Crafting an awards program is only the beginning; the real challenge lies in the meticulous evaluation of submissions. This process involves a detailed comparison of each applicant's website against the established criteria to determine their eligibility for recognition. It's a task that requires a keen eye and a commitment to fairness, ensuring that only the most deserving sites earn the accolade.
When you've successfully launched an awards program and the applications start rolling in, it's time to roll up your sleeves and dive into the evaluation process. This phase is crucial—it's where you sift through the contenders to identify the gems that truly deserve recognition.
The cornerstone of any awards program is its criteria. These benchmarks must be precise, transparent, and accessible to all potential applicants. For instance, a typical set of criteria might include:
Allocating a few hours each week, judges should systematically visit each site, assessing it against the program's criteria. It's essential to determine whether a site must meet all or just a majority of the criteria to qualify for an award.
When evaluating a site, it's important to discern whether any shortcomings are within the webmaster's control. For example, if a site is slow to load due to excessive graphics, it may not pass muster. However, if the server speed is to blame, the site may still be in the running.
The criteria should be applied as they were listed at the time of submission. If a site features a JavaScript menu and it's not against the rules, it cannot be disqualified for that reason alone. However, criteria can be updated for future submissions to reflect any new preferences or standards.
Sometimes, a site may meet all the technical criteria but still be objectionable on moral or ethical grounds. In such cases, it's possible to revise the criteria for future applicants to exclude sites that promote content you find objectionable.
It's a matter of debate whether to provide feedback to applicants who don't win. However, many experts advise against sending critical comments, as the criteria should make it clear why a site did not qualify. Unsolicited criticism can be disheartening and unproductive for webmasters.
An awards program is essentially a contract between the organizer and the applicants. It's imperative to maintain ethical standards throughout the judging process. This means applying the criteria fairly and consistently to all submissions.
Winning an award can significantly boost a webmaster's morale and credibility. According to a survey by Clutch, 62% of small businesses believe that awards are important for establishing credibility on their websites. This underscores the responsibility of award program organizers to conduct their evaluations with integrity and respect.
As the internet evolves, so too must the criteria for awards programs. It's important to stay informed about the latest web design trends and technologies to ensure that the criteria remain relevant and challenging. For example, with the increasing importance of mobile responsiveness, award programs now often include mobile compatibility as a key criterion.
Running an awards program is a complex task that goes beyond the initial setup. It involves a continuous commitment to fairness, transparency, and ethical judgment. By adhering to these principles, award programs can maintain their integrity and continue to celebrate excellence in web design and development.
Google And Duplicate Content
I've been ... the ... about Google and mirrored ... for some time. It is "common ... that Google ... page rank when it ... that content is ... ...
The Customer Is King
I'm sure you've all heard the ... "the customer is king". Some ... live by this rule - and those tend to do very well. Others say the words but, well, they're just words. These ...
Examples of Disaster Recovery
One of my first tasks when I was hired ten years ago was ... the creation of a disaster recovery site for ... computer systems. I had already had some ... ... and
