AFSC

A Quaker Response to this Moral Crisis

Martin Kelley — Tue, 03 Jul 2018 21:58:20 +0000

Friends are seeking ways to respond to the current refugee crisis. One example is a minute of concern recently approved by Santa Monica Meeting. Other Friends are taking action by visiting detainees in the Adelanto Detention Center. Some are accompanying refugees in the courts. Quaker organizations like FCNL and AFSC are calling for comprehensive immigration reform and an end to ICE. I am including this letter in hopes of stimulating more discussion among Friends (and others) about what we can do to respond to this latest moral crisis.

https://laquaker.blogspot.com/2018/07/reunite-refugee-families-separated-at.html

Norval Reece interviewed on MLK Jr anniversary

Martin Kelley — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 14:10:17 +0000

To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., a Philadelphia TV station interviewed Quaker Norval Reece: Bucks County Quaker, Civil Rights Activist Reflects On Time With MLK

Reece is a proud Quaker and believes it’s his Quaker roots that sent him to Dr. King’s side. “I was raised to believe all people are equal, are born equal, created equal,” he said. Reece met King in 1967 at the old Robert Morris Hotel in Philadelphia. He spent several hours with the civil rights icon. Reece says that night he, King and a few others planned a poverty march for the following spring, but King never made it.

Norval was an activist with AFSC back in his youth, served as a Pennsylvania secretary of commerce, and became a cable television entrepreneur. He’s pretty ubiquitous in Quaker circles these days, linking the activist and entrepreneurial in interesting ways. My favorite part of the video is when they casually redisplay a picture they had blurred out near the beginning (the one in the preview) and don’t bother naming the guy walking just ahead of him.

Interviewing the next head of AFSC

Martin Kelley — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 22:35:00 +0000

This week’s Friends Journal feature is my interview with Joyce Ajlouny, who is leaving her role as head of the Ramallah Friends School to become the next general secretary for American Friends Service Committee.

I interviewed her by phone from my back porch on a snowy day and very much enjoyed conversation. I’m fascinated by the challenges of an organization like AFSC—one that has to balance strong roots in a religious tradition while largely working outside of it. How do you balancing the conflicting identities? It’s not unlike the challenge of a Friends school like Ramallah’s.

I was also particularly moved by the genuine enthusiasm in her voice as she talked about engaging in honest conversations with people with whom we have strong disagreements. In this polarized age, it’s tempting to try to stay in the safety our bubbles. Joyce seems to thrive stepping out of that comfort zone:

I think we’ve learned from this last U.S. election that we need to listen more. This can often be a challenge for people who are very passionate about the positions they take. Sometimes the passion is so overwhelming that it sort of overrides that willingness to listen to other narratives. This is something that we really need to work much harder on. Truth is always incomplete. We always have to look for other truths. We need to break through some of these boundaries that we’ve put around ourselves and seek a wider spectrum of perspectives.

I think AFSC will be in good hands with Ajlouny.

An interview with Joyce Ajlouny — Friends Journal

Meet AFSC’s incoming general secretary.

Friends Journal

Why would a Quaker do a crazy thing like that?

Martin Kelley — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:40:35 +0000

Looking back at Friends’ responses to the Christian Peacemaker hostages

When four Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage in Iraq late last November, a lot of Quaker organizations stumbled in their response. With Tom Fox we were confronted by a full-on liberal Quaker Christian witness against war, yet who stepped up to explain this modern-day prophetic witness? AFSC? FCNL? FGC? Nope, nope and nope. There were too many organizations that couldn’t manage anything beyond the boilerplate social justice press release. I held my tongue while the hostages were still in captivity but throughout the ordeal I was mad at the exposed fracture lines between religious witness and social activism.

Whenever a situation involving international issues of peace and witness happens, the Quaker institutions I’m closest to automatically defer to the more political Quaker organizations: for example, the head of Friends General Conference told staff to direct outsiders inquiring about Tom Fox to AFSC even though Fox had been an active leader of FGC-sponsored events and was well known as a committed volunteer. The American Friends Service Committee and Friends Committee on National Legislation have knowledgeable and committed staff, but their institutional culture doesn’t allow them to talk Quakerism except to say we’re a nice bunch of social-justice-loving people. I appreciate that these organizations have a strong, vital identity, and I accept that within those confines they do important work and employ many faithful Friends. It’s just that they lack the language to explain why a grocery store employee with a love of youth religious education would go unarmed to Badgdad in the name of Christian witness.

The wider blogosphere was totally abuzz with news of Christian Peacemaker Team hostages (Google blogsearch lists over 6000 posts on the topic). There were hundreds of posts and comments, including long discussions on the biggest (and most right-leaning) sites. Almost everyone wondered why the CPT workers were there, and while the opinions weren’t always friendly (the hostages were often painted as naive idealists or disingenuous terrorist sympathizers), even the doubters were motivated by a profound curiosity and desire to understand.

