Skip to main content

Five steps to a good author's website

Everyone seems certain that it's a good thing for an author to have a website these days - but what makes the difference between the kind of site that delivers value and a site that's a waste of web space or full of trash?

#1 - Keep up to date. It seems obvious, but it's so easy to let it drift. A good example of what not to do is John Gribbin's page - it says it's in hibernation, that he's too busy to update it. That's not a great message for readers. But equally it can be just that little detail. As well as checking the obvious spots like the home page, it's a good idea to go through the whole thing occasionally. You can make it less of a problem by trying not to make statements like 'my latest book X' anywhere other than the home page. Then, when you've got book Y out, the page doesn't sneakily go out of date.

#2 - Give them some news. Make sure your home page includes your latest book and some bits of news that change quite regularly. On my own site, I've a news section with just two headlines. Keep it short and sharp, not piles of text. They can always click through to find out more. If you've written more than one book, make sure there are details of all of them. And include links to buy them from an online store - this isn't being pushy, it's giving people the chance to buy, if they want to.

#3 - Tell them something about yourself. I've seen author sites that are great on the book, but just don't give anything about the author. You may feel that it's showing off to include photos of yourself or your biography - but readers can be genuinely interested. If there's nothing there, they will feel less connection with you. And that means less interest in your next book. Take a look at Amanda Lees' neat information page. As well as a biography and my blog, on my 'Meet Brian' page I've included a little interview. Get a friend to ask you some questions (it can be by email if you don't fancy doing this face to face) and think up some answers. It all adds to the richness of the page. Lots of people won't read it, but you don't want your site to look thin and lacking content.

#4 - Include your blog. This is a quick way to make sure your site has up-to-date information. You could, like M. G. Harris, make your author site an enhanced blog. What, you don't blog? Consider it. It's a low effort way to keep a flow of communication with your readers.

#5 - Make it interactive. Received wisdom has it that this is the way to get people involved. At the most basic you can have a mechanism for getting in touch, a way that visitors can email. At the other extreme, you could set up a discussion forum for your fans. This is only likely to be worthwhile if you are already reasonably popular, or aiming at an audience where this works particularly well, like the youth audience. It means a lot of work, if you want to monitor it and avoid nasty material appearing on your site. You may, like this site for Michelle Paver, like to split the interactivity off into a site dedicated to your books. For many authors, it may realistically be a waste of time. The point of having a discussion forum is that it will keep bringing people back - but most author sites are one-time visits, and no amount of interactivity will make people return.

#6 - (Bonus) make it look as attractive as you can. We can't all be designers, but if you are going to bother with a website, make it look inviting. Otherwise, what's the point?

Comments

  1. Thanks for this. I've been engaged in an argument with myself about whether I should change my update to something whizzy. It works for what it is, but I was thinking of spending money and making it more hi-tech. But people have said that as long as you have a blog which you link to, you need only see the website as a business card of sorts, and that it doesn't need flags and whistles. I still can't decide what to do, but your post is really helpful, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post, Brian. I wonder if you'd rate my own site?
    http://www.chiswick.demon.co.uk/
    I've tried to keep it as simple as possible. A biography page was a victim of my last redesign - I thought it twee and self-indulgent. Following your recommendation I might think again. Perhaps you might interview me??? Seriously???

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sue - it's certainly not essential to have everything - as you say, if you've got a regularly updated blog (and can access that from your web page), that does a lot. But I do think it's helpful as a minimum to have a bit about your book(s), including reviews and a way to buy them, and a bit about you.

    Henry - I love the impact of your home page, but I would like to see something more than just the books. I really don't think a biography is self-indulgent. If I want information about someone, the first place I will look is their website.

    A few specifics: the title of the site of confusing. It doesn't seem to be about chiswick. The content of the book pages is good, but I wasn't sure why everything was crammed over on the right hand side.

    I personally don't like dark backgrounds on websites. Something like Amanda Lees' (in the main post) works because it's black and really uses that, but blue doesn't work for me.

    I'd like to see a more visible structure to the site (clearer navigation).

    I'll email you some questions for an interview!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the advice, Brian - and I look forward to those questions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is some useful information, and I know it was written long ago, but I wonder if there's a more central place where authors discuss and critique their websites... I'm always looking to make mine work for me as efficiently as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That would be a great idea. There are plenty of writers forums, where I guess such things can be discussed, but they don't really seem the place to critique each others sites...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope