Site review: Stonebriar Community Church

January 19, 2007 – 1:22 pm

Church: Stonebriar Community Church - Frisco, Texas
URL: http://www.stonebriar.org

Stonebriar Community Church

The first glance at this site is very impressive. Nice colors, good use of whitespace, and some slick rollovers.

I checked out the site in Firefox 2, IE 7 and Opera 8.5. It looked great in FF and Opera, but something was messed up in IE (shocking, I know). The header at the top (with the logo and the site map, newletters, etc links) was slid WAY over to the right and I had to scroll to see it. Very odd.

Also, I couldn’t get the “text size” buttons at the top to work at all on the home page. On some pages (”beliefs”, for example) they work great. On other pages (like “Women’s Resources”) they work a tiny bit. On the front page, they don’t work at all. Even on the pages where they work it only increases the font by a smidge. I love that they have them there, but they need to work more consistently.

In the large graphic in the center of the page was a link to the “visitor center”. That seemed like a good idea, so I gave it a click. The resulting pages were a great introduction to the church, though they were all buried in Flash. I don’t like being surprised by sound either, so the guy talking caught me by surprise. However, I though it was very well done and offered a GREAT personal touch. Once I was done in there I decided to head back to the main site, but a link wasn’t very evident. Maybe put one in the footer?

I eventually found a link in the “church life” section. I noticed that most of the links on the page used “click here” as their anchor text. This is bad form, both for search engine optimization and (to a lesser degree) user experience. I think that page could be make a bit cleaner by simply doing something like:

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

Thank you…blah blah..here are a few links to our main website that you might find helpful:

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

From there, I headed out the the Women’s Resources. As with the rest of the site, the look was clean and the navigation was simple. I like the “email to a friend” and “print this page” links as well. One odd thing I noticed was that the Women’s Resources page used an ugly URL (index.php?id=391), but the “print this page” for that page was a nicely formatted URL (print/fellowship/womens-ministries). Changing the the links of the main pages would help a lot in the search engines. Using mod_rewrite (which may be how you create the print pages) would keep things fairly simple.

I would also suggest tweaking the title tags of your pages. They’re already far better than 99% of church sites out there, could be improved a bit. My thought for churches is that the title tag should be something like “church name - church location - page name”. In the case of your Women’s page, it would go from:

Stonebriar.org: Women’s Ministries Home

to

Stonebriar Community Church - Frisco, Texas - Women’s Ministries Home

(I tend to use dashes instead of colons, but not for any good reason — either should be fine)

While I really like the three column look of the interior pages, I think more thought needs to be put into the content of the left-most column. It looks great when there are other pages to link to. However, I’ve found a lot of pages just have that area blank. You could either try to detect that dynamically and put alternate information there when there are no links, or put some extra info below the links that would fill it’s place when there aren’t any there.

There are a few places where I found an older site design, although this may be a known part of the new site changeover. One in particular is the “newsletters” section. Being that it’s linked from the front page, it probably needs to be updated as soon as possible.

Nice job with the staff section. I like to be able to see an overview of the staff and then drill down for more information about each staff member. I’d change their URLs if you can (a sample one - “http://www.stonebriar.org/staff/?no_cache=1&tx_xdsstaff_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=23&cHash=317a827ca4″), and get their name into the title tag on their own pages, but overall it’s well done.

I noticed that you have a dedicated page for Vacation Bible School. We added that as well a while ago, in the hopes to rank higher in Google when people look for VBS in our area. However, your VBS page is quite out of day (inviting me to register for VBS held in mid-June, 2006).

Conclusion

All in all, it’s a very well done site. Overall organization of a site this large can be challenging, but they’ve done a great job of sorting their pages out in a logical way. They keep the search box at the top of every page and a “contact us” link at the bottom of every page, along with the address and phone number for the church.

The site is functional in a nice variety of browsers. More importantly, it remains functional even when Java/JS is disabled. Many sites break once you take that away from them.

There are a quite a few small things that can be changed in order to help the site rank better in the search engines. Making those changes will likely result in a good boost in traffic in the next 3-6 months.

