I assume the Maoris made it a high priority to get rid of the eagles that carried off their members on occassions...

It's a possibility. I should note here that it's really speculation whether the eagles would've attacked a healthy human. They probably wouldn't have had too much fear of us, having developed away from large mammals of any kind, and they'd have been able to do so. We wouldn't have been any bigger than their usual prey, the moas.

Here's where there would've been conflict anyway, though. Maoris hunted moas too, and in fact drove them to extinction - so they killed off the eagles' primary food source. (Plus, if they weren't in a sharing mood, they might have gone after the eagles just to remove the competition for moas.) After that, there wouldn't have been much else to sustain such large birds.

Moas?

Not sure what they are.

CaBil -- think Big Bird and you won't be far off. However, they were herbivores, so were probably pretty placid.

Not sure what they are.

Large flightless birds. Not as big as Madagascar's elephant birds, but the biggest ones were bigger then emus. (Heavier than ostriches too.)

Thanks a lot for your suggestions, CaBil. I really appreciate the thought you put into it, and some of them were really interesting. I'll put them forward at the next possible opportunity.

The only thing glaringly wrong with the "We are a Public media empire" is the word "Empire". I don't think that term would go down so well!

Taking this away from talking directly about my work, which is kind of weirding me out -- Buffstas.org is what I do to get away from thinking about work! (my fault, I know) -- I want to address it in more abstract terms.

The fundamental problem is the very common public conception of a website as an adjunct to what a corporation does.

A lot of people see websites acting as brochures, ads, annual reports, contact lists, and have problems making the mental leap to website-as-distinct-entity (of course they have no problem seeing eBay or Google as a thing in itself, but we've been in existence as traditional broadcasters for 70 years).

If I can give an example, there's a number, the ABN, which Australian businesses are obliged to quote in transactions.

Someone from corporate finance once called us and told us we ought to put the ABN on our front page.

I replied that we wouldn't, as it wasn't appropriate (it's on all kinds of other pages, like the "About The Corporation" page and so on).

They were surprised, partly that someone like me was refusing a request from someone as important as them, and said something like "QANTAS has their ABN on their front page!" to which I replied "Yes. But QANTAS is in the business of flying airplanes, and we are in the business of providing information and entertainment to Australians. QANTAS's website is just an afterthought. Our website is what we do. If you ask me to put that on our front page, will you ask all newsreaders to read it out at the end of the news?"

They thought I was insane, and promptly went over my head.

OK so, if even people inside the organisation haven't made that mental leap to website-as-thing-in-itself, what is it that one needs to do to communicate it to the public?

OK so, if even people inside the organisation haven't made that mental leap to website-as-thing-in-itself, what is it that one needs to do to communicate it to the public?

All I can suggest is bite the bullet and seperate the info/content aspects of the website from the brochure aspect.

As long as they exist under the same roof, so to speak, you will have problems.

Google and Ebay work because their brand was established on the Internet.

Which means you have change from being the ABC website to being a ABC company providing news and other services (that just happens to be a website).

Maybe add an additional front page. With the logo in the center, and going left for corporate information, going right for the news/info stuff. And offering to give people a cookie to make sure that they don't have to do that again.

Also, have you every thought of 'programming' a website?

Website only content, saying to the effect, this week we will feature articles on topic X, and every day at the same time.

Or as the evening news finishes, changing the front page for a half hour afterwards with extended articles based on the news of the night...

The only thing glaringly wrong with the "We are a Public media empire" is the word "Empire". I don't think that term would go down so well!

Absolutely...it wasn't so long ago that we were actually part of someone else's empire. Some people think we still are. (The American one, that is. And lately I'm beginning to suspect they're right.)

Also, I don't think you necessarily need a one-sentence summary of what the ABC does; 99% of your user base will already know that; what's needed is a one-sentence summary of what ABC online does, and the fact that it's a lot more than "loads of info on your favourite shows". Still working on that one...

John, just looking at the front page, the "five second test" tells me it's basically a news portal...is that intentional?

t edit On second thoughts, feel free not to respond if you're sick of talking about work! Sorry to bring it up...feel free to harangue me about the crapness of academia any time...

It continues to be newsy if you click on, like, the Education->Finance/Economics link. The results are subsites for different shows that feature transcripts of things that aired, and sometimes articles.

John - nice site. It's an interesting problem - this is why the BBC (who are in much the same space as you, eh?) defined their web presence as "BBCi" - as in BBC1, 2, 3, 4. It then becomes a serious part of the strategy, a channel in its own right.

Rebecca - you shouldn't have a sitemap because you shouldn't need one - the nav should make the structure of the site obvious on every page. And section titles should be selfexplanatory, so you know where to look.

Cool.