Brand New idea never been done before - please review

[Nomax5 0]

Well I don’t think it has.

[size=14pt][color=red]A Lottery for web sites where you win traffic ![/color][/size]

Tah Darrr!

Here’s the idea

Find the secret word on today’s winning website to enter

If you win: tomorrow everyone will have to visit your site to find you’re your secret word in order to enter.

Have a go – enter your website it's completely FREE

http://www.websitelotto.com

I really appreciate feedback because I work alone and may be going slightly MAD.
contributing to my madness now I have to press the lottery button at 9am every morning its like the TV series Lost. 

Roy

[AndyB 0]

There are problems with the site viewed at 800x600. I won't detail them as they're all obvious (and fixable) and involve overlap of content into the overly-wide sidebar.

As you note on the site, logo and graphics are coming (no need to go berserk, though).  What's really missing from the home page is even a hint of WHY anyone would want more traffic.  I know it's supposed to be obvious why, but it can't hurt to tell them!!

Review any text you have on the site (beta or otherwise) to remove the 'personal' text and make this look more like a mega-corporation venture, e.g. change 'My other websites' to 'Our Network' or something similar.

I tested the form with junk inputs.  The error message isn't very helpful, and appears to divulge the answer for today's lottery.  Lots of room for improvement there.

[Nomax5 0]

Thanks Andy for checking it out,
I'll remove the personal references as you suggest

The error message was a bit of debug code left in there I'll remove that too thanks for pointing it out

re your 800x600 comment - The minimum I cater for is 1024x768 now because there are so few 800x600 users and I don't  think everyone else should suffer from a design point of view. I just can't go that low anymore, rightly or wrongly I assume they're a bunch of cheapskates anyway.

I'm interested in you comment about the graphics though - I was thinking I should make it "more fun", but on the other hand I do like minmalistic look n feel so I'm a bit torn. I don't know what to do.

Thanks for the feedback though its appreciated
 

[AndyB 0]

[quote author=Nomax5 link=topic=106636.msg426621#msg426621 date=1157217875]
re your 800x600 comment - ... I just can't go that low anymore, rightly or wrongly I assume they're a bunch of cheapskates anyway.[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment.  800x600 still runs around 20% of users.  If I ran a store I'd think twice before I pissed off every fifth visitor.  And just because I CAN have my window maximised, why should I?  Aren't I allowed to have multiple browser instances open, or multiple applications open if I want to visit your site while I'm doing something else? 

Since you've already got a design that's CSS driven, how hard is it going to be to use percentage widths and keep 5 out of 5 customers happy? No 'suffering' required. Your site, your call.

[jdforsythe 0]

not to be a spoil sport...

but can't one simply navigate to the site of the day previous, use CTRL+F and type in the phrase before the secret word, then enter their site?  it seems website owners who are working hard to get traffic won't tend to spend much time actually [i]reading[/i] the website, but will use the find functionality to hurry the process along.

and i agree on the 800x600.  enough people [i]do[/i] use 800x600 resolutions or non-maximized windows (i have 1024x768 but have my taskbar on the right side and another window at about 250px wide on the left side at all times, making my screen pretty much 800x768 in usable size) that you should still cater to these users.  use percentages or constrain your design to under 800 px wide to maximize your potential audience.

[.josh 1,420]

[quote author=jdforsythe link=topic=106636.msg426898#msg426898 date=1157244487]
not to be a spoil sport...

but can't one simply navigate to the site of the day previous, use CTRL+F and type in the phrase before the secret word, then enter their site?  it seems website owners who are working hard to get traffic won't tend to spend much time actually [i]reading[/i] the website, but will use the find functionality to hurry the process along.
[/quote]

i suggest using the same principles of capcha to prevent this from happening.

[Nomax5 0]

AndyB
[quote] I'd think twice before I pissed off every fifth visitor [/quote]
I hear what you are saying especially about doing something else and not having the window maximized.

I did think twice I’d be a fool not to, I presume you got the 20% statistic from
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp that figure must be taken in context with the type of visitor one is or wants to attract, for instance if I am creating a gaming website its safe to assume my visitors are running resolutions higher than average.

