The UX team at the LDS church is second to none. They made a concerted effort several years ago to hire the best (within certain ecclesiastical constraints) and I think they've succeeded. I would hire any of them.
They have a strongly, user-driven dev process that brings high fidelity mock-ups into the process well before development starts. UX works directly with the customers (different organizations in the church) to make sure they get what that want, leaving the program managers to ensure delivery.
The underlying CMS (which I worked on), on the other hand, is something else. :)
Their tumblelog (http://northtemple.com/) is also really great. I'm consistently impressed with the links, quotes, images, and other stuff they post there.
Just yesterday they fixed one thing that bothered me about it, which is that anytime you highlight, you would get a fade-in pop-up on the side of the text about journaling or highlighting it. This was pretty irritating since I am in the habit of highlighting text while I read. Now there is a constant black bar that tells me to sign in to journal and/or highlight, which is also annoying, but less so.
Secondly, the new layout is not fluid horizontally -- it is horizontally centered and seems to be tailored for 1024x768 audiences. It's much worse attempting to read scriptures or articles on my 1920x1080 screen with gobs of excess space on the screen, now only occupied by blue gradient. The text used to flow well and take up all available screen space due to the simple layout of the site -- the revision not only horizontally centers everything, but even cuts the container down, with "Share" and "Download" links on the sidebar. The text is spaced awkwardly and it's just a great big waste of screen real estate. I read the print version most of the time (now I use the old one since they brought the old scriptures back), but it doesn't have footnote toggle and the spacing is still weird; at least, however, it doesn't waste 50% of my horizontal screen space. Loading footnotes can be tiresome, as the site makes an AJAX call on load; I'd much prefer preloaded footnotes. The new chapter selection page makes it harder to find the chapter you want -- you can either scroll a lot and use the same number of clicks or click on the jump menu and add an extra click in there.
There are some cool things about the new site, and I like the use of HTML5 font faces and other things like that, but for the most part it's less usable for more shininess. Compare http://scriptures.lds.org and http://classic.scriptures.lds.org and tell me which you'd rather read from.
The backlink profile for the church site must be pretty impressive as well. There must be thousands of LDS bloggers out there, not to mention Deseret News etc, etc.
But yeah, in terms of site architecture, it's an impressive website.
I am LDS, and it's true that there are a lot of very competent techies who are members.
The two major factors that likely influence the high ranking are : as mentioned. (1) the SEO is affected by links pointing at the site from external sources like LDS bloggers, and (2) the comprehensive system of cross-referencing that the site has implemented through its web-based scriptures. For example:
because the LDS Church's major "message" is how the Book of Mormon is supplementary and complementary to the Bible, as it is a record of God's dealings with people on the American continent during "ancient" American times.
While working for an enterprise server management startup, I met with some of the LDS folks and was impressed with how well they know technology and IT across the board. http://tech.lds.org/
I think they just hire great people and trust them. The designer of the LDS website is someone who I look up to, wrt/design: http://www.cameronmoll.com/portfolio/
> While overseeing the redesign of LDS.org, the LDS web team asked me to step in towards the end of the project to add my take on the visuals, resulting in a few comped ideas within a very short timeframe.[1]
That sounds like he did just a bit of work late in the game. (Maybe you meant that, but my first take was "designed the whole site" from reading your "The designer of the LDS website.")
A Google evangelist recommends following the example of a site which pushes its page menu through uncrawlable JavaScript. I'm disappointed.
And did they just reach a high rating with their front page (which is not impressive considering the tremendous backlinking they must have), or are all their pages and all the terms on all their pages ranking equally well?
http://mormon.org/people/ is interesting to check out. It's the LDS Church's attempt to have it's own "social" site, and add a human face to their faith.
That's odd with it being mid week. The traffic to LDS.org is the opposite of most sites - it actually peaks on Sunday with lulls during the week. There are two significant peaks during the year, one the first week in October, the other the first week in April, when the church holds it's semi-annual General Conference for all members to see.
Edit: to note that I eventually realized that it was the article, not the LDS.org site that was slow. I'll leave my notes in place, because it's an interesting traffic pattern to see.
The linked article just states "Yes the mormon church know SEO". Does anyone know what techniques they use? How do you know they "know SEO". Details please!
the fact that a multinational organization with revenues in the billions can do SEO is not at all impressive to me.
furthermore, you really need to question your belief system and analytical processes if you follow a church founded by a guy who thought he could find treasure by looking at a rock in a hat (he was also a convicted fraudster).
You made a valid argument with your first comment, but your second comment ("furthermore...") has nothing at all to do with the article or SEO. Go troll somewhere else.
I'm having trouble finding any other churches that exhibit good SEO practices. The catholic church doesn't have such a strong presence, the closest I can find is the westboro baptist church.
You might be right on the first comment, but you are fully wrong on the second. I suggest if you plan on ever making a comment about the Mormon church again, you at least do it justice by reading The Book of Mormon.
I know that this comment section isn't supposed to be about the church itself, but I can't help but be baffled by the way people are able to separate analyzing SEO optimization from the fact that the church itself is a fundamentally terrible organization. The church is full of racist scripture, institutionalized sexism, and dangerous sexual repression; and has been a major proponent of denying rights to gays. As long as they continue to have such regressive and backward policies, I don't care how good their SEO is.
