This is what $3,000 buys...

[swirt]

A nice relaxing to the eye website. And I too, love the rich colors you have chosen in your rooms. The Pic of the front is lovely!
As others have stated, the 1st thing that I saw when looking at the room pictures were the beds. Bed skirts would do the trick on most. We are not trying to be harsh, it is the simple fact that room pictures are THE first selling point to your B&B.
Some of the stock pics look grainy in comparison to your professional shots. If it were my site, I would focus on MY place and maybe views (if there are any) from MY place. IMMHO people can go to a lot of sites to see pics of Boulder, but at least make sure the tags have your B&B name and other keywords. (did not check this, was just a thought)
The Tea page pic (at bottom) is too busy compared to the others. I agree with the post that suggested cropping the pic to just show the shelves full of tea.
I mostly was reviewing the site for the pictures but I noticed as I skimmed the wording, that you sometimes refer to your B&B as The Rose intead of using its full name. This is confusing and is not good SEO.
At least one other poster stated that some pictures were slow to come up and that a header was not clear. Others such as myself had no problems BUT, you do not want any viewers to have a less than perfect visit to your site so I would suggest asking for more clarification from these posters and addressing those matters. If they had a problem you can bet that there are thousands of others that would as well..

The Rose intead of using its full name. This is confusing and is not good SEO.

It is more of a branding confusion issue. It can actually be good for SEO if there are people looking for it as "the Rose". However if nobody would refer to it by that phrase, it is probably better to tighten up the use of the actual name. You wouldn't want guests saying to friends "Oh we stayed at the Rose and it was lovely..." if the B&B can't be found by that name.

 

[Morticia]

Just looking at the 'overall' effect of the website...I love the colors, it is a soothing site. I would put some 'boundaries' on the text tho, it makes it too hard to read when the text goes from screen edge to screen edge. I would also pick a frame of reference when describing things and stick with it. Most of the time you are referring to things in the third person, then all of a sudden switch to addressing the reader. 'The guests' vs 'you'. I'd go with 'you' so the person reading can picture themselves in the garden or in the living room in front of the fire, rather than picturing all the other guests.
Also, at one point you say the 'guests and staff' may use the mediation room. I'd leave out 'staff'. I'd feel uncomfortable using the meditation room if I thought I was interrupting someone who worked there.

 

[Morticia]

Most of the photos seem to be tipping the scale at around 220K which is pretty large, especially if you are throwing several of them on the page. Keeping their dimensions the same they could be compressed a bit more with no noticeable loss of quality. Doing a jpg quality level of 75% will help a lot. Example: I took the first photo on the Blanca room page. It is currently 263K compressing it to 75% quality makes it appear almost the same but got it down to 57K. Comparing the original and compressed side-by-side it is a task to be able to tell the difference.
Regarding the dimensions. The room pics are all sized to 800px wide. Photo size is a real sticky spot right now as there is now the greatest difference in screen size that there has ever been. Compare a budget laptop from only a few years ago (800x600) to a new superwide laptop and the screens are nearly 3x as wide. So putting an 800pix wide image on the smaller screen more than fills it while putting it on the larger screen makes it look nearly empty. However, right now more than half of the web visitors in our niche fall into the screen size less than 1200px wide category. By the time you take away the width of the browser chrome, padding on your website and the fact that most people browse in a window rather than full screen and you end up with a usueable area that is just under 800px wide. So it is probably better to shoot for dimensions less than 800 (I'm fond of 750).

I actually use the full screen for everything except email. That's why it was hard to read the text going all from side to side.

 

[stephanie]

Just looking at the 'overall' effect of the website...I love the colors, it is a soothing site. I would put some 'boundaries' on the text tho, it makes it too hard to read when the text goes from screen edge to screen edge. I would also pick a frame of reference when describing things and stick with it. Most of the time you are referring to things in the third person, then all of a sudden switch to addressing the reader. 'The guests' vs 'you'. I'd go with 'you' so the person reading can picture themselves in the garden or in the living room in front of the fire, rather than picturing all the other guests.
Also, at one point you say the 'guests and staff' may use the mediation room. I'd leave out 'staff'. I'd feel uncomfortable using the meditation room if I thought I was interrupting someone who worked there..

Also, at one point you say the 'guests and staff' may use the mediation room.

Hehe... Sometimes guests and staff NEED mediation. Better known as the PITA Room.

 

[Morticia]

Just looking at the 'overall' effect of the website...I love the colors, it is a soothing site. I would put some 'boundaries' on the text tho, it makes it too hard to read when the text goes from screen edge to screen edge. I would also pick a frame of reference when describing things and stick with it. Most of the time you are referring to things in the third person, then all of a sudden switch to addressing the reader. 'The guests' vs 'you'. I'd go with 'you' so the person reading can picture themselves in the garden or in the living room in front of the fire, rather than picturing all the other guests.
Also, at one point you say the 'guests and staff' may use the mediation room. I'd leave out 'staff'. I'd feel uncomfortable using the meditation room if I thought I was interrupting someone who worked there..

