The site to frustrate, educate and motivate the church to communicate, with uncompromising clarity, the truth of Jesus Christ

This Old Site Poll Results

July 22, 2009 by

2009_07_21_thisoldsitepollresults.jpgOur church web site used to be the sort of thing you mumbled. And you only mumbled after you unsuccessfully tried to “accidentally” give a wrong address at least twice. Now that we’ve revamped things, it’s a bit easier to spit out our URL. But how about you guys–how old is your church site?

38% of you have church sites that are in their prime. They’re not brand new, but they’re not over-the-hill either. That’s good news.

But the next 21% of you aren’t so fortunate. Your church site is over 4 years old. You’re hoping to upgrade soon and sell the old one to a museum. While another 20% of you are knocking on that group’s door with a site that’s 2-4 years old.

Just a hair less of you, 17%, have a site that you’ve recently pulled the wrapper off. It still has that new site smell, and you’re loving it right now.

Then, a tiny slice of you don’t even have a site. That’s 5% of you, and I’m sure some of you are members of a house church or no church. Those of you in a church with no site, what’s the rub? Is a site in your future plans at all?

And for this week’s poll, we want to know: People usually pick a church for one of three big reasons. Which is most important to you?

Post By:

Joshua Cody


Josh Cody served as our associate editor for several years before moving on to bigger things. Like Texas. These days he lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife, and you can find him online or on Twitter when he's not wrestling code.
Read more posts by | Want to write for us?

4 Responses to “This Old Site Poll Results”

  • Geoff in CT
    July 22, 2009

    Here’s a naive question: if a church website is continually updated, continues to grow, continues to change and evolve, just what’s the matter with a five year old website, anyway?


  • Peter
    July 22, 2009

    I was thinking the same thing. If it’s kept up to date, it’s better than something that still shows that people now in your young adult class are on their way to children’s camp. :)


  • Matt Algren
    July 22, 2009

    If a site “continues to change and evolve,” it isn’t old. It works well in current browsers, is built for current users (most of whom have a greater than 800x600px monitor and better than 56k connections), and is much less likely to include a revolving cross gif.
    For example, my church’s site fits into the 6mo-2yr category, and it’s very nice, but 8 months or so ago it was an embarrassment. It was designed–I kid you not–using Lotus Notes. Invisible text was dropped in between table(!) columns to get them spaced correctly. Half the links were dead. Nothing even coming close to SEO was used.
    That just doesn’t cut it anymore, especially when the alternative doesn’t have to be expensive.


  • Andy Wittwer
    July 23, 2009

    I struggle with that question as well – we just landed into the 6-24 month category and I’m trying to decide whether I should budget for an overhaul in 2/3/4 years from now, or just call it good.



Leave a Reply

POST CATEGORIES:
Poll Results


 
Show CFCC Bar
Courageous storytellers welcome.
Hide the bar