To some degree OneStop is a victim of it’s own success. Content breadth has expanded far beyond the original scope of information about products. This is mostly good news, but effectuates a new set of challenges.
The goal of the site is to be timely, accurate, and relevant. This is straight forward for current and mainstream products and technologies. New information is constantly made available. The OneStop author gathers it, posts it, and lots of people know to go to OneStop to find it.
There are two areas that we struggle with. The first is static content. We classify pages that cover areas (product/technology/programs) that only very infrequently have changes or new information to add, as static. Many static pages haven’t been updated in six months, though they are still accurate and up to date.
The second area is low usage pages. The most popular pages on OneStop get about 1000 hits per month. The 100th most popular gets about 300. The 300th gets around 100 hits per month. We classify the pages that get below 50 hits per month as low usage pages.
Historically we’ve gone for the more is better approach. We tune search so that the more popular active pages appear first in the results. We segregate off archive pages (EOL products are an example) into a second A-Z index. We tend to populate the menus with the most popular pages.
However, people frequently arrive at the site via avenues we don’t directly manage, such as SunWeb search. They sometimes arrive at pages that haven’t been updated in quite a long time, or cover topics of limited interest. My suspicion is that many users make a judgment on the entire site, based on that one page, or experience.
To quote my colleague Robert, “we want to keep OneStop a lean, mean, fighting machine”. However, this runs counter to offering a large number of static and low usage pages!
The bugaboo is that the authors are volunteers, and we try hard never demotivate a volunteer who trying to contribute to the greater good.
What to do? Should we go on a diet?