What USA.gov Needs to Do to Survive

December 16, 2009

USA.gov launched “Your Voice Matters” this week. It’s a “public dialog” asking people “What do you think of USA.gov?” It’s a surprisingly blunt question, and it’s getting a wide variety of answers, entered as comments on the dialog website.

I’m answering the question here because my thoughts won’t fit well into a single comment, and I want to provide plenty of links to the thinkers who have inspired me and informed these thoughts. That said, if you have thoughts about USA.gov, I strongly encourage you to share them on the dialog website.

In the interest of openness and transparency (and because they asked), it’s time to say what I really think about USA.gov. As a government contractor, I feel like I occupy an awkward space between public servant and taxpayer—not as noble as a real public servant, and not qualified to be an indignant taxpayer because I’m paid with tax dollars. Nonetheless, I am inclined to public service (I’m just extremely disinclined to living in DC), and I can’t help being indignant.

USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov, here are five things I think about you. This is from the heart, by which I mean the opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent those of my employer. Also, when I say USA.gov, I mean “USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov.”

I think USA.gov needs to recognize its inherent value #

Every way I look at it, USA.gov—as an organization, as a domain, and as a brand—is poised to be immensely successful. What stands out to me:

Its staff is skilled, passionate, and recognized across government for its leadership and knowledge.
USA.gov is probably the best URL on the Internet. I’m serious. USA.gov is:

Easy to say, spell and remember
Authoritative (.gov!)
Descriptive
Flexible (extends nicely to GobiernoUSA.gov)
Intuitive (worldwide)
Short

It represents the government as it exists in most people’s minds—that is, as “the government” rather than a series of agencies and individual governments (This is a common assumption, and I have no research to back it; if anyone can support or refute this statement, please let me know)
PageRank of 10 (for what it’s worth)

I think USA.gov should stop being a portal #

Despite all of the above, USA.gov risks becoming irrelevant because of its insistence on being a portal. It’s structured to work as a citizen’s starting point to find government information online. This is problematic because it assumes that people will look to the government as the best source of the information they need. That is, if a person is trying to figure out how to buy a house, we hope he will go to USA.gov before asking his parents, searching Google, or asking friends on Twitter. That’s unrealistic.

Andrea DiMaio announced the irrelevance of government portals back in 2001, recognizing that people do not interact with the government very often and that they are more likely to look to commercial portals that include “government” information alongside other services and information. Why would you look for swine flu info at USA.gov, when you can get it from Yahoo! and get the 411 on celeb tattoos at the same time?

The viability of a government portal is further eroded as people continue to look to social media outlets as their primary source of information. Betaworks’ Andrew Weissman has astutely observed that real time social distribution is conditioning people to assume that “if something is important, it will find me.”

I think USA.gov should embrace search #

Confession: I rarely use USA.gov. I almost always use Google. I spend several hours each month looking for useful government information to distribute through USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov’s Twitter and Facebook accounts. I Google “[search term] site:.gov” and instantaneously get a list of quality .gov resources in return, complete with descriptive blurbs.

The preface to Marti Heart’s Search User Interfaces says that search engines are the second most frequently used online computer application, behind email. There’s a reason for this: they work. Search engines work so well that they’re obviating almost every earlier system designed to organize information—including USA.gov’s system of compiling, categorizing, and organizing lists of links. Josh Levy told me to read Everything Is Miscellaneous to grasp the significance of this.

Because it’s so convenient, search is undermining the government’s attempts to create an online mirror of its byzantine structure (~24,000 .gov URLs and counting) and USA.gov’s attempts to explain that structure.

For USA.gov to compete with the convenience of Google, its links would need to lead to the Internet’s most awesome websites that are unavailable through Google. Furthermore, unlike on search engine result pages, most links on USA.gov do not include descriptions or any clues about where they lead, creating an uncertain browsing experience.