Again, it's not that I doubt their SEO prowess, but how are people able to separate what an evil organization the LDS is from their SEO practises? I don't want to side-track this thread too much, but I'm genuinely curious about the way people are coming at this.
I don't necessarily think you're trolling, but I totally understand why you're being downvoted.
Being able to compartmentalize and analyze different facets of something is (I think) an important intellectual tool. Example: I can enjoy Richard Wagner's music even though he was a demonstrably terrible person.
I'm not an LDS, and I don't like some of the things that the church does, but I can still appreciate the things they do well.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
They have a strongly, user-driven dev process that brings high fidelity mock-ups into the process well before development starts. UX works directly with the customers (different organizations in the church) to make sure they get what that want, leaving the program managers to ensure delivery.
The underlying CMS (which I worked on), on the other hand, is something else. :)
[+] [-] charliepark|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cookiecaper|15 years ago|reply
I don't like the new site.
Just yesterday they fixed one thing that bothered me about it, which is that anytime you highlight, you would get a fade-in pop-up on the side of the text about journaling or highlighting it. This was pretty irritating since I am in the habit of highlighting text while I read. Now there is a constant black bar that tells me to sign in to journal and/or highlight, which is also annoying, but less so.
Secondly, the new layout is not fluid horizontally -- it is horizontally centered and seems to be tailored for 1024x768 audiences. It's much worse attempting to read scriptures or articles on my 1920x1080 screen with gobs of excess space on the screen, now only occupied by blue gradient. The text used to flow well and take up all available screen space due to the simple layout of the site -- the revision not only horizontally centers everything, but even cuts the container down, with "Share" and "Download" links on the sidebar. The text is spaced awkwardly and it's just a great big waste of screen real estate. I read the print version most of the time (now I use the old one since they brought the old scriptures back), but it doesn't have footnote toggle and the spacing is still weird; at least, however, it doesn't waste 50% of my horizontal screen space. Loading footnotes can be tiresome, as the site makes an AJAX call on load; I'd much prefer preloaded footnotes. The new chapter selection page makes it harder to find the chapter you want -- you can either scroll a lot and use the same number of clicks or click on the jump menu and add an extra click in there.
There are some cool things about the new site, and I like the use of HTML5 font faces and other things like that, but for the most part it's less usable for more shininess. Compare http://scriptures.lds.org and http://classic.scriptures.lds.org and tell me which you'd rather read from.
[+] [-] ambitious|15 years ago|reply
But yeah, in terms of site architecture, it's an impressive website.
[+] [-] phuff|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawnee_|15 years ago|reply
The two major factors that likely influence the high ranking are : as mentioned. (1) the SEO is affected by links pointing at the site from external sources like LDS bloggers, and (2) the comprehensive system of cross-referencing that the site has implemented through its web-based scriptures. For example:
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng
because the LDS Church's major "message" is how the Book of Mormon is supplementary and complementary to the Bible, as it is a record of God's dealings with people on the American continent during "ancient" American times.
[+] [-] js2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pchristensen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjs382|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] telemachos|15 years ago|reply
> While overseeing the redesign of LDS.org, the LDS web team asked me to step in towards the end of the project to add my take on the visuals, resulting in a few comped ideas within a very short timeframe.[1]
That sounds like he did just a bit of work late in the game. (Maybe you meant that, but my first take was "designed the whole site" from reading your "The designer of the LDS website.")
[1] http://www.cameronmoll.com/portfolio/
[2] The comparisons: http://www.cameronmoll.com/projects/lds/
[+] [-] thirsteh|15 years ago|reply
And did they just reach a high rating with their front page (which is not impressive considering the tremendous backlinking they must have), or are all their pages and all the terms on all their pages ranking equally well?
[+] [-] dabent|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gchucky|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dabent|15 years ago|reply
Edit: to note that I eventually realized that it was the article, not the LDS.org site that was slow. I'll leave my notes in place, because it's an interesting traffic pattern to see.
[+] [-] juddlyon|15 years ago|reply
lds.org 6,236 Linking Root Domains 190,722 Total Links (followed, nofollowed, 301'ing pages)
catholic.org: 4,029 Linking Root Domains 61,409 Total Links (followed, nofollowed, 301'ing pages)
Source: SEOmoz' Open Site Explorer
[+] [-] babalicious|15 years ago|reply
Please. Warez/malware/porn sites all have great SEO chops too. Why again are we applauding these particular moronic snake-oil salesmen?
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phamilton|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] darkhorse|15 years ago|reply
furthermore, you really need to question your belief system and analytical processes if you follow a church founded by a guy who thought he could find treasure by looking at a rock in a hat (he was also a convicted fraudster).
[+] [-] bry|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjarratt|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phamilton|15 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
[+] [-] spoiledtechie|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grantheaslip|15 years ago|reply
Again, it's not that I doubt their SEO prowess, but how are people able to separate what an evil organization the LDS is from their SEO practises? I don't want to side-track this thread too much, but I'm genuinely curious about the way people are coming at this.
[+] [-] MartinCron|15 years ago|reply
Being able to compartmentalize and analyze different facets of something is (I think) an important intellectual tool. Example: I can enjoy Richard Wagner's music even though he was a demonstrably terrible person.
I'm not an LDS, and I don't like some of the things that the church does, but I can still appreciate the things they do well.
[+] [-] bry|15 years ago|reply