The CPT hostages were the talk of the blogosphere, yet where could we find a Quaker response and explanation? The AFSC responded by publicizing the statements of moderate Muslim leaders (calling for the hostages’ release; I emailed back a suggestion about listing Quaker responses but never got a reply). Friends United Meeting put together a nice enough what-you-can-do page that was targeted toward Friends. The CPT site was full of information of course, and there were plenty of stories on the lefty-leaning sites like electroniciraq.net and the UK site Ekklesia. But Friends explaining this to the world?

The Quaker bloggers did their part. On December 2 I quickly re-jiggered the technology behind QuakerQuaker.org to provide a Christian Peacemaker watch on both Nonviolence.org and QuakerQuaker (same listings, merely rebranded for slightly-separate audiences, announced on the post It’s Witness Time). These pages got lots of views over the course of the hostage situation and included many posts from the Quaker blogger community that had recently congealed.

But here’s the interesting part: I was able to do this only because there was an active Quaker blogging community. We already had gathered together as a group of Friends who were willing to write about spirituality and witness. Our conversations had been small and intimate but now we were ready to speak to the world. I sometimes get painted as some sort of fundamentalist Quaker, but the truth is that I’ve wanted to build a community that would wrestle with these issues, figuring the wrestling was more important than the language of the answers. I had already thought about how to encourage bloggers and knit a blogging community together and was able to use these techniques to quickly build a Quaker CPT response.

Two other Quakers who went out of their way to explain the story of Tom Fox: his personal friends John Stephens and Chuck Fager. Their Freethecaptivesnow.org site was put together impressively fast and contained a lot of good links to news, resources and commentary. But like me, they were over-worked bloggers doing this in their non-existant spare time (Chuck is director of Quaker House but he never said this was part of the work).

After an initial few quiet days, Tom’s meeting Langley Hill put together a great website of links and news. That makes it the only official Quaker organization that pulled together a sustained campaign to support Tom Fox.

Lessons?

So what’s up with all this? Should we be happy that all this good work happened by volunteers? Johan Maurer has a very interesting post, “Are Quakers Marginal?” that points to my earlier comment on the Christian Peacemakers and doubts whether our avoidance of “hireling priests” has given us a more effective voice. Let’s remember that institutional Quakerism began as support of members in jail for their religious witness; among our earliest committee gatherings were meetings for sufferings—business meetings focused on publicizing the plight of the jailed and support the family and meetings left behind.

I never met Tom Fox but it’s clear to me that he was an exceptional Friend. He was able to bridge the all-too-common divide between Quaker faith and social action. Tom was a healer, a witness not just to Iraqis but to Friends. But I wonder if it was this very wholeness that made his work hard to categorize and support. Did he simply fall through the institutional cracks? When you play baseball on a disorganized team you miss a lot of easy catches simply because all the outfielders think the next guy is going to go for the ball. Is that what happened? And is this what would happen again?

Nonprofit Website Design and Measurement

Martin Kelley — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:09:46 +0000

A 2004 Denominational Website Report

When I wrote this in the Fall of 2004, I was working as the webmaster for Friends General Conference, the US/Canadian denominational body for the liberal branch of unprogrammed Quakers. As webmaster, I felt that one of my most important responsibilities was to understand how religious seekers use the internet and how our nonprofit organization could benefit from understanding these patterns.

My 2004 report on the three FGC websites touched on a lot of these issues. I offer it here because I hope it can give other nonprofit and denominational websites some ideas about how to measure their site’s use. Too often we put up websites without any follow-up analysis of their use. You just can’t make an effective website like this and if your work is ministry you don’t want its reach constrained by minor navigational design issues. Please feel free to use the comment page to start a discussion on any of these issues.

State of the Websites

Report for FGC Central Committee, October 2004
By Martin Kelley, webmaster

It’s important to start off with a little editorial about why we need reports like this. We put up a website and we know people use it. Why bother spending time collecting data?

The internet is simultaneously vague and precise. We can say definitively that the FGC website received 114,097 “unique visitors” in the past fiscal year. But how many people does that represent? Is that a high number or low number? How did these users react when they came to the site. Did they think to themselves “whoops, not what I want” and leave, or did they go “wow, what’s this FGC?, hey this is great.” LESSON: We need data to know if the site is being used well.

Everyone who reads this report is by definition an insider. None of us are able to step into the shoes of an unknowledgeable seeker. In my study of usage patterns, I have found that the differences in website use between Quaker insiders and seekers is so great that they might as well be looking at different websites, if not different media altogether (see How Insiders and Seekers Use the Quaker Net.