I am presuming that a large percentage of my visitors are people who have developed websites and now want more visitors,  and also assuming that web developers don’t develop in 800x600.

The statistics I chose to use for my decision were from the extreme tracking button on http://www.dafont.com/  they get on average 100,000 unique visitors per day.
Their statistic show a different picture 90% of their visitors are 1024x768 or higher with only 8.16% in a lower resolution.

If you optimise for 800x600 your visitors running 1280x1024 will have 37% blank screen plus any white space you decide to have.

But I guess the underlying reason is 800x600 is so unbelievably ugly,  I run in 1600x1200 for graphics and 1280x1024 for other stuff, to me 1024x768 is big and quite ugly but 800x600 is a joke.
I assume rightly or wrongly 800x600 resolution is for the poor and they’re unlikely to buy anything from my websites.

[i]Statistics are like bikinis. 
What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
- Aaron Levenstein[/i]

[b]jdforsythe[/b] you are being a spoil sport,
I hope to build a web development community at some point focussing on newly released websites only,  not so much on help, tools and advice but announcements and critiques – a bit of a stepping stone for new sites. I was thinking of providing a backlink for a month or so to get them started and legitimate related linking between sites free and regardless of pagerank where people do links because they quite like the person or they’re being nice where  powerful developers can give a helping hand to newer sites.

So yes you can Ctrl +F then rush off to that all important site but I’m hoping the community spirit will kick in and people will take time to look, perhaps I give people to much credit lol.

Anyway “Wales Women's National Lacrosse Team” won today !!
their website  is of very little interest to me, but I read it and learnt something!
True mostly what I learnt was that Wales actually has a Women's National Lacrosse Team which I didn’t know, and apparently they’re the European champions.

I have a link on my website and tomorrow they’ll be on the past winners page.

So there you go..

[b]Crayon Violent[/b] what do you mean? I don't understand,
I wrote a captcha thing the other day that makes real sounding words from vowels and constinents readable captcha!
so I know what captcha is.
but I don't know or understand how I how I could use the same principles of capcha to prevent CTRL +F happening?.

please explain.

Roy

[.josh 1,420]

okay if you have a secret code that the user has to find on some other dude's website, people can just go the website, press CTRL+F and automatically find it, because it is a text search.  If you turn your secret word into an image and have your 'clients' (?) display the word as an image, you cannot CTRL+F and find it.

p.s.- do not triple post. or even double post. 

[Nomax5 0]

you know Crayon Violent, I was going to post an answer per day as a mechanism for keeping my post at the top, but I thought "No thats not fair" so I posted them all together and get into trouble for "double posting"  anyways I've amalgamated the double posts into one post, sorry for the offence.

in response to your answer: what you are sugesting is that people change their websites in order to enter the lottery, I don't think they will. from my experience you make it as easy as possible for visitors.

so the best that I can do short of giving them the answer is fill in the form with what they put last time.

people might choose a word that is in an image thats up to them. I noticed one person that did when I was checking.

[.josh 1,420]

well in the end it's your decision. i suppose it depends on whether you are offering prizes of real substance to be coveted, vs. just doing some advertising gimmick.  Making it 'as easy as possible' reaks of advertising gimmick.  When people sense that, they general move on to something else.  well that's my 2 cents, anyways.

as far as your multi-posting in order to keep your thread at the top: a *bump* thread per day is okay.  however, your posts were all within the same hour, 2 of them being about 3 minutes apart from each other.  Not the same thing. 

Good luck!

[zq29 2]

I haven't actually checked out your site, but I'd like to critique your idea somewhat. I can't see why anyone would be interested in taking part in this - The main thing you get out of untargetted traffic is wasted bandwidth and data transfer.

[Nomax5 0]

so what are you saying SemiApocalyptic if someone stumbles upon your site you wouldn’t want them there?
You wouldn’t want the chance to persuade, engage or interest or sell to anyone who came to your website via an unauthorised link?

I am presuming that on all your websites visitors have to key in the relevant keywords to gain entry.