One solution to this is to turn USA.gov into a content site, making it more likely for people to visit it via search engines. Which brings me to my next point…

I think USA.gov should be a content site #

Currently, visitors to USA.gov are guided through lists of links until they’re handed off to another site, where we hope they find what they were looking for. This precludes us from finding out if our visitors found anything useful where we sent them—we can’t ask them to come back and tell us if we guided them to the right spot. The way around this is to create useful content on USA.gov.

USA.gov lists 10 topics that its visitors search for most frequently on the What’s on Americans’ Minds page. Here’s the list as I write this:

Grants
House Resolutions
Green Card
Passports
Jobs
Taxes
Public Records
Unclaimed Assets
Unemployment
Energy

These top topics don’t change very often. We should start by creating a pilot content strategy and write a brief series of explanatory articles for these topics. They should be written in plain language. They should be search engine optimized. They should each have a distinct URL, which will make them easy to share on Facebook, or Twitter, or IM, or email, etc. None of them will require mashups or anything fancy.

We should include opportunities for users to provide actionable feedback on these articles using a tool like 4Q (which is free). And we should continually optimize and refine those articles until we’re getting consistently positive feedback.

This doesn’t have to be a big thing (I just offended all my content strategist friends). There’s no need for a public dialog to enhance these articles. Rather, invite users to complete a brief survey specifically about the content they’ve encountered, and make sure someone is tasked to analyze and act upon the results of the survey. We could start piloting this in a month (as long as we dutifully ignore the Paperwork Reduction Act and existing cookie policy). If we’re successful, we could add more articles.

For a more in depth look at this approach, read Avinash Kaushik’s Web Analytics Success Measurement For Government Websites.

Candi Harrison’s post Time for a Re-Think of USA.gov argues the need to create content as well. Candi goes further and recognizes that this is an opportunity to “start downsizing the inventory of government websites and consolidating government web content.”

There’s a chance that this effort would displace traffic from other government sites. That would be great. Competition for traffic among sites could foster the creation of better content, or a successful USA.gov may free up agencies to focus on their missions rather than maintaining duplicative websites.

I think USA.gov should put citizens first, zealously #

Google’s first article of faith is “Focus on the user and all else will follow.” The Federal Web Managers Council echoed this sentiment when they published a white paper titled Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online Government (pdf) last November. If any team within government is poised to create the bold vision outlined in Putting Citizens First, it’s the team at USA.gov.

Every initiative carried out under the USA.gov name should be created with the interests of citizens in mind, based on what we know about them from research. In some instances, this will require writing in clearer language. In others, it will mean not creating a mashup just to create a mashup or starting a blog just to start a blog. This should be governed, as Putting Citizens First recommends, by USA.gov’s editor in chief.

I often feel like government agencies are caught in an arms race to have the glossiest blog, the most fans or followers (Mark Drapeau wrote a great piece on why focusing on fan numbers is misguided), or the most engaging transparent streaming citizen feed widget. This competition has created an explosion of opportunities to interact with the government online. This is probably a good thing, but it’s becoming overwhelming and I often feel that the average citizen (who Andrea DiMaio calls Joe Smith) is forgotten in all the excitement.

USA.gov has an opportunity to drop out of (or rise above) the arms race and be the sensemaking arm of government—the brand citizens recognize as the best source of official government information that matters to them, that makes sense, and that they can apply to their lives. I believe that if we can do that, all else will follow.

If you liked this (you should have), you might also like:

Short link to this post:

http://globalspin.com Chris Radcliff

Some great recommendations here. I don’t use USA.gov at all, but I bet I’d end up there more often if it was more a destination than a portal.

One thought about content: Rather than moving content from individual sites to USA.gov, how about cross-posting it there? There’s plenty of precedent for doing that elsewhere on the web, usually in cases where the same content would reach parallel audiences in two locations.
http://pdxdog.com Andrea Schneider

Thank you for sharing this intelligent, well articulated response. I do go to USA.gov, but not often enough to evaluate it.

