Web-building resources:
Roxer (This is absolutely brilliant! I command you to check it out)
Design agency sites
Elance (In my view, does not live up to its alleged reputation as the "foremost" design agency site)
DesignQuote.net (Could cost you a lot with no guarantee of returns)
BootB (excellent resource; pity about the website)
Writers' resources
Helium.com (Writers' showcase where members accumulate earnings from advertising)
Writing.com (Writers' showcase that provides valuable feedback)
If I come across a website that really pushes my buttons, I feel moved to tell people about it. I am not paid to write positive reviews (nor would I undertake such an agreement).
Most of the sites that are listed here are either online web-building utilities (such as Roxer, below) or opportunity sites for designers writers etc. These are sites that I feel stand out as examples of either particularly good or particularly bad resources. The views published here are my own views which you may or may not share. Best to check them out and form your own opinion.
Web-building resources:
Roxer (http://www.roxer.com) takes the concept of WYSIWYG a step further in flexibiity. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that Roxer has invented the concept of WYWSIWYG (What You Wanna See Is What You Get). Short of reading your mind and building the site for you while you sleep, it really couldn't be simpler. No FTP, no HTML and no more trying to figure out how to get the page looking the way you want it. Everything is Drag-&-Drop. Select images from your computer and upload them in seconds. Then slide them around the screen and resize to your heart's content until you're happy with the layout. Add text and put it where you want it.
There are a few 'whistles and bells' such as YouTube video display and 'lightbox' gallery display but, for the moment, it is primarily aimed at those who want a fairly simple website in terms of funcionality. In terms of design, however, your imagination is the only limit.
There are a few bugs but this is still in the development stage. Roxer is very new and they are literally asking people to build sites and dig up as many bugs as possible...... and there aren't many. If you want a free website that currently is not displaying ads on users web pages and you want more flexibility than can be offered by the usual 'Build-a-stunning-website-in-minutes' option available at many free web host sites, then Roxer is the way to go. You get a generic URL such as yourname.roxer.com but, if you have a domain, you can point it at your Roxer site.
Now get over there and have some fun.
Design agency sites:
Elance has made something of a name for itself as "the foremost portal" in bringing together designers and potential clients. I guess it does that but at a cost. Briefs on offer are invariably low budget and the budgets published are 'maximum' budgets. This means that designers have to offer an attractive quote to get the brief. Briefs tend to go to the lowest bidder and this seriously undermines the value of designers' work. For this reason, I choose to give it a miss.
DesignQuote.net and BootB.com are both agency sites that bring together clients looking for designers and designers looking for clients. In this respect, both have a lot to offer. They save designers the huge costs of paying agency fees (often around 25% of the design budget), put briefs openly on the market and give clients a wide choice of designers to choose from. Also, both publish fixed budgets so there is no ‘bidding war’ of hopefuls trying to undercut the competition as with the Elance model. Pitches are accepted purely on merit as opposed to the lowest bidder.
DesignQuote.net does not charge companies
for submitting a brief. Designers purchase ‘credits’ which
allow them to pitch for briefs and how many credits are required depends
on the budget. The higher the budget, the more credits are required to
pitch. It costs credits whether or not the pitch is successful and, because
of this, the system has occasionally been put down as a rip-off. It’s
certainly more lucrative to charge for presenting a pitch than simply
charging a commission on successful pitches but this is business. It all
seems fairly transparent and above board to me.
The website:
Easy to use and understand. The process is simple and information is provided
free of jargon. Nice clean (if a tad unimaginative) design.
Pros & cons:
The disadvantage to designers is that they have to purchase credits before
they can even pitch for a brief. Credits are expensive at $5 each. This
means that it costs $10 to pitch for a brief worth $100-250. It can cost
up to $60 to pitch for a big budget brief with no guarantee that your
pitch will be successful. As this is made clear up front, I wouldn’t
call this a rip-off as such but many (myself included) are likely to be
put off by these odds.
Advantages to clients are that they are charged nothing to present a brief
and there is no obligation to be identified at the outset.
BootB stands for Brands Out Of The Box
and is a resource for big brand name companies to open up design briefs
to anyone who may want to pitch, as opposed to exclusively targeting design
companies. It is also (of course) a resource for designers or anyone who
wants to have a crack at design to pitch on equal terms with the ‘Big
Boys’ and hopefully land a big brand company into the portfolio.