[b]That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard [/b]

[quote] The main thing you get out of untargetted traffic is wasted bandwidth and data transfer[/quote]

wtf does that mean?

I pay $1 per Gb of bandwidth what’s the average page size 5kb? Lets go mad and say 15kb  so about 70,000 visitors will cost $1 in bandwidth.

You know something I think people would be happy to pay $1 for 70,000 “untargeted” visitors who just might be reading their website looking for a secret word.

[hr]
[b]Ahh the tone of this might be a bit strong and I apologise for that, I see you are a global moderator with thousands of posts and think a high percentage of those are posts helping a lot of people.  so I am sorry if I've come across as disrespectful, I'm not deleting it though because I think I'm right[/b]

[AndyB 0]

[quote author=Nomax5 link=topic=106636.msg430889#msg430889 date=1157749317]
... I see you are a global moderator ... so I am sorry if I've come across as disrespectful ...
[/quote]

I would hope you would be respectful to ALL members of this forum, regardless of their 'status' or post count.

[redbullmarky 2]

[quote author=Nomax5 link=topic=106636.msg430889#msg430889 date=1157749317]
I assume rightly or wrongly 800x600 resolution is for the poor and they’re unlikely to buy anything from my websites.
[/quote]

quotes like this show a bad attitude and make you sound like a tosser.
before i started learning PHP, i was working as a recruitment consultant on a pretty good whack. my home computer was an 800x600 screen on a 486DX. Why didn't i buy a widescreen/TFT/etc monitor? didn't need one. wasn't developing sites then - i just wanted to browse the internet. i replaced it only 2 years ago with an Intel Celeron comp with a 1024x768 15 inch monitor.  I still use that now. My Apple Mac Powerbook G4 - 1024x768, 12 inch monitor. Yet it's only fairly new. Cost quite a bit of cash, as anyone who has a Mac will know.

many of my friends+family. couldnt give a monkeys about playing games on their comps, therefore don't need to "keep with the times" in terms of buying the latest computer with the latest this and that with a hi-spec monitor. they just need somewhere to type letters, do some browsing, keep some files stored, etc. poor? hardly. some of them could buy an office of computers, never mind a computer with a big monitor.

never assume. if you're wrong, you look silly. if you're right, you look smug. either way, you lose.

ok, so i harped on a bit and moved a little away from the point. just throwaway statements like that are just not good.

[.josh 1,420]

[quote author=Nomax5 link=topic=106636.msg430889#msg430889 date=1157749317]
so what are you saying SemiApocalyptic if someone stumbles upon your site you wouldn’t want them there?
You wouldn’t want the chance to persuade, engage or interest or sell to anyone who came to your website via an unauthorised link?
[/quote]
and that's the problem. By making it possible to CTRL+F a keyword, you aren't giving your clients a chance to persuade the customers at all. 

[quote]
I am presuming that on all your websites visitors have to key in the relevant keywords to gain entry.

[b]That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard [/b]

[quote] The main thing you get out of untargetted traffic is wasted bandwidth and data transfer[/quote]

wtf does that mean?
[/quote]
untargetted traffic means that some random person who more than likely has no interest in your products or services somehow gets xfered to your site.  They will not look at your content or consider it. In fact, more than likely, they will make efforts to deliberately avoid looking at it.  They will go there, find the keyword, and leave.  end of story.  Therefore, it is a waste of your client's bandwidth and data transfer, as their content or your 'contest' had no effect on them whatsoever in getting them to take some kind of interest in their products/services.  Even using your, in my opinion, VERY humble numbers, that adds up over time.  Even if I was losing $1 a month, why would I waste it? That's just foolish.  You can't seriously believe that setting up a system that actually detracts business and costs you money is a sound business decision.

[quote]
You know something I think people would be happy to pay $1 for 70,000 “untargeted” visitors who just might be reading their website looking for a secret word.
[/quote]
You may be happy with that, but it is still foolish.  They WON'T be reading their website.  You don't have to read anything to CTRL+F something.  All you are doing is creating a way to get someone to walk in the door, and then immediately turn them around and have them walk right back out, having not looked at a damn thing.  And you are paying money for this to happen. 

