What are these Fields?
Hey guys,
I thought I had it all worked out, but man these input fields keep catching me out. I think I understand when/where each is used, so I spend up to a couple of hours sometimes writing & spinning content for them only to find out that I got it all wrong! I've been trying to figure it out by toggling engine types on and off, but clearly that's not enough.
It also seems that some fields get used in multiple different places.
For example: "About Yourself" - some say it's used as the article's bio, but by checking the article's submitted it doesn't always seem to be that way. Description_250 and Description_450, well that beats me! I thought they were article summaries, but then I notice that there's already an "Article Summary" field (which by the way doesn't tell you how long it should be), yet they're enabled for article directories, Web 2.0, Social and others, so where/how are these used in each?
I need to know where/how each field is being used in order to write relevant content for it! It would be VERY helpful if either the hover-tip
for each field clearly explained where/when/how each input field is
used, or the field's titles better implied where they are used, or
something!
I thought I had it all worked out, but man these input fields keep catching me out. I think I understand when/where each is used, so I spend up to a couple of hours sometimes writing & spinning content for them only to find out that I got it all wrong! I've been trying to figure it out by toggling engine types on and off, but clearly that's not enough.
It also seems that some fields get used in multiple different places.
For example: "About Yourself" - some say it's used as the article's bio, but by checking the article's submitted it doesn't always seem to be that way. Description_250 and Description_450, well that beats me! I thought they were article summaries, but then I notice that there's already an "Article Summary" field (which by the way doesn't tell you how long it should be), yet they're enabled for article directories, Web 2.0, Social and others, so where/how are these used in each?
I need to know where/how each field is being used in order to write relevant content for it! It would be VERY helpful if either the hover-tip
for each field clearly explained where/when/how each input field is
used, or the field's titles better implied where they are used, or
something!
Comments
If descriptions are for directories, why are they also required for article submissions, and what are they used for in the case of article submissions?
I have a project that does not have Directory as an engine type checked at all yet these 2 fields are required, so in what context are they used for:
Article (description 250)
Social Network (description 450)
Social Bookmark (description 250 & description 450)
Also, what is "About Yourself" used for in Document Sharing? And in Forum? The profile I assume? If so, since it's also used as the bio for articles and as the profile for Forums, I'd have to split articles and profile link creation into separate projects since I'd write completely different things for each...
That's why I'm suggesting that the hover-tips explain where/how each field is used.
Ozz, sorry but that's simply not enough information. "About yourself" is used elsewhere and not just for profiles, and "mostly" used here or there is not good enough when I'm spending hours trying to write the correct type of content for the correct type of submissions! So I appreciate Sven adding the tooltips.
As with any paid-for software, in my honest opinion one should not have to spend hours trying to figure out what fields do what due to possible lack of documentation or intuitiveness, for example. With SER I've tried to figure it out on my own but I'm still confused so I've approached what I understand to be the correct channel to ask a question which I thought was quite simple.
This issue is actually not a big deal at all, but it still requires clarification in my opinion, and that's all I'm asking for.
Let me see if I can break down a couple of my questions more clearly:
Article
- Description 250 is required. What is it used for? Is THIS the bio (the place where you place content with links back to your page, typically at the bottom of the article), or is "About yourself" the bio?
- According to Santos, "About Yourself" is used as the bio for articles,
- If "About Yourself" is not the bio, then what IS used as the article bio (see question 1)?
4. Social Network - "About Yourself" is used for profiles and article fields for blog posts. So what then is description 450 used for?which is why I thought that field was in articles. He's said it more
than once in a number of forums including WF. If it's not used as the bio, then what is "About Yourself" used for in ARTICLES?
5. Social Bookmark - what is description 250 and description 450 used for? Are they both website descriptions just different lengths or is one the description and the other something else or...?
If Sven's already addressing these in the next update by updating the field tooltips then that's great and I'll wait patiently.
I have had exactly the same problem as you have detailed. I have a great big table in excel breaking down all the platforms, fields used etc to try and work out which is reused in other types so I can write one spun piece and add it into each.
I totally agree with everything you say. A bookmark project has description 250 and 450. Most articles are only just over 450 words (I stick to just over 500) and I have never seen a bookmark that is the size of an article. I just put the content from 250 into 450 and ignore the warning it is not long enough. Doing a good job of spinning 450 words takes a long time and I cannot see any explanation or requirement for it. If there is a good reason, it should be made clear.
If Sven is going to add some clarity to tool tips, that would be good for me too and I am sure to the hundreds of new users in the future.
Your post just serves to support my point: it seems that you're under the impressions that description_250 and description_450 requires 250 words and 450 words respectively. In fact because I noticed the calculation which happens below when you paste content into those fields, I figured out that it's characters, not words, that it's referring to (not confirmed, but I'm inputting those fields on this basis).
It just proves that many users don't know exactly what field requires what info and where that info is used...
Well that makes far more sense for it to be 250 or 450 characters, far more in keeping with a bookmark, I think that makes the point that it is not clear what should be going where. In hindsight, it makes sense but it would not have occurred to me it was characters as virtually every box you ever complete that has a limit will tell you how many words.
I have to say, I love GSA, it is generally better than anything else I have used and the support is great. I also use ultimate demon and have to say that while GSA is easier to use and far better value than UD, UD is very, very user friendly when it comes to setting up projects and as well as the 300 page manual that explains every field and process in the software, you generally don't need to reference it because everything is very clearly labeled and explained.
After several months of using GSA, I have now worked a lot of it out and going through this forum is answering a lot of the remaining questions in my head but I do think a lot of the interface could be made a bit bigger, clearer and easier to understand.
Firstly, let me make clear that I'm not bashing SER in any way - it's a fantastic tool, however I am trying to make the overall user experience better for all of us. I'm a software developer myself so I totally get it, but it's important that we "switch hats" to being the "user" in this case. When you do, you'll realise that there is a lack of intuitiveness / documentation with regards to how each engine uses certain (not all) SER fields, especially the generic-looking description fields and to some degree the "About Yourself" field can be a touch confusing from time to time.
Ozz you've sort of made my point for me - each engine is different and there are literally hundreds of them. What you're suggesting is that each and every client should create an account at each and every engine in each category which has a field they're unsure about and then open each engine's script and try to figure out which field belongs where? Certainly not everyone can understand even those (heck they may not even know where they are or how to open them), and I know I certainly don't have a day or more to figure all that out (which is why I bought the software in the first place).
Based on your post it's clear to me that each engine script knows exactly what its using and where. The only missing link is telling the user this information! Let's not forget that this software is built to serve the user - how does it serve me (in the context of this conversation) if I don't even know what info is being used where and when and I'm left to my own devices to spend potentially hours figuring it out for myself? And what about those who simply don't have the mindset to do it? You don't have to know about files or code to be great at SEO, and this is an SEO tool designed for people doing SEO, not a developer's tool designed for coders or software testers.
All that needs doing IMHO is to update the tooltip of each engine to indicate which fields are being used and for what purpose, which is exactly what I asked for and what Sven's offered to do in the next release. If this gets done at production level then we all benefit from not having to spend potemtially hours doing it over and over again with each new engine rollout, nevermind the fact that I honestly believe that this exercise may be beyond a lot of people's capabilities.
It should not be an either/or situation. A program should do what it is intended to do and the user should know how to use it. Unfortunately, the more complex the program, the greater the need for understanding it (to some level). And SER is a VERY COMPLEX program, so understanding how it works is important.
Let me use Ozz's car example to defend Ruggero's side. Would you give your car to your 16 year old child with no training and little instructions and tell them "have at it"? If they need help, they can "try it themselves and see what it does"? I don't think so.
It is easy to see that those involved in this discussion are the "power" users - that understand both sides of the discussion. But most people will look at those scripts and say "what the heck is that"? Sven has done a marvelous job of making a very powerful program usable by those people as well as tweekable for those that want to. It's just that it would be nice to know where & how to tweek - an owner's manual (to use the car example).
