's a lot of real estate Google allows for other search engines in the market, and rightfully so. A search in Google gives you everything you could possibly want that it has in the index in a fairly logical order of importance. The user gets to choose what to ignore. Sounds like a true search to me.
Now go to Bing and search for Google. I don't know about you, but I get 1 result displayed. It says it found 184,000,000 results, but only opted to show me 1. No supporting stories, no news listed underneath, no other websites, just Google. You have to click the link below to "search for other results containing Google" in order to see more. Now search for Yahoo!. Again, I get 1 result displayed. It's the same for Ask.com. However, if you search for Bing, you get a full display of the first 14 of 6,270,000 results.
I also found that a handful of news sites are treated the same way. CNN, Fox News, ESPN, The New York Times, and probably more. Thankfully my main source of news, BBC, has been excluded from this treatment, which actually helps me prove my point. A search for BBC gives you a ton of results on the first page including, sub sites, news articles, and video clips.
Seems like Bing has restrictions built into it that greatly limit the exposure of certain competitive companies in its search results. I'm not sure who the genius is behind that one, but come on Microsoft... do you really have to be that petty? You want to be the next best search engine next to Google? Then take a page from their book and treat just about every search the same. Find everything you can, lay it all out there for us in an order that makes some kind of sense, and we'll figure out what we want from the results. Hell, we might even learn something new a few pages down.
SEO for Bing
June 15, 2009
Hooray another search engine... sorry "decision engine" according to Microsoft. What's does Bing mean for people like me? New rules, new headaches, and more importantly new research. While it's still a fledgling at this point, Bing has sparked enough interest to make me actually care about trying to devote extra effort into gaining ranking somewhere other than Google, which still holds 60% of the search engine market share.
Don't get me wrong, I always try to rank everywhere. But, with such a fickle science as SEO, once I gain optimal ranking on Google, I stick to whatever I'm doing until I see a fall off. Sort of a "If it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality. If you try to do too much you can sometimes get nailed with a penality. While a lot of us who spend a substantial amount of time with SEO know what will and will-not affect our ranking... sometimes you just get blindsided. Personally I feel maintaining ranking is somewhat simple, but fixing something I accidentally broke is an absolute nightmare.
That said, I don't see too much difference so far in the ranking of sites I maintain on Bing versus the old ranking in MSN Live Search from a few weeks ago. Either I'm doing everything I'm supposed to be doing for every search engine (which is highly unlikely), or the algorithm hasn't changed that much. While Microsoft has gone from a 9% share to an a 11% share in the search engine market with Bing, I'm going to treat it as a new wrapper for the same product. Well...
Don't get me wrong, I always try to rank everywhere. But, with such a fickle science as SEO, once I gain optimal ranking on Google, I stick to whatever I'm doing until I see a fall off. Sort of a "If it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality. If you try to do too much you can sometimes get nailed with a penality. While a lot of us who spend a substantial amount of time with SEO know what will and will-not affect our ranking... sometimes you just get blindsided. Personally I feel maintaining ranking is somewhat simple, but fixing something I accidentally broke is an absolute nightmare.
That said, I don't see too much difference so far in the ranking of sites I maintain on Bing versus the old ranking in MSN Live Search from a few weeks ago. Either I'm doing everything I'm supposed to be doing for every search engine (which is highly unlikely), or the algorithm hasn't changed that much. While Microsoft has gone from a 9% share to an a 11% share in the search engine market with Bing, I'm going to treat it as a new wrapper for the same product. Well...
Poor Web Design
June 12, 2009
What is poor web design? How can you tell it's not good? Why does it matter? How do I fix it? These are a few of the questions I'm asked on a weekly basis by clients and sponsors. Here's my take on things.
Well for one, if it's poor design, it's not design at all. An actual "design" has a plan and a goal behind it, and if those are not represented in the final product... you failed and didn't really design anything. You manufactured a waste of everyone's time and money. Well, that's not entirely true. There's plenty of poorly designed websites that work out there, but they definitely do not work to their potential and in the end drive users somewhere else. I really debated citing a few examples of what I mean, but it's probably best that I don't. I don't want to hurt the feeling of any past or potential future clients.
The internet is the best media source at our disposal for marketing right now and it's all because the internet has given consumers the ability to find whatever they want, whenever they want, from whomever they want. In turn, it also gives advertisers the ability to push their products to a more targeted audience. The other sources of media that aren't able to follow suit are suffering. Print - dying. Direct mailers - dead. Radio - a joke. Even television has changed. Television production companies have to compete with streaming Online Videos, Tivo's, DVRs, and the shortening attention span of consumers who can find what they want at the touch of a button. Commercials are increasingly directed at advertising more television shows, and less products. The product advertising is more focused inside the shows as product placement.
I'm off subject, sorry.
There's 4 essentials to keeping your site from being a failure.
1) Brand Yourself
Everyone has a brand. Your colors may be offensive, your logo may be terrible, but you can still make it all work without redesigning them. Even if you only have 1 color, there is a series of other colors and hues that complement it. Pick 2 - 4 colors, and make those your branding colors. These are what you use whenever you are creating something that applies directly to your brand. Unless your logo incorporates a rainbow, don't waiver. It's not necessarily always a bad thing, but if you use every color, it becomes very hard to use it as a branding tool.
Even if your logo isn't present, you can use the colors to remind them.
Well for one, if it's poor design, it's not design at all. An actual "design" has a plan and a goal behind it, and if those are not represented in the final product... you failed and didn't really design anything. You manufactured a waste of everyone's time and money. Well, that's not entirely true. There's plenty of poorly designed websites that work out there, but they definitely do not work to their potential and in the end drive users somewhere else. I really debated citing a few examples of what I mean, but it's probably best that I don't. I don't want to hurt the feeling of any past or potential future clients.
