A splash page or no splash page?

[Ursula]

Hello everyone. This is going to be a discussion on website splash pages.

Here's some example splash pages:
http://www.bluchicphotographer.com/
http://www.amymartinphoto.com/
http://www.leahpowell.com/
http://www.deannedunlop.com/

I am currently working on building my new photography website (changing my name) and wanted a couple thoughts. I see lots of nice photographers with splash pages. They typically have a couple graphics, their logo and maybe a "enter full screen or same window" and requirements line. But if I don't have a full screen version is there really a point? I find splash pages kind of a waste of time aswell. My site also looks nice in 800x600 - even though they're not as common anymore.

Currently the ONLY thing that works is the main page but...
http://ursulagraham.com
My splash page would be a link to enter or go to my blog. Along with a "Clients view photos here" link.. that's pretty much it. I'm thinking about not having one.

Is it Trendy? Professional? Thoughts?

Any comments on my current main page are welcome. My boyfriend brings up the fact that maybe have a low bandwidth version. Hmm!

:)

[transcend]

No.

Requiring users to have to click an extra time is ridiculous. Splash /entry pages are pointless, consume bandwidth, cause uses to have to click more and are hallmarks of bad design.

BTW the same color keywords on the front page of your site WILL eventually cause you to be blacklisted and sandboxed by google as well as the other major search engines. You should be relying on proper design (headers, titles etc) and on content keyword saturation to achieve the same effect.

[Ursula]

Thank you! I agree with the extra time wasted. They can be pretty but still fairly pointless. I figure it is a designer's trend, which others just went with.

I did not know that about the keywords! I actually just listed them since I've seen others do that and they say it'll rank you higher. Thank you for letting me know this, fixing it now.

[transcend]

Thank you! I agree with the extra time wasted. They can be pretty but still fairly pointless. I figure it is a designer's trend, which others just went with.

I did not know that about the keywords! I actually just listed them since I've seen others do that and they say it'll rank you higher. Thank you for letting me know this, fixing it now.

You will rank higher for a short while, but once they actually catch it, you'll get sandboxed and removed from the listing. BMW actually tried it about 18 months ago and got sandboxed for it. They were not amused.

Your site looks fine, so I'd eliminate the keywords, and rewrite your copy to saturate it with relevant terms. Then make sure you important points have headings in H1, H2, H3 (things like your name, photography etc). New search engine algorithms key on these, as well as the page title. Much more so than the meta tags even.

[gymell]

I hate splash pages. I never understand why someone would have an additional link to enter the site. If I've come to the site, presumably it's because I want to enter it! Why should there be another link for that?

[dandan]

in most cases i would day no, splash pages are useless and take up time, however if you can get the splash page to do something useful, say show a few of your best images from all categories in an attractive layout, then they can sometimes be useful for giving the client a good first impression of your shooting style. If you decide to use a splash page like this, i would stick links to the different sections of your site, not just an *ENTER* that atleast helps out with the navigation somewhat. (EG; Splash > Wedding photos vs Splash > Home > Wedding Photos).

[Stfalco]

Just my personal preference, which I see others agree with, is to avoid unnecessary clicks to see the stuff they want to see.

Flash bugs the hell outta me, but in photog circles it is the in thing, so I kinda accept it.

The idea is to make it easy for your visitors to get to the content they want, rather than making the sit through stuff they don't want to see. Research I have read (somewhere) says that the average wait time for a website to load is like 4 Secs and is getting shorter.

[Ursula]

Your site looks fine, so I'd eliminate the keywords, and rewrite your copy to saturate it with relevant terms. Then make sure you important points have headings in H1, H2, H3 (things like your name, photography etc). New search engine algorithms key on these, as well as the page title. Much more so than the meta tags even.

This is extremely helpful information for me! You see, my only "marketing" I have is online. So if I get tossed off of search engines... well... let's just say ut oh! Haha.

Yeah I personally don't like flash too much either. I've accepted it in photographer websites, but as a designer myself never understood why they all use flash. It must have started on the designers end. Don't they realise brides are very busy looking for MANY things? All they want are prices and pictures. And just in general when I'm shopping all [b]I]/b] want is prices and pictures!! (For ANYTHING)

I'm on broadband and saw a photographers website that took about 10 minutes to load the flash for me! I was like yikes, I wonder how many possible customers just hit x...

Thank you for the thoughts everyone. :)

[MichelleM]

For an HTML site, a splash page is not necessary. If you have a flash site, then you will need an HTML splash page (if you are unable to add searchable text to your flash site) otherwise your site is invisible to any crawlers.

[transcend]

For an HTML site, a splash page is not necessary. If you have a flash site, then you will need an HTML splash page (if you are unable to add searchable text to your flash site) otherwise your site is invisible to any crawlers.

And this is just one reason why having a flash site is a bad idea.

[rhys]

Splash pages came out, I believe, when frames came out because frames aren't searchable.

[Chandler.]

I am neutral on flash pages, but I think where it says "Weddings v" and "Portraits v" you should ditch the v's. People will see the dropdown menu when they mouse over the word.

[Ursula]

Oh I do agree on the v's. With IE you do not see the v's. For some reason they display on Firefox and I'm unsure why, but I honestly have no idea how to remove them. I did not write the drop down script, lol. :)

Frames and flash do make sense now, to have a splash page. I do agree though, just another good reason to not use flash. :D

[tfire]

Splash pages are annoying, because it takes the user an extra click to get to your site, but worse than that, they're often done in Flash. Try this Google search (http://************/1ugq9) and you'll see that, as far as search engines are concerned, that site doesn't exist. If you're a business, you need to be found.

[penagate]

For an HTML site, a splash page is not necessary. If you have a flash site, then you will need an HTML splash page (if you are unable to add searchable text to your flash site) otherwise your site is invisible to any crawlers.
Depends how you embed the Flash object. Anything inside an <object> element (except <param> tags) is treated as fallback content to be displayed if the object itself is unavailable. So, in theory, you could place your entire page within the <object> element that specifies your Flash presentation, and negate the need for a splash page.


in most cases i would day no, splash pages are useless and take up time, however if you can get the splash page to do something useful, say show a few of your best images from all categories in an attractive layout, then they can sometimes be useful for giving the client a good first impression of your shooting style.
That's what the home page is for.