Organized documentation (and training) can GREATLY REDUCE the demand of keeping up with all the questions by answering them BEFORE they happen. If this is not done, I fear that eventually, most of Sven's (and other gracious users like Ozz) time will be eaten up by answering (often repeated) questions. When that happens, then the frequent updates that we have seen so far will probably take a back seat.
One thing that might be cool would be some kind of codex or GSA SER wiki. That way the community could build it up and add to over time.
Just an idea ...
I like your suggestion of a wiki (I think a codex would be not user friendly enough for the less technical). I definitely think it is something that should be seriously considered. Sure, it is going to take some effort. But, I think the long-term value would be great for the users and would ultimately take a big burden off those that are trying to support it (whether they be "staff" or just gracious members of the user community).
I think it is fairly certain to say the popularity of SER is only going to increase. If question/support is an "issue" now, it is only going to become more of one. To ignore this would not be wise for the long term.
Then again, setting it up so that only paid customers could have access would take time and effort on Sven's part.
I think if we can all pool together and hire some scientists, we can clone Sven a few times and really take things to the next level.
I really don't want to have a dummy proof ultra-easy super nuke in the hands of everyone who is able to pay this low price and don't want even spend a little time to customize the stuff to the own needs.
Don't ask always what SER can do for you, ask what you can do for SER (take a look at the CONTRIBUTIONS of Ozz, S4nt0s and others). What else SEO tool has such regular updates and feature additions.. We should keep Sven at a good mood because he spend a lot of time (and not mainly to make big money) to provide us an impressive tool.
EDIT: +1 for your last statements S4nt0s.. And it forced me to laught
.. btw, can we remove those huge tooltips for what the fields are in the next release, i rather like to see the fields to fill then the tooltips for what those are
for the paid area i dont think its a big deal, should be even doable with most forums software, every paid user has a GSA license anyways, i dont think its a big deal to link it to a account,
i understand how important it is for a program to have a good support, but then on the other hand taking care of support issues is a huge time stealer for coding, so i kinda like the payed users pro guides
.. btw, can we remove those huge tooltips for what the fields are in the next release, i rather like to see the fields to fill then the tooltips for what those are
It shouldn't be that hard to move the mouse away.
So to be clear: I'm not asking for documentation! Ozz I agree with you the forum and videos are enough to get off the ground.
What I am asking for is more clear explanations of the input fields (specficially the ambiguous ones, like [Description XXX]) and where/how they're used! It's funny that after all this debating everyone agrees in the end that the tooltips are great/useful since that all I was asking for! Okay, well 90%. The only thing missing is how (i.e. for what) the fields is used for in specific engines.
Based on this debate I gather that we all agree that there's got to be a balance between docs and usability/function. So we're all on the same page, I prefer (b) over (a) any day of the week and twice on Sundays. However, even you Ozz conceded that, "I can agree with you that some forms like [Description XXX] are not
documented very well in the manual or tooltip. The description field
confuses many and some examples how to use them would be nice." You go on to say,"But most of those fields and settings are documented good enough in the tooltips or videos of S4ntos."
Well, with those 2 statements you and I are actually basically saying the same thing! I'm not asking for a 300 page manual. I agree that what's supplied is enough to "get started", and fields which are self-explanatory and unambiguous need no further input and I would go so far as to saying that telling someone in the tooltip that "Video Title" is, well, the Video Title would be totally ridiculous!
All I'm trying to say is that when certain ambiguous fields are being used it would be nice to know where/how they're being used, and since the engine scripts already know this information surely it's not a complicated thing to add this information to the tooltips for each engine as and when they get developed.
I know that GSA is priced like a gift and may as well be a giveaway! And I'm grateful! Nonetheless it's a paid-for product - customers should not be penalised because of the price point they did not set, and having an intuitive UI means less questions being asked, less documentation required, and a better user experience for everyone, period.
To put it another way, I would pay more for a more intuitive UI if I were given the option; one should not "punish" clients for the price point that was not set by them if that's the argument.