For starters, there’s Digg. I know there are a lot of people who would totally get my back on this one. There have been way too many times where I couldn’t figure out where to stick an article. It’s as if the team who originally thought of the basic categories that site submissions could fall into had done it on a rush basis, and never went back to fix it. Here’s a screenshot of Digg’s category selection:

I can understand the “bucket list” on the left, but it’s some of the sub-categories that are beyond all human reasoning. Where do I submit an article about blogging? Do I have to shoe-horn it into “Technology/Industry News,” where articles about smartphones and hydrogen cars go? How about an article about SEO or one about Marketing, does that also have to get crammed into “Technology/Industry News?” How about law – do I have to stick that in “Business & Finance?” Futhermore, why didn’t they just create two separate categories for “Business” and for “Finance?” They are entirely separate fields. Would something related to web or graphic design have to get stuck into “Arts & Culture?” I sure as hell wouldn’t want to put it in there. And, why would that go into the “Lifestyle” bucket, shouldn’t it be in something related to business or technology (or, uhh, ART?)

Digg’s category choices aren’t entirely awful, they just need more options and a lot more refining. There’s something much, much worse.

Facebook Page‘s categories really take the cake. You start off with three broad buckets: “Local,” “Brand, Product or Organization” and “Artist, Band or Public Figure.”

There are countless times where not only could I not find a single category to append a Facebook Page to, but the worst part is what happens after you make a decision. Your page is pre-set with hard coded fields that you can’t change. So, if you want to make a page to connect with people of your ethnic background, nationality or country, you’re out of luck: there isn’t a single category that applies to it. You’d have to go with something like “Club” within the “Local” bucket. But if you do, you’d realize that “Club” really stands for “night club,” not for “online club” or something like “hunting club,” and your hard coded forms will ask you about parking and hours. I can’t stand how “Marketing,” “Sales” or “Advertising” aren’t even an option under any of the buckets. I mean, come on Facebook – those are HUGE categories, and a lot of people in those industries are creating Facebook pages!

By far, the worst part about creating a Facebook page are those mind-numbingly ridiculous pre-set fields it forces on to your page. You never know what you’re going to get, either – the online club you’ve created might have the misfortune of getting a “Parking” or “Store Hours” field, or something else completely random that you won’t be able to remove. Of course, you could simply not type anything in these fields, and they won’t show up. However, that will leave you with a completely blank “Info” page, which will make your Facebook Page look  incomplete and un-engaging. At least give every single page a generic “Description” box, so that people can type in a description for their page. You could always type it in one of the worthless fields, which will wind up looking like “Parking: Welcome to our Fan Page about Italian-Americans…”

If you’re creating a site that will let users select categories to drop their submissions into, or set their registered pages or accounts to – be sure you have a wide array of choices for them. The logical way to do this is to look at well-established web directories that have been around for years: Yahoo Directory, Google and DMOZ.org. My personal favorite is the directory choice list on Lensroll.com – it has so many options, and they’re all important. All of these services have well-done category selections that all of these big networking sites should have mimicked.

By having decent categories, you’re catering to all different kinds of niches, as well as helping your on and off-site optimization, too.

Take for example eMarketer.com. This is one major organization in the world of internet marketing. Surely you’ve heard of them if you’re in the field. eMarketer is an authority figure that is famous for providing statistical data (with their very well known “striking red” bar charts) and case studies of current trends in internet marketing. This is no small fry. However, their RSS feeds look like total crap, and it’s a big disappointment. Rather than getting the full story, they “tease” you with a vague statement, and provide a link to the full article. eMarketer isn’t the only one guilty of this: marketing strategy giant ClickZ does it, as well. Come on, guys!!

While this sort of thing might have made sense in the 90s, the whole face of how the web works is all about quickness and ease of use. Making me click through to your site does nothing more than annoy me. Even if it’s a subject I’m interested in, I probably won’t bother with the effort. Other people might simply delete the RSS feed and get their information elsewhere (in this case, eMarketer is cross-referenced in many other internet marketing news sources as an authoritative reference).

Why Abridging RSS Sucks

Before you bash the idea of displaying a full RSS feed, think of it this way: have you ever flagged/starred or shared a post from an RSS feed in Microsoft Outlook or whatever else you’ve used? Of course you have. When you did, you advertised that site for that particular webmaster. You may have even given him/her a new regular visitor, of whom will advocate that site to their friends. It just keeps mushrooming. This is the value in presenting proper RSS feeds – they’re invaluable internet marketing tools! Those who use them will appreciate them a whole lot more when they’re not “teasers.”

Want a quick and easy way to set up your RSS feeds in their full format? Simply convert your existing RSS over to Feedburner. It’s a solid program, and it even lets you run AdSense ads and social bookmarking links directly in your RSS feeds…nice!

Chalk this one up to usability…or user courtesy!