I think your response and analysis would be extremely useful to other government agency web people/sites, as they are currently being re-designed.

(while I run a dog social network, I’m really a government-oriented applied social scientist. I write about Social Networking, Leadership and Innovation in the Applied Setting as well as, Collaboration and Evaluation)

Well done.
http://markdrapeau.com Mark Drapeau

Great post, thanks.
http://www.usa.gov Sarah

Thanks Jed, for this really insightful, straightforward piece. Initially I was a little worried with all the introspection that’s going on these days. I was concerned that there would be a million different ideas and a million different ways to get there. It’s been incredible, however, to listen as the ideas roll in — there is so much similarity in the ideas that I can honestly say I think we all share a common vision. There may be some slight variations on a theme, but all in all, I’m hearing a pretty unified set of ideas.
http://candioncontent.blogspot.com/ Candi Harrison

Good thoughts here, Jed. I especially agree with the notion that USA.gov should put citizens first and start being a content site. I also absolutely agree it should stop being a portal. I think it should be THE one-stop for basic government information. Not everything. But the most-used, most needed information and citizen services.

Using surveys to help write content could be useful. But I’d rather see actual citizens sitting in the room as the writers think about what they need to say. Too often, government employees – especially at the fed level – distance themselves from citizens. They’d prefer to sit in their offices and collect data, hoping when they analyze it they’ll draw the right conclusions, rather than actually sitting down and talking to the audience. In my experience, there’s no substitute for pulling a few citizens together, showing them what you’re doing, and asking for – and listening to – what they tell you. I can’t tell you how many “ut-oh” moments I’ve had from those kinds of discussions. I’m not talking about formal fancy focus groups – I’m talking about just pulling together some friends of friends and listening to what they say.

As for what USA.gov should cover, the search terms do give some good hints. Stats on most used also will help. Web managers across government also can tell you what their top 2-3 “most requesteds” are. But this isn’t rocket science. If you just sit down and think about your own life – and the lives of the people you know – you can get this. I need a house over my head. I need a job. I need transportation to my job. I need to care for my children and my sick parents. I need to serve healthy, well-balanced meals to my family. Oh – and anything government can do to give me money, save me money, or help me make money is tops. I truly value common sense, in figuring out what citizens want and in writing for them.

The one point you make that is so important is that this doesn’t have to be hard or take a long time. It’s just a matter of doing it. The biggest hurdle I see is political will. If someone at a high enough level can just get behind this and say it will be done, it will be done. Yes – there will be some push-back from some agencies. But I think if prevail on people to put the needs of the public over their own wants, it’s pretty obvious what should happen. Most public servants DO want to serve.

Glad you’re part of the solution, Jed. You’ve got good instincts.
http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio Andrea Di Maio

Great points Jed, and thanks for mentioning me. From what you say and from what some of the commentators say, many people “google” their way through government and the potential irrelevance is always behind the corner.
Your suggestions are spot on. Focus on what people look for and build content around that. Be citizen-driven. Be a platform (for people to access information and services the way they see fit).
I particularly like your point about sensemaking, but I would argue that USA.gov can be one among the many probes to sense what people want and how their behaviors changes.
http://jedsundwall.com Jed

@Chris:

Re: your question/statement: “Rather than moving content from individual sites to USA.gov, how about cross-posting it there? There’s plenty of precedent for doing that elsewhere on the web, usually in cases where the same content would reach parallel audiences in two locations.”

Thank you for this. This is a huge question, as I’m advocating that we recreate content that may already exist.

My primary concern is that there are literally countless .gov sites (no one seems to be able to find an absolute number of how many)—each with a unique interface and architecture. This is not a bad thing per se—I absolutely think that individual agencies and programs should have their own spaces to publish information.

That said, for usability reasons, I believe that the subset of citizen-facing government information used by the vast majority of people (we call this information related to top tasks) should be available in one spot, with a single interface, and written in the same citizen-facing voice and tone. The voice and tone part is the tricky thing that prevents (in my limited imagination) from sucking content from disparate sites with different editorial guidelines into USA.gov.