Maybe, just possibly, if you made it somewhat of a challenge to find this secret word, forcing them to actually READ the content of the websites, your clients MIGHT have a chance that one of those untargetting people might say to himself "hey you know what, this looks like a good product/service."  But you said so yourself that you don't want to do that, because you wish to make it as "convenient" as possible for the user to go there and back.  So convenient that as said, all you are doing is wasting the customers' time by even being redirected there in the first place, and your clients' time and bandwidth because the customer isn't actually reading anything. 

And in the end, it hurts you the most.  It hurts you, because a) even if your clients were foolish enough to buy into your idea in the first place, they would quickly drop you when they in fact do not see any results, and b) more than likely people will just view it as a gimmick and therefore classify your own site as some kind of spam or scam.  The phrase "too good to be true" would  echo all over your website. 

'untargetted' - If you had any business sense whatsoever, you would know that that's a dirty, shameful word in the advertising industry.  It is your worst enemy. If you embrace it, it will wrap its hands around you and stab you in the back.

You came here asking for a critique, and you got it.  Instead of taking the time to consider it, and learn something, you took offense.  If you do not wish to learn the easy way by listening, then you will certainly learn the hard way when you fail at this venture.

this is not me trying to be snide with you. I'm simple telling you like it is. 

[zq29 2]

[quote]
so what are you saying SemiApocalyptic if someone stumbles upon your site you wouldn’t want them there?
You wouldn’t want the chance to persuade, engage or interest or sell to anyone who came to your website via an unauthorised link?

I am presuming that on all your websites visitors have to key in the relevant keywords to gain entry.

[b]That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard [/b][/quote]
No, that is not what I am saying. If they 'stumbled' across my site from a SERP (Search Engine Results Page - for those not involved in online marketing ;)), which can be considered an 'unauthorised' source, of course I want them there as they came from a source of targetted advertising. They're looking for something specific and they found my site because it has related information. Likewise if I'm selling widgets, and someone recommends my site on a widget-lovers forum - This is an unauthorised link, but it's targeted.

[quote]
[quote] The main thing you get out of untargetted traffic is wasted bandwidth and data transfer[/quote]

wtf does that mean?

I pay $1 per Gb of bandwidth what’s the average page size 5kb? Lets go mad and say 15kb  so about 70,000 visitors will cost $1 in bandwidth.

You know something I think people would be happy to pay $1 for 70,000 “untargeted” visitors who just might be reading their website looking for a secret word.[/quote]
I must admit, thats cheap bandwidth, you wouldn't get that over here in the UK. But as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. I'd disagree with your theory of $1 for 70,000 untargeted visitors - talking from experience, there are services that will offer you 150,000 visitors a month for about £15, they get these visitors from expired domains and pop-ups, this is also untargeted traffic. I thought, hey, what have I got to loose, it's only £15... I didn't even make my money back. Conclusion? Untargeted traffic is a waste of time, bandwidth, transfer and ultimately money. From then on, I see what people meant about how pointless untargeted traffic is.

[quote]
[hr]
[b]Ahh the tone of this might be a bit strong and I apologise for that, I see you are a global moderator with thousands of posts and think a high percentage of those are posts helping a lot of people.  so I am sorry if I've come across as disrespectful, I'm not deleting it though because I think I'm right[/b]
[/quote]Don't worry about it, I'm not going to loose sleep over it.

[Nomax5 0]

I agree if by “untargeted” you mean service like the £15 per month one you mentioned with popups and expired domains no body wants that sort of traffic.
And if that’s what “untargeted traffic” means then I was completely wrong I was thinking more literally about people finding your site while browsing.

At the end of the day the only people who would want more visitors are people who make websites not the general public.

Website lotto is designed to [b]give new websites a little boost[/b], long before they get a page rank or links in.  and yes people can Ctrl F and hightail it out of there. But others might find the site interesting, they may offer a link exchange or post on the forum, click an advert.   Make someone’s day.

Anyways thank you all for taking the time to critique my site.