Also, at one point you say the 'guests and staff' may use the mediation room.

Hehe... Sometimes guests and staff NEED mediation. Better known as the PITA Room.
.

Oops. Not having a good day here. I don't need mediation, I could use meditation, tho.

 

[stephanie]

A note about the navigation.
You have a different navigation bar at the top and bottom of each page, and the top navigation is sometimes inconsistent on different pages of the site, like the homepage. I know you're still working on it, so maybe I'm jumping the gun with this comment, but it's one of my pet peeves about websites--once I get to know a navigation bar, I like for it to be consistent throughout the site so I can quickly get back to the page I want after navigating to another, without too much thought. For instance, you have the link to "Boulder" at the top of the page, but "Location" at the bottom, which are similar in content, but different pages. If I had clicked on "Location" once, but am now looking at the nav bar at the top of the page, I can't figure out how to get back there without finding it at the bottom of the page again.
Consistency will help to make it fool-proof.
Sorry! I'm known to be a cruel proofreader. But I really do like the site!

 

[briarrosebb]

$3K for the pics alone or the website and pics?
Question: Tea page. Is this a guest area? I see the assortment and then I see quiote a chatoic busy work area below them. The rest of the website portrays calmness, order. This seems in disarray. The pics on this page are calm, but the actual tea station seems chaotic and even messy. (Just me 2 cents).
Everything else looks lovely!.

June,
thank you so much for the feedback on the tea picture. i noticed it, too; but didn't know it was this noticable to everyone. The $3,000 is for the inn pics only. We "do-it-yourself" on the web development.

 

[briarrosebb]

I love the colors of your house! How does purchasing the stock photography work?
The pages loaded slowly for me. It was the header pic that was slow, the others were fine. In the pix, some of the bedding looks too small for the bed, ie- I can see the boxspring & mattress. If you can get retakes, adjust the bedding so it covers the mattress & boxspring. Even if that is the 'look' you are portraying, it doesn't read well in the pix.
I agree with JBJ that the tea area looks confusing. Clear off most of the table and just have ONE cup of tea or two sitting there, not all the 'equipment'..

Hi, Bree -
Thanks for your responses. The way the stock photos work is that you put down money and then "pay as you go". The more money you put down, the better the rate per picture. The pricing varies by the size of the picture. You can use medium size pics (600 x 800 pixels) indefinitely for the prices I reported ($2 to $3-ish per picture). The pricing gets more complex (different duration/usage requirements) on the larger pics.
You create free accounts with them and then spend endless hours looking at the millions of pictures. When you find something you like, you add it to your "lightbox". When you want to actually use them, you download and pay.
Hope that helps...

 

[user 26]

so many comments about your site already so i will stick with the bed skirt issue and the tea area.
rather than use fitted sheets to cover the box springs, i suggest flat sheets. i use these in some of our rooms. they work well! i also have used a couple bedspreads that have stains in the center as bed skirts (or dust ruffles). you might have some of these around!
cropping the tea center photo would work - either show some of that great tea selection or one section of the cupboard. the cup on the tea page is lovely.
re stock photos: when i first was putting our site together i used some area stock photos and found that folks thought i was showing a beach they could see from here instead of near here. so i had to change that ... guests were asking for a room with that view seen on our website. oops.

 

[Morticia]

I love the colors of your house! How does purchasing the stock photography work?
The pages loaded slowly for me. It was the header pic that was slow, the others were fine. In the pix, some of the bedding looks too small for the bed, ie- I can see the boxspring & mattress. If you can get retakes, adjust the bedding so it covers the mattress & boxspring. Even if that is the 'look' you are portraying, it doesn't read well in the pix.
I agree with JBJ that the tea area looks confusing. Clear off most of the table and just have ONE cup of tea or two sitting there, not all the 'equipment'..

Hi, Bree -
Thanks for your responses. The way the stock photos work is that you put down money and then "pay as you go". The more money you put down, the better the rate per picture. The pricing varies by the size of the picture. You can use medium size pics (600 x 800 pixels) indefinitely for the prices I reported ($2 to $3-ish per picture). The pricing gets more complex (different duration/usage requirements) on the larger pics.
You create free accounts with them and then spend endless hours looking at the millions of pictures. When you find something you like, you add it to your "lightbox". When you want to actually use them, you download and pay.
Hope that helps...
.

But you only pay once/pic, right? Not a monthly fee or something that goes on forever?