The internet is the best media source at our disposal for marketing right now and it's all because the internet has given consumers the ability to find whatever they want, whenever they want, from whomever they want. In turn, it also gives advertisers the ability to push their products to a more targeted audience. The other sources of media that aren't able to follow suit are suffering. Print - dying. Direct mailers - dead. Radio - a joke. Even television has changed. Television production companies have to compete with streaming Online Videos, Tivo's, DVRs, and the shortening attention span of consumers who can find what they want at the touch of a button. Commercials are increasingly directed at advertising more television shows, and less products. The product advertising is more focused inside the shows as product placement.
I'm off subject, sorry.
There's 4 essentials to keeping your site from being a failure.
1) Brand Yourself
Everyone has a brand. Your colors may be offensive, your logo may be terrible, but you can still make it all work without redesigning them. Even if you only have 1 color, there is a series of other colors and hues that complement it. Pick 2 - 4 colors, and make those your branding colors. These are what you use whenever you are creating something that applies directly to your brand. Unless your logo incorporates a rainbow, don't waiver. It's not necessarily always a bad thing, but if you use every color, it becomes very hard to use it as a branding tool.
Even if your logo isn't present, you can use the colors to remind them.
Twitter Needs Filters
May 1, 2009
I jumped on the Twitter wagon a month or so ago and like almost everyone else in marketing, I used twitterfeed to abusively spam topics of interest across the Twitter interface in an attempt to gain exposure and social prowess in my field of expertise. I've had a change of heart.
While now unethical in my eyes, my strategy worked. I basically set my Twitter on auto pilot. My twitterfeed would pull from 5 or 6 of my favorite rss feeds every hour or so. It would automatically take a recent story and send the title of the article or blog and a link to with a tweet. I also used socialtoo to auto follow anyone that followed me. Both services combined made it actually look like I was involved and was socializing with the the rest of the Twitter world. My followers were increasing at what I thought was a fairly impressive rate.
But then something happened. I actually wanted to socialize with Twitter. I discovered that people like me were just...
While now unethical in my eyes, my strategy worked. I basically set my Twitter on auto pilot. My twitterfeed would pull from 5 or 6 of my favorite rss feeds every hour or so. It would automatically take a recent story and send the title of the article or blog and a link to with a tweet. I also used socialtoo to auto follow anyone that followed me. Both services combined made it actually look like I was involved and was socializing with the the rest of the Twitter world. My followers were increasing at what I thought was a fairly impressive rate.
But then something happened. I actually wanted to socialize with Twitter. I discovered that people like me were just...
Study Says I'm Wrong About Social Networking In The Workplace
April 6, 2009
So, today I learned something. Studies from top universities don't apply to the real world.
A recent study from the University of Melbourne has "concluded" that those who surf the Internet for fun during office hours actually increase their productivity. Read more about their ground breaking research here (yes I rolled my eyes when I typed that, but I refuse to use an emoticon). Essentially there is conclusive research now that goes completely against one of my earlier entries titled Facebook is Killing Productivity.
Dr Brent Coker, from the Department of Management and Marketing, says that workers who engage in 'Workplace Internet Leisure Browsing' (WILB) are more productive than those who don't.
That quote alone disqualifies this study for me. WILB? Really? Not only did you spend the time on a research project devoted to creating a defense for lazy people around the world, but during said research project you also found time to create a useless acronym for it.
Example of what will NEVER happen:
Boss - "Scott, what have you been doing? I need that site up and running yesterday!"
Me - "Don't worry boss, I'm WILBing, I'll be 9% more productive later"
Boss - "Oh, my bad, please continue"
You know what WILB is? It's an AM radio station in Canton, Ohio, USA, that offers Catholic programming. It will never be anything else.
Here's another quote from Dr. Coker that proves he doesn't understand the human race, or at the very least Americans, "Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity."
We are a society of people who don't know the definition of MODERATION. If you give people an excuse to slack off, 95% of us will take you up on it. Of that group, I'll bet 80% will abuse it.
Of course, anything in moderation is fine. You could of asked me for that advice instead of funding a research project. But, we are a society based on indulgences, and it's leading to bad habits. A lot of us are incapable of deeming what is and what isn't unobtrusive, and we could use less excuses.
A recent study from the University of Melbourne has "concluded" that those who surf the Internet for fun during office hours actually increase their productivity. Read more about their ground breaking research here (yes I rolled my eyes when I typed that, but I refuse to use an emoticon). Essentially there is conclusive research now that goes completely against one of my earlier entries titled Facebook is Killing Productivity.
Dr Brent Coker, from the Department of Management and Marketing, says that workers who engage in 'Workplace Internet Leisure Browsing' (WILB) are more productive than those who don't.
That quote alone disqualifies this study for me. WILB? Really? Not only did you spend the time on a research project devoted to creating a defense for lazy people around the world, but during said research project you also found time to create a useless acronym for it.
Example of what will NEVER happen:
Boss - "Scott, what have you been doing? I need that site up and running yesterday!"
Me - "Don't worry boss, I'm WILBing, I'll be 9% more productive later"
Boss - "Oh, my bad, please continue"
You know what WILB is? It's an AM radio station in Canton, Ohio, USA, that offers Catholic programming. It will never be anything else.
Here's another quote from Dr. Coker that proves he doesn't understand the human race, or at the very least Americans, "Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity."
We are a society of people who don't know the definition of MODERATION. If you give people an excuse to slack off, 95% of us will take you up on it. Of that group, I'll bet 80% will abuse it.
Of course, anything in moderation is fine. You could of asked me for that advice instead of funding a research project. But, we are a society based on indulgences, and it's leading to bad habits. A lot of us are incapable of deeming what is and what isn't unobtrusive, and we could use less excuses.