Companies who publish a brief do not know the identity of those who pitch;
only the one they finally accept. Consequently design ideas are accepted
purely on merit and not on track-record or portfolio.
BootB make their money on the companies who publish briefs so designers
(or would-be designers) pay nothing to pitch.
Minimum design budget is supposed to be $1,000 but there are published
briefs with lower budgets so I don’t know.... Typical budgets are
around $4,000-$10,000
The website:
The website is dreadful! You land onto the homepage with the sound of
a gunshot which can make you jump out of your skin, so be warned.
In terms of design, everything is set against a black background (representing
a blackboard) and they use some rather disturbing images to promote the
concept (brains being extracted via a lemon squeezer). Hmmm!
In use, the website is irritating and unnecessarily complex. Users can
select the language in which to read the site but the English version
is clearly put together by non-English personnel and is a little hard
to follow in places.
Pros & cons:
The obvious advantages for the designer is that it costs nothing (in terms
of money) to pitch for a big budget brief. However, there are a lot of
complex hoops to jump through just to get registered.
There are clear advantages to designers in knowing exactly what companies
are presenting briefs before deciding to pitch but this is not necessarily
an advantage to the company. Wearing your marketing strategy on your sleeve,
as it were, could leave the project open to hijacking by competitors.
The concept is good and has clearly been taken up by some big companies
(Auchan, Disney World, Lego,
UNICEF and so on) so it’s certainly worth looking
at. However, be prepared to find yourself uttering profanities that you
never thought would pass your lips. This is the most irritating and least
user-friendly site I have ever spent more than ten seconds on.
In summary, I feel that BootB have the edge. They have
bigger budget briefs and you don’t pay through the nose to pitch
for briefs you may not get. The website itself leaves a lot to be desired
but the system (once you can get your head around it) is fair and potentially
very lucrative for designers.
Writers' resources:
A friend once
suggested I publish some of my writing on the Internet. I replied: "Actually,
I've been writing on Helium"
"Oh" he said "Do you find that helps?"
I considered the values of seeing where articles rank in comparison to
other articles under similar headings. "Yeah, it does." I said "It helps
to hone your skills"
He thought about this for a moment then said: "So, what do you do? Suck
it out of balloons?"
Helium.com is a rather odd resource and differs from the norm in a couple of ways: (1) All articles are read and rated by other users (so there is an expectation to read and rate). This places your article in a hierarchy in order of popularity. You can write under existing headings or create your own heading (in which case, your article will rank #1 out of 1 until someone else writes under your new heading). (2) Writers actually accrue earnings from the ads on the page on which their article appears. Earnings can be withdrawn once they have reached a minimum of $25 (in 12 months, I've accumulated about five bucks so don't give up the day job just yet).
I think the most valuable feature is the ranking system as it gives your work a numerical value. You can study the articles ranked higher and see how they have approached the subject. You can then edit your work and see how that affects your ranking. This really does help to hone your skills.
Pros and cons:
The accrued earnings from ads is so minimal that it is negligible in terms
of advantages. The ranking system is a far more valuable function as it
allows you to see your work as others see it.
On the downside, there is no way of providing (or receiving) feedback
which is something writers need. Also, there is a strict ‘no profanity’
rule and even mild profanities are replaced by a row of asterisks. Consequently,
reference to bible stories could have Jesus riding into Bethlehem on an
***. I feel this is a little judgmental.
All-in-all, though, a good writers’ resource.
This is a little more conventional and has much more of a feel of a community
about it than Helium. Members with a free account get a portfolio of up
to ten items which can be poems, short stories, novels, essays or whatever.
You do have to specify if the content contains profanities but there is
no censorship.
Feedback is automatic. It relies entirely on users reading and reviewing
each other’s work and you are quickly drawn into a warm and friendly
community. Reviews tend to be complimentary (people mostly review work
they like) but you do get some constructive criticism which is always
worth taking on board.
Pros and cons:
The main advantage is that you don’t have to solicit for feedback.
Just write something and the feedback will come.
The main disadvantage is that feedback tends to be mostly positive which,
while a boost for confidence, doesn’t give too many clues as to
how the work can be improved.