<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Laura Creekmore &#187; content inventory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lauracreekmore.com/tag/content-inventory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lauracreekmore.com</link>
	<description>Content strategy consulting, training and speaking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:09:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The right way to do a content audit</title>
		<link>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/content-audit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/content-audit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Creekmore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content audit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content inventory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualitative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantitative]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lauracreekmore.com/?p=222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the wonderful Web Content 2010 conference this week, I heard a couple of interesting discussions about qualitative vs. quantitative content audits. Audits and inventories [here's a nice discussion of the difference between audit and inventory] are the retail politics of content strategy. You&#8217;ve got to know what you&#8217;re working with or your effort risks [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the wonderful <a href="http://www.webcontent2010.com/index.html">Web Content 2010 conference</a> this week, I heard a couple of interesting discussions about qualitative vs. quantitative content audits. Audits and inventories [<a href="http://nform.ca/blog/2010/01/doing-a-content-audit-or-inven">here's a nice discussion of the difference between audit and inventory</a>] are the retail politics of content strategy. You&#8217;ve got to know what you&#8217;re working with or your effort risks being wasted or redundant.</p>
<p>And while few people seem to favorite this part of our work, most agree that it&#8217;s essential to figure out what you&#8217;re dealing with in existing content.</p>
<p>But there does seem to be a divide on whether or not it&#8217;s necessary to do a full inventory &#8212; a quantitative, page-by-page, item-by-item review and catalog of every piece of content you own.</p>
<p>I hate to give you a wishy-washy answer, but I&#8217;m going to come down firmly on the &#8220;It depends,&#8221; side of the fence.</p>
<p>I got dragged into my first quantitative content inventory kicking and screaming several years ago. The site had several thousand documents, and my team and I had managed all of them from creation to expiration &#8212; so we knew <em>in our heads</em> exactly what was there. But the client wanted the comprehensive inventory, however redundant it seemed to me.</p>
<p>But [after the pain faded a bit] I can say that the quantitative was worth it. <strong>If key decisionmakers don&#8217;t know &#8212; and want to know &#8212; what&#8217;s there, you need a quantitative inventory. </strong>Even if you can <em>describe</em> what&#8217;s there, if you&#8217;re making decisions about direction and message and site design, nothing beats a full inventory.<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p>We&#8217;re helping a client now with a smaller-scale quantitative inventory. They&#8217;re just moving to a real CMS for a new site, and there is some existing content, but it&#8217;s not in any one tool. So <strong>we all need to know what&#8217;s there &#8212; thus, a quantitative inventory is in order.</strong></p>
<p>I do think there are places where you only need a qualitative review, though. Let&#8217;s say you&#8217;re working on a web project with some existing content. <strong>If your content is well organized in a good content management system, with great metadata, you may be able to simply do a qualitative audit</strong> &#8212; we have this kind of product description. Copy runs from X characters-X characters in length. Tone is technical. Etc.</p>
<p>I think this situation is rarer than we&#8217;d like to hope, but it&#8217;s out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/content-audit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unmanaged Content: Whac-A-Mole or Many-Headed Hydra?</title>
		<link>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/unmanaged-content-whacamole-manyheaded-hydra/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/unmanaged-content-whacamole-manyheaded-hydra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 02:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Creekmore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Content management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content inventory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lauracreekmore.com/?p=202</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regardless, it&#8217;s not good. Don&#8217;t feel bad; you&#8217;re not the only organization out there with a less-than-complete handle on your content. For organizations that have embraced the web for years, it may even be a bigger problem than for newbies. Because the longer you&#8217;ve been in this business, the more likely you are to have [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Regardless, it&#8217;s not good.</em></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t feel bad; you&#8217;re not the only organization out there with a less-than-complete handle on your content. For organizations that have embraced the web for years, it may even be a bigger problem than for newbies. Because the longer you&#8217;ve been in this business, the more likely you are to have some legacy systems that never got adapted into a content management system&#8230;.you know, because:</p>
<ul>
<li>We don&#8217;t use the information on that microsite much.</li>
<li>It works fine the way it is.</li>
<li>So-and-so is the only one who needs to manage it and he&#8217;s familiar with that old system.</li>
</ul>
<p>But what happens when:</p>
<ul>
<li>You do need to use that information?</li>
<li>It no longer works?</li>
<li>So-and-so doesn&#8217;t work here anymore?</li>
</ul>
<p>Ah, but that&#8217;s what happens to other people, right? <em>Ahem.</em></p>
<p>Unmanaged content — the content you can&#8217;t name, or place, have forgotten entirely or that no one ever told you existed — will continue to loom over your head, portending your coming doom, until you physically capture and catalog it.</p>
<p>Ideally, you can put uncorralled content into your content management system once you find it. But even if that&#8217;s not possible due to technical constraints, a complete catalog of what you have will make your life easier.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t wait for your content to find you — Murphy&#8217;s Law will bite you every time. Get out there and find that stuff!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/unmanaged-content-whacamole-manyheaded-hydra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