Have other thoughts about this site? Leave them in the comments below.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ma.gnolia
  • BlinkList
  • Fleck
  • Furl
  • Live
  • Propeller
  • Spurl
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Simpy
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  1. 3 Responses to “Site review: Stonebriar Community Church”

  2. Thanks for the review, it was very helpful. We are in the middle of a complete overhaul of our site (it is three years old), so we will be sure and take a hard look at the things you point out.

    Some responses:
    I am not seeing the IE nav problem you are seeing, but the text resize thing is obviously not working. It worked when we implemented it, but some tweaks must have interfered.

    The link from the main image on our home page actually takes you to a second site, our welcome site. You can find it at http://experiencestonebriar.org The idea with that site was to provide a place we could point people who are not members/attendees of our church to get familiar with Stonebriar. So on mail pieces, we would include that URL instead of our main site. At the time, this was because we had more visitors than we could handle (we literally had 3-400 new adults every week), so attracting folks from search engines was not a priority (thus the use of flash). So there is some history for you. I agree that the lack of a prominent link back to our main site was an egregious error. At the time we thought it was a good idea.

    As for mod_rewrite, we do have human readable urls, but the old urls still work also. The experience site was linking to the old URL and once you have linked in the CMS dynamically keeps generating the messy URLs.

    Your suggestion for title tags is solid, though I would move the last part to the front, as I read recently presenting different content in that area for every page is classic SEO… though you obviously still want the other information you suggested. Dashes are nice too, I agree.

    Your comment about the newsletter site being old is quite funny, actually. It is the same design, just a different color and different front-end coding. We used tables and other font designation methods because it is the only way to get all email clients to receive the mail. Now, if you are referring to the newsletter archive page, that is being generated dynamically and we never went back to style it. Looks horrible.

    The staff section is being generated dynamically and the variables are put into the URL. We have not yet figured out how to rewrite those urls unfortunately.

    Our content creators are supposed to use the function in our CMS that takes content offline on certain dates. The VBS page you found should have been offline after the event. I am sure there are places all over our 400+ pages that are like that. Tough call in deciding if you unleash your ministries to contribute content or if you hold the reigns tight and play the gatekeeper. We have decided to let open the flood gates and deal with the problems as they come up, but we need a better method for finding outdated content. Some discussion has been brought up about putting a “Find a problem with this page?” link that would allow surfers to report the problem.

    Thanks for the Kudos as well! The site was a great learning opportunity for us and our new site coming out in April should not repeat these mistakes (though we will have others).

    Oh, one other thing we created that I think more churches should try to do is our equivalent of AOL Keywords. For instance, type “Mission India” or “missionindia” into our search engine and you are taken straight away to http://www.stonebriar.org/expression/missions/mission-india/ . However, if you type “india” you are presented search results. Any time there is a one for one match between a search term and page/section then we create a reference that takes them there. This also allows us to have print pieces which reference “Stonebriar.org “Keyword: Giving”, etc.

    Thanks again for the review!

    By Jason Reynolds on Jan 19, 2007

  3. I thought maybe the IE7 thing was just a glitch on my work PC, but it’s doing the same thing to me at home.

    Overall, I live the experiencestonebriar site, and I agree with your thoughts behind it. I was simply trying to be as critical as possible.

    I tend to put the church name first so that it’ll show up easier in user’s toolbar and bookmarks. In both of those cases, you often get 20 characters followed by “…”. If you have “Vacation Bible Schoo…” in your bookmarks, you have no idea where it’s from. On the other hand, the text at the beginning is thought to have more SEO weight, so doing it in the order that you suggest certainly could be the way to go.

    I can relate to your problems with old content. We have a similar system set-up with our site, but I’m sure you can find outdated content somewhere. That was more of a “here’s an old page to fix” comment, rather than pointing out an overall flaw. Come to think of it, I don’t recall seeing ANY other outdated info. The “find a problem with this page” could be good, especially since you already have the email/print buttons on every page.

    The keyword idea is great! I was very proud of the search engine on our church site until you mentioned that - now I need to go fix it! :)

    By Mickey on Jan 19, 2007

  4. Mickey, have you looked at us lately? We are in much better shape. Would love to get your comments on the new site.

    By Jason Reynolds on Jul 31, 2007

Post a Comment