: )

: )

Like I said… this is “my” web site… so I’m happy to help.

Really.

I’ve designed web apps since the Mosaic browser, and I love doing it… if you ever need a (free) second pair of eyes, ping me. My e-mail address is also my MSN account and my AIM handle.

: )

Thanks for your great suggestions. This morning, we fixed the scriptures URL so that you can access the scriptures with scriptures.lds.org or lds.org/scriptures.

We know many of the URLs and error pages are bad (usually not helpful and sometimes misleading), and we’re working to correct them. We have a very limited staff and LOTS of issues to address. These are on our list to fix. Thanks for your patience. Your suggestions are helpful.

A few comments about the URLs in the Scriptures area:

Your base URL is “scriptures.lds.org”… which is sensible. But when I type in “lds.org/scriptures” — something equally sensible, I get an error: “The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it”. I’ll get to the error in a moment. But first, I would suggest that “subdomain_x.domain.tld/” and “domain.tld/directory_x/” are fundementally equivelant, and that the latter (not the former) is by far the most common (outside of acedemia). Might I suggest that there be some server magic to equate the two?

Okay… now, on to the error: “The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it” … first-off: an error served-up by itself is a dead-end. It’s confusing to novice users, and provides no value beyond the hand-slap. An error, though, that serves-up suggestions (like a couple of links that _might_ be the right ones), or offers site map (though, with this sprawling realestate, a section map may be more useful), or even a search widget are by-and-away superior. Finally, this error message (like so much of what’s written on the site) smacks of lawyerly intervention. * wrinkles nose * A better error would be something that doesn’t put the onus on the user — who’s your friend. I would rephrase the error something along these lines: “We’re sorry, but we can’t seem to find what you’re looking for. The item may have been moved, the link you followed may not be correct, or may not be available to the general public.” This, of course, would be followed by something for them to _do_. It’s not enough to _know_. ; )

Oddly enough, while I was testing the site, I came across other errors for (from my perspective) the exact same thing that were vastly improved on the one I describe above…

The URL address was not found.

Suggestions:

• Check the accuracy of your URL address. Example of correct address: http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/1 (Genesis chapter 1).
• Navigate to the relevant location from the home page of the Internet Scriptures. You can access the home page by clicking The Scriptures on the top left of this page.
• Find your desired page by using the search options in the Internet Scriptures.
• See the help pages for more suggestions.

… and there’s a search feature at the top of the page.

This error message only needs a little help:

First-off, “URL address” is redundant… use either “URL” or “address” — or, better yet, don’t be so corporate and say “We’re sorry, but we can’t find what you were looking for.”

Secondly, the suggestions are good (if a little stiffly-worded), but they could be better… they should have [hotlinks] in them, thusly:

• Check the accuracy of the address you provided. (I deleted the example, because it’s not based on the URL I actually typed-in, and could lead to confusion.)

• Navigate to the relevant location from the [Internet Scriptures] section home page. You can access the home page by clicking [The Scriptures] on the top left of this page.

• Find your desired page by using the search options in the [Internet Scriptures], or the search field at the top of this page.

• See our [Help] section for more suggestions.

Moving beyond that page, we dig into the content… and I notice that the paths are nice and orderly: the Old Testament, for example, is “scriptures.lds.org/ot/”. But I’m curious: why is the Book of Ruth “scriptures.lds.org/ruth”? I can see the logic: a user may not know that the book they’re looking for is in the Old or New Testament or the Pearl of Great Price… but the URLs (again) need to be more flexible… and that starts with the arbitrariness of using abbreviations for things.

URLs should be as verbose as needed — and have a nice short-cut, should an obvious one present itself. I’ve already brought-up the equivelancy of “subdomain_x” and “directory_x” … but similar things need to happen in the path as well. If I’m looking for the Book of Ruth, all of the following should get me there:

“/ruth/”
“/ot/ruth/”
“/oldtestament/ruth/”
“/bookofruth/”
“/ot/bookofruth/”
“/oldtestament/ruth/”

I prefer the last one, because it mirrors how I look for things when I’m searching the scriptures… I go to the Old Testament and then I go to Ruth. More over, it’s a URL that would be easy to explain over the phone, should I be sharing it with my mom, for example “Okay, there are no spaces… but here’s the URL: LDS dot ORG slash SCRIPTURES slash OLDTESTAMENT slash RUTH … yes, mom, ‘testament’ is spelled with an ‘a’.” Furthermore, the more verbose and literal URLs are search engine heaven — and the Church has to be better at capturing that space. Wikipedia shouldn’t be the first word on all things mormon.

Anyway, that’s enough this morning.

: )

I’m really excited about the changes, and I hope that my zeal doesn’t come across as whining. I see the Church’s web site as _my_ web site, and it pains me that it’s (currently) too hard to use/navigate/parse to be shared with anyone I know.

( Now, if only ward and stake websites could get a little attention… )

Odd.

In this day and age, I would not have thought to see such a statement. The overwhelming trend in foreward-thinking circles is towards persistent URLs and using server voodoo (or even just a little htaccess hocuspocus) to avoid just such a problem…

In two years will we have to go through this again? When will I be able to count on LDS web site URLs to last? I can count on Wikipedia URLs… which is one of the reasons I choose to link there.

I recognize that you may have ZERO input on this matter, and that this post was a (very kind) heads-up… but if you don’t have any input, maybe you could just pass-along my sincere bewilderment at the condition of _my_ website’s URLs ( transient, krufty, and incomprehensible… “http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.30b4d942d0dda7161b622015f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=927f3c7ff44f2010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0″ what the heck is that!? ).