 

[Morticia]

so many comments about your site already so i will stick with the bed skirt issue and the tea area.
rather than use fitted sheets to cover the box springs, i suggest flat sheets. i use these in some of our rooms. they work well! i also have used a couple bedspreads that have stains in the center as bed skirts (or dust ruffles). you might have some of these around!
cropping the tea center photo would work - either show some of that great tea selection or one section of the cupboard. the cup on the tea page is lovely.
re stock photos: when i first was putting our site together i used some area stock photos and found that folks thought i was showing a beach they could see from here instead of near here. so i had to change that ... guests were asking for a room with that view seen on our website. oops..

Good point about the photos on the website implying what it RIGHT there, outside the window. I put those kinds of pix in the newsletter or blog and still have guests thinking those things are walking distance. I also get a fair number of requests for a 'water view' room even tho I never, anywhere say we have water views. I say we are a 'few minutes' drive away' to the shore. (Far more guests don't even know the town is on the water.)

 

[JunieBJones (JBJ)]

$3K for the pics alone or the website and pics?
Question: Tea page. Is this a guest area? I see the assortment and then I see quiote a chatoic busy work area below them. The rest of the website portrays calmness, order. This seems in disarray. The pics on this page are calm, but the actual tea station seems chaotic and even messy. (Just me 2 cents).
Everything else looks lovely!.

June,
thank you so much for the feedback on the tea picture. i noticed it, too; but didn't know it was this noticable to everyone. The $3,000 is for the inn pics only. We "do-it-yourself" on the web development.
.

June,
thank you so much for the feedback on the tea picture. i noticed it, too; but didn't know it was this noticable to everyone. The $3,000 is for the inn pics only. We "do-it-yourself" on the web development.

It may not have been so noticeable if just within the content, but you have a nav bar title for it, so I clicked on it. $3k do you have other pics of this area to choose from and perhaps glean?

 

[vancouverislander]

The home link at the bottom of the policy page is a broken link.
It may actually be broken on all the pages? I just checked another.

 

[EmptyNest]

I would prefer that BRIAR ROSE be bigger and clearer to stand out. I do not like the ''clunky" buttons at the top of the page. Something to me just seems out of proportion. I have a 21 inch monitor..so maybe that is it?????
Why add "stock" photograpy?? Stick with what you have and is yours? People want to see what you have. I don't care for the stuff you have thrown on the pages, they have no meaning other than taking up space and increasing download time. IE: orchid...what does that have to do with Briar Rose...same with the Japanese scroll??? NOT necessary
Resizing and compressing photos is absolutely necessary as SWIRT has mentioned.
What is with all of those out of date meta tags??? Not needed.
I find it hard to read the text on the purple background. Maybe just make the background a dark purple and the text areas a lighter shade...lilac or white or cream.
Why have a pic of the Pearl st. mall on your amenities page??? Focus on what is about YOUR INN. Same with the TEA page. PUt photos of your inn serving tea, I don't need to see Mt. Fuji or whatever it is.
You are using the word "hotel" randomly in your site. You are a bed and breakfast...are you trying to get search engines to find you by using hotel??? Confusing to a potential guest.
I think this site has a lot of potential..it just needs some "tweaking"
Best wishes.

 

[briarrosebb]

We did the "royalty-free" licensing which was a one-time, indefinite use. My reference to larger pics having different "usage requirements" means that the one-time, royalty-free is conditional. Bottom line, is that on the large pics you really have to read the fine print. If you find "royalty-free" pics that are small or medium size, you can get the $1 to $3 one-time pricing.

 

[EmptyNest]

Here is an idea of what I would prefer seeing your site set up look like.
Of course..this is VERYVERY crude,
you would put your header in there above the photo along with phone number and link to availability/ reservations.
But I just wanted to show you what I think would be a more appealing look.FOCUS ON YOUR BEAUTIFUL PLACE AND IT'S FEATURES.

 

[GeorgiaGirl]

I just looked at the current website and BriarRose does have bedskirts on the beds. They must have been trying something different to see what the effect would be without them.

