Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Early/Shea Website reviews

By

Clarity – visual aesthetics

Rating:

Shea, Early

Why:

Early’s site looks about like I expected a DA candidate’s site to look. There is nothing really wrong with the look and feel, but it doesn’t really stand out.

Shea’s site is much more visually appealing and went beyond what I expected. The graphics are crisp, the layout is well thought out and it’s brighter. It makes Early’s site look a little dark and depressing.

Contribution – ability to easily contribute.

Rating:

Shea, Early

Why:

Early doesn’t have a way to contribute online. This is a major no-no. Shea is using Paypal for his contributions. This literally takes around 15 minutes to setup and is well worth it.

Community – ability to feel and be part of the campaign

Rating:

Early, Shea

Why:

Early has a slight edge here because his volunteer page is a little more comprehensive, asking for preferred contact method and whether you would like to sign up for his email list. Neither candidate has a privacy policy that I could see.

Content – concise, easy to understand explanation on the big issues of the campaign.

Rating:

Shea, Early

Why:

This is the section where Shea really shines. His coverage is comprehensive. The issues page has a nice “Flash” covering issues with a quote and then a way to drill down to get more info. What was most impressive was his Video section, which has the candidate talking on how he sees the DA job. In fact the Gov sites could take some tips from his approach.

Early has sparse issues/content coverage compared to Shea, with coverage on only three issues. He seems to cover these issues in reasonable depth but needs more breadth of content.

Overall:

Shea wins with good aesthetics (especially given this is a DA’s race) a lacking community  page, pretty good contribution page and a great content section.

But hey what do I know. Take a look at one of my first sites from 1996 via the very cool wayback machine. Ouch!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Thanks JimCaralis for taking the time to review these sites. For those who want to look at the sites for themselves, the Dan Shea site is at http://www.Shea2006.com and the Joe Early site is at http://www.Early2006.com – NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Joe Lieberman’s newly launched and highly controversial site http://www.joe2006.com.

    <

    p>
    I took a spin around the sites and I agree that Shea’s offers the visitor a more rewarding experience. And that Early’s is pretty much the meat & potatoes risk averse kind of a site you’d expect from a front runner. Shea clearly needs to try harder to attract attention and he seems to be doing his darndest. It’s interesting that you give Early the leg up on your “community” criteria. It is unclear to me whether Shea has any netroots Mo going for him. As there is no Republican in the race (that I know of) this thing will basically be decided on primary day. So if he’s going to make a credible run at the nomination he’ll need ground support.

    <

    p>
    It’s an interesting race to watch if for no other reason than that John Conte, who is retiring after 30 years, was savaged on the Internet (most politicos in Worcester have by now heard of http://www.Conte2006.com) in the months leading up to his unexpected decision not to seek another term.

    <

    p> 

Archives