Conversely, there’s a lot of discussion about “widgetizing” USA.gov content. I’d love for USA.gov to use an XHTML schema that would allow people to parse its content and syndicate it elsewhere. Essentially the opposite of what you’re recommending.
http://globalspin.com Chris Radcliff

Jed, you make an excellent point about voice and tone. If USA.gov is really focused on putting citizens first, then it can bring enough value just by rewriting content for Joe Smith.

However, that raises a question that you don’t explicitly answer in your post: who’s doing the work? Specifically, who’s writing this content? I had assumed that you expected the original agencies to rewrite content for USA.gov, but your response (and a quick re-read) suggests USA.gov would have its own writers. Is that what you mean?

If so, that makes perfect sense. USA.gov writers would be (or become) experts at navigating government content and summarizing it for Joe Smith. Their job would be to address topics of interest, not to promote any agency’s agenda. Agencies would continue to produce their own documents, based on their own goals and structure.

Given that, I have another suggestion: steal a few ideas from Wikipedia. Some of their content policies (NPOV, verifiability, no original research) might be worth adopting, especially if you eventually do open up USA.gov to outside writers.
http://jedsundwall.com Jed

@Chris: yes.

Yes yes yes. I guess I should have just came out and said it, but you’ve read between the lines: USA.gov can add value simply by rewriting content for Joe Smith.

USA.gov already has a staff of talented writers that are, as you suggest, experts at navigating government content. Additionally, they’re also well-positioned to gather help and feedback from subject matter experts across government in case they can’t find relevant information on agency websites.

Thank you for your suggestion to steal from Wikipedia. We think along the same lines (friends!). I’ve wondered for a while if we could adopt Wikipedia’s Manual of Style as our own. I’ve also been very inspired by this video explaining how Intellipedia uses Mediawiki.
http://jedsundwall.com Jed

@Candi: Thank you so much for your feedback. I’m very flattered! And thank you for advocating tirelessly for common sense—strange that there’s a need for that.

I absolutely agree with your point on engaging actual citizens to get better feedback on content. Gwynne Kostin and I duked it out over the relative strengths of focus groups v. analytics on Andrew Krzmarzick’s blog earlier this year. Obviously, the two methods are not mutually exclusive and the value of simply talking to people is inestimable. We’re ramping up to use our Facebook and Twitter presences to get many more “ut-oh” moments from conversations in 2010.

That said, I long for a stronger culture of analytics, and blame the cookie policy for preventing this from happening across government sites. Giving citizens quick and easy opportunities to give feedback on our content certainly doesn’t hurt, and it’s an extremely low cost way to gather insights on an ongoing basis. Perhaps “survey” sounds too cumbersome, but I really like the way Google gathers feedback on their help pages.

Thanks again!
http://jedsundwall.com Jed

@Andrea: You are right that we should not undervalue other means of ascertaining citizen needs and interests (particularly Candi’s call for using common sense). Our search data is hardly the best source.

No need to thank me for mentioning you, btw—your blog has been invaluable to me throughout the year.
http://twitter.com/sarahebourne Sarah Bourne

We face many of the issues at Mass.Gov that USA.gov faces: trying to be a simple to use access point to get to all of the information published by hundreds of agencies and thousands of programs. While we can identify the Top Tasks (@Candi, have you registered that as a trademark?) the problem is that only a small percentage of people will find what they’re looking for on the home page.

A while ago I did some analysis of search terms for Mass.Gov. I took the top 500 search terms for a month. Jobs and taxes are always #1 or #2, so I went through and found all the various words and phrases in that list (jobs, employment, unemployment, etc. and tax, taxes, sales tax, income tax, etc.) and added them up. The jobs searches were 0.06% of all searches and taxes were 0.05%.