 

[swirt]

Catlady mentioned the use of outdated meta-tags. Most are not outdated, but are just worthless (not meant to be derogatory...they just have no value).
Examples:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="INDEX,FOLLOW"> Not worthless but unneccessary since this is the default behavior of all search engine robots.
<meta name="BED" content="Bed and Breakfast, B&B, Bed and Breakfast Inn, Accommodations, Romance, Getaway, Lodging"> Non-existent meta tag. Serves absolutely no good and risks being seen as keyword stuffing. The unencoded ampersand will also cause problems. The entire tag should be removed.
<meta name="Classification" content="commercial/business, travel, family vacation, accommodations, hotel/lodging"> Outdated tag that was once proposed but never used by any search engine.
<META NAME="page-topic" CONTENT="Boulder lodging, Boulder Colorado lodging, Boulder Colorado accommodations, bed and breakfast, inn, bed breakfast"> Not used by any of the major search engines.
<META NAME="page-type" CONTENT="boulder lodging, boulder colorado lodging, b&bs, inn, bed and breakfast, colorado accommodations"> Not used by any search engine and the type was not meant to be content, it was meant to be function. Unencoded ampersand has potential to cause problems. Entire tag should be removed.
<META NAME="audience" CONTENT="all"> This is the default for all pages. No need to specify.
<META NAME="author" CONTENT="Briar Rose Bed and Breakfast"> Of no real benefit other than related to ownership questions. Harmless to leave in place.
<META NAME="revisit-after" CONTENT="15 days"> Worthless tag never used by any search engine. It was once proposed by a search engine but it never used it and that search engine no longer exists. Remove it.
<META NAME="Content-Language" CONTENT="en-us,english"> No problem
<META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global"> This is the default so no harm done, but just as effective to leave it off.
<META NAME="copyright" CONTENT="by http://www.briarrosebb.com"> Has no effect, but in general it is bad form to say a web address owns a copyright. People or companies own copyrights, not a web address.
<meta NAME="city" CONTENT="Boulder"> Worthless could be seen as stuffing.
<meta NAME="state" CONTENT="Colorado"> Worthless could be seen as stuffing.
<meta NAME="email" CONTENT="[email protected]"> Your email address is already on every page, this meta is worthless.
<meta NAME="contact" CONTENT="Innkeeper"> Completely worthless.
In general, getting rid of excess code that serves no function is a good thing. Getting rid of code that makes your site look "over optimized" and serves no function is a very good thing.

 

[JunieBJones (JBJ)]

I just looked at the current website and BriarRose does have bedskirts on the beds. They must have been trying something different to see what the effect would be without them.

.

I just looked at the current website and BriarRose does have bedskirts on the beds. They must have been trying something different to see what the effect would be without them.

These are NEW photos. Those were old photos. Whatever is on the new photos is what is there.

 

[EmptyNest]

Catlady mentioned the use of outdated meta-tags. Most are not outdated, but are just worthless (not meant to be derogatory...they just have no value).
Examples:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="INDEX,FOLLOW"> Not worthless but unneccessary since this is the default behavior of all search engine robots.
<meta name="BED" content="Bed and Breakfast, B&B, Bed and Breakfast Inn, Accommodations, Romance, Getaway, Lodging"> Non-existent meta tag. Serves absolutely no good and risks being seen as keyword stuffing. The unencoded ampersand will also cause problems. The entire tag should be removed.
<meta name="Classification" content="commercial/business, travel, family vacation, accommodations, hotel/lodging"> Outdated tag that was once proposed but never used by any search engine.
<META NAME="page-topic" CONTENT="Boulder lodging, Boulder Colorado lodging, Boulder Colorado accommodations, bed and breakfast, inn, bed breakfast"> Not used by any of the major search engines.
<META NAME="page-type" CONTENT="boulder lodging, boulder colorado lodging, b&bs, inn, bed and breakfast, colorado accommodations"> Not used by any search engine and the type was not meant to be content, it was meant to be function. Unencoded ampersand has potential to cause problems. Entire tag should be removed.
<META NAME="audience" CONTENT="all"> This is the default for all pages. No need to specify.
<META NAME="author" CONTENT="Briar Rose Bed and Breakfast"> Of no real benefit other than related to ownership questions. Harmless to leave in place.
<META NAME="revisit-after" CONTENT="15 days"> Worthless tag never used by any search engine. It was once proposed by a search engine but it never used it and that search engine no longer exists. Remove it.
<META NAME="Content-Language" CONTENT="en-us,english"> No problem
<META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global"> This is the default so no harm done, but just as effective to leave it off.
<META NAME="copyright" CONTENT="by http://www.briarrosebb.com"> Has no effect, but in general it is bad form to say a web address owns a copyright. People or companies own copyrights, not a web address.
<meta NAME="city" CONTENT="Boulder"> Worthless could be seen as stuffing.
<meta NAME="state" CONTENT="Colorado"> Worthless could be seen as stuffing.
<meta NAME="email" CONTENT="[email protected]"> Your email address is already on every page, this meta is worthless.
<meta NAME="contact" CONTENT="Innkeeper"> Completely worthless.
In general, getting rid of excess code that serves no function is a good thing. Getting rid of code that makes your site look "over optimized" and serves no function is a very good thing. .

Sorry I guess I did use the wrong "Wording" out of date was the first thing that popped into my head without thinking more:-(