Agree with Rob and Andrea that the pages serve a purpose. My reason for filing the original bug was simply that during translation into Norwegian, I saw several pages were outdated, talking about MSO 2003 EOL etc.
Instead of discussing details of wording here, why don’t someone who cares for the /why/ pages volunteer to take a stab at updating outdated stuff and then let people comment on the result. -- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > 10. jan. 2016 kl. 19.17 skrev Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com>: > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: >> I am +1 for also looking at the why_new_computers page as Jan suggests. >> >> Telling people that AOO is free is not the issue. >> >> Where it is an advantage is a matter for users to decide. We should let >> them judge for themselves. >> > > I think you are missing the point of this page and the other "why" > pages. These are intended as landing pages for those arriving via > search engine queries looking for these very benefits. We get around > 20K referrals/month via Google, for example, to these pages. > > Ask yourself, how else would someone that does not even know the name > "OpenOffice" find us if they were looking for an application that > reads ODF, or a free replacement to Microsoft Office (of whatever > version), or an office suite that is interoperable on multiple > platforms, or which supports an ISO standard file format? > > Note that this is a significant issue. When I last did a survey of > this (2014), 61% of U.S. internet users had not heard of the name > "OpenOffice". > (http://www.robweir.com/blog/2014/10/the-power-of-brand-and-the-power-of-product-redux.html) > If people don't know your name then you need to have landing pages > that speak to their concerns, to the problem they are trying to solve, > to the keywords that they are using when searching the web for the > kind of thing that OpenOffice could be a good fit for. To do > otherwise is to beg to be invisible to them. > > So in that sense, the users have judged for themselves, and expressed > their interest via their search query and have ended up on that > particular page. > > It should be obvious that connecting users seeking a free replacement > to Microsoft Office to our website will require a page that uses the > word "free" and "Microsoft Office." That is just how search engines > work. > > I'd recommend updating the pages (and the many translated versions of > them) to increase relevancy, but continue to use them for their > intended purposes. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > >> Our blanket claims are not helpful and come off like commercial puffery. >> >> I do maintain that it is an opportunity to be able to install AOO for free >> and determine whether their needs are satisfied by using AOO for all or much >> of their document needs or not. >> >> I would suggest that flexibility and leave financial, cost of >> operation/adoption, and interoperability determinations to users themselves. >> They will presumably know what is most important to them. >> >> Since Office 2007 is also no longer of interest to those who do not have it >> already, I agree that there is not much point in making any observations >> about Office 2007 either. >> >> >> - Dennis >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 14:05 >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Updating the WHY section of www.openoffice.org >>> >>> Jan Høydahl wrote: >>>> Yes, remove the Office 2003 EOL page >>> >>> That page was written to have a SEO-friendly resource for people who >>> were looking for options to upgrade from Office 2003 back at the time. >>> It can probably be retired since it served its purpose. >>> >>>> But also consider rephrasing these two: >>>> >>>> * http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_new_computers.html >>>> You are not required to spend $100, $200 or more for a copy of >>> Microsoft Office >>> >>> This one can stay. What's wrong with it? We shouldn't be ashamed of >>> telling people that OpenOffice is free and that this is an advantage. >>> >>>> * http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_easy.html: >>>> Studies have proved it is easier (and cheaper) to move to >>> OpenOffice from Microsoft Office than it is to upgrade to Microsoft's >>> Office 2007. >>> >>> Yes, this should refer to the past. "Studies that compared upgrade >>> options for Microsoft Office 2003 proved that it was easier (and >>> cheaper) to move to OpenOffice from Microsoft Office than it is to >>> upgrade to Microsoft's Office 2007." >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