Yes, our top 2 tasks based on search analysis barely topped 1% of all searches. (So much for the 90-10 rule.) I suspect USA.gov would see a similar pattern in their data.

That doesn’t mean we throw our hand up in despair, but it does make it more difficult to be seen as a success. Even with lots of good writers, it will take time before there is enough rewritten content to be noticeable to most people. And it means that both Mass.Gov and USA.gov need to still have ways to easily and efficiently get to the rest of the content, which inevitably brings us back to you advice to embrace search.
http://jedsundwall.com Jed

That’s absolutely fascinating, Sarah. It sounds like you’re all long tail, and I’d suppose that you’re correct in guessing we are, too. I’ll have to look into this.

I am by no means an analytics guy, but I enjoy reading Avinash Kaushik’s insights. He recently wrote a great (long) post about how to find gems of insight beyond the top 10.

Regardless, you’re right. It will take time to get content up to speed. Thanks for your comment!
Rand Ruggieri

Jed,

Great thoughts! Gwynne recently referenced a post from Dan Bevarly on 7 points that Jane and John Q. Public might want from Government web sites: http://www.aheadofideas.com/?p=598 and it got me thinking. I too have had my thoughts challenged by Gwynne (and I even drew even on some of our friendly discussions) but in this case I think we found some common ground.

Like Candi, I’ve been concerned (obsessed) about the absolute chaos I see in the USG’s web presence (which isn’t a correct reflection of the state of “online USG”…it’s more like web presencesssssssss).

Va.gov vs. Veterns.gov. Is the first the state of Virginia? No, it’s the Veterns Administration. Is the second the Veterns Administration? No, it’s OPM’s initiative to hire veterns. Huh? (sorry for the tangent!)

Dan raises 7 points that mostly address citizen engagement in the policy making function of government. Being a civil servant, something is missing from the discussion and that is “service delivery”.

The USG actually provides direct and indirect services to citizens. Upon reviewing many USG agency sites, I’m struck by the overwhelming “messaging” that is going on. Top tasks? What are they?

While messaging is important, I think we need to find a balance between messaging the citizen and serving the citizen. (To Gwynne’s credit, I think DHS.gov finds that balance.)

Dan’s point no. 6 led me to ask some questions to some of my web buddies.

“6. We are “Generation Now (and forever)”
Is there a realization in government like in the private sector that now and forever the public’s preference for communicating and sharing information has changed and that there are citizens of voting age who are also “cradle to grave” digital users? And the appropriate response from government (considering they want to connect with us and engage us) should be to make it a high priority to restructure (not reinvent) its engagement processes based on these new preferences and expectations?”

Does this imply that citizens want to have an account with the USG? Do they want a more seamless (think amazon) online environment to “shop for” and obtain the goods and services the USG offers? Does it mean that citizens can tweak their own privacy settings (think facebook sort of)? If yes to any of these questions, than how should the USG’s web presence be restructured? Is there a role for the FWMC to help in this restructuring?

A major challenge for the Federal Web Manager Council members to lend a hand is that we all work in our own silos (not a bad thing…it is what it is). The only group that lives above the smoke stacks is USA.gov. Could USA.gov begin to organize around “life events”? Could USA.gov begin to start the process of restructuring the USG’s engagement?

I’d challenge you to stretch a bit more in your vision of what USA.gov could become. Push past the next evolution of becoming a content site. How about USA.gov becoming the place where citizens interact with their government? Maybe I’m reaching for the stars but I don’t care which agency can give me a passport, I just want one. And while I’m there, why can’t I renew my driver’s license?

OH, but wait, that’s issued by my state. But to your point, as a citizen, I see it as “da gov’ment”. Let me do my business and get on with my life. Gwynne suggested that maybe “service” is the nexus that draws citizens to some sort of government online presence. Why not streamline that interaction in one place versus scattered over 45,000 USG web sites (24k is so yesterday).

Great thoughts and happy new decade!
Rand