Because of this gap we cannot design the site based on whims or personal preferences. It is incredibly difficult to imagine how newcomers might navigate the site. We can only consider the design of the site after we’ve examined in usage, both in detail (actual users moving through the site) and in aggregate (pages and links visited over periods of time). See also: How to measure the peace movement. LESSON: We can only effectively design the site if we incorporate sophisticated and detailed data about how the site is being used.

Part 2, Googlization

By far the most significant change in our websites over the past year has been the “googlization” of Quakerbooks and Quakerfinder, both of which now have over four times the visitors they were getting last year.

The Google Problem: Both Quakerbooks and Quakerfinder have had great content from their start. The former lists the entire inventory of FGC’s bookstore, along with book descriptions and reader commentary. The latter has our list of meetings–addresses, worship times, and contact information. But on both sites the bulk of the content was locked up in databases. Before users could benefit from the sites, they had to find them. This limited much of the use to people who already know about FGC and our resources. Because internet search engines can’t search website databases (a problem known as the hidden or deep web), they could index only a limited number of pages on these sites and they made referrals on only the most generic search phrases (e.g., “quaker bookstore” “quaker meeting directory”).

We made various changes to both sites (technical details below) that have made them searchable by Google and the other search engines, which now return our sites for very specific search queries, e.g., “Quakers in conflict Ingle” and “Quakers Poughkeepsie”.

A Wider, More Inclusive Audience: What’s great is that this has given us not just a bigger audience, but our target audience. Most of these visitors don’t know enough about how Friends are organized to even know where to look for information. With Quakerfinder and Quakerbooks, we’re now be visible on their terms.

We’re giving them the basic information they’re seeking and we’re doing it when they are actively seeking it. This last point is important. I spend a lot of time watching how people use websites. If you email someone out of the blue with a link to a website, they might follow it but only half-heartedly. They might be doing five other things at the same time and they rarely stay to full use the website’s resources. When someone comes to a site via a search engine they’re much more likely to look around: this is the visit that they are initiating because they have something specific they’re trying to find.

Having a “googlified” Quakerfinder means we’re actually reaching people who are ready to try out a Quaker meeting and we’re giving them that most basic information that’s often hard to find. With a searchable Quakerbooks we’re selling books to people who might not even have thought about Quakers as a possible spiritual path. I suspect that both sites are doing more outreach about Quakerism than any of us expect.

Update, 11/29/04: I recently met someone who came to Friends after reading the Quaker entry in Wikipedia. He had gone through the list of religious denominations in the U.S. till he found one that spoke to his condition. In the past month FGC has gotten 57 visitors from Wikipedia.

The Fixes

In the official committee report I tried to steer clear of too many technical details since I wanted people to read it. So I’ll expand on them here on the website version.

Unique Domains: I don’t think it really helped to give Quakerfinder.org and Quakerbooks.org their own domains, at least initially. In last year’s report I noted that most of the traffic to those sites came from the main FGCQuaker.org site and that the separate domains weren’t particularly useful. Now the sites do have their own sort of identity, thanks to the “googlization,” which was a different process for the two sites.

Quakerbooks.org: Visitors to the Quakerbooks.org site are given session IDs to allow us to follow along with them as they make their selections. Since some users don’t allow cookies, this ID sometimes appears in the URL (it appears as something like “?sessionid=1514” appended to the end of the address). Google really hates session IDs because its automated software doesn’t know if the different URLs are different pages (to be indexed separately) or merely different sessions looking at the same page. So Googles just ignores anything that looks like this. The easiest fix is to have the software look to see if the visitor is Google and take of the session IDs (Google is okay with this workaround; I also used this method to allow them to index my Nonviolence.org discussion board.)

Quakerfinder: On Quakerfinder.org, the problem was that visitors had to type in a zip code to get to any of the content. Google’s not that interactive and only follows links. Until recently, it thought there was only three pages to the site. To fix this we set up an alternative way to navigate the site: from the homepage you can now follow a link to lists of Quaker Meetings by state. The zip code lookup is so much more convenient that we don’t suspect many live people will look up by state, but Google will and because of this it now lists 808 pages on the site. Now Google acts as a alternate lookup service, one that doesn’t depend on people finding our site beforehand.

Part 3, Comparing the Sites

Visitors

The basic measure used to measure website traffic is that of the “unique visitor,” which counts user sessions. Here are this year’s comparisons to last year’s. Numbers represent the monthly average “unique visitors” to each of our three websites.

     Site        FY 03/04 total  FY 02/03 total  Increase
     FGCQuaker.org    114,097         82,747           38%
     Quakerfinder.org  48,084         23,964          100%
     Quakerbooks.org   69,924         19,332          262%

The last two sites have truly remarkable jumps. The numbers are a little misleading, however, as the increase in traffic hasn’t been gradual but sudden and climbing. Compare the last full month (September 2004) with the same month the previous year and all three sites have higher jumps.

     Site             Sept 04         Sept 03         Increase
     FGCQuaker.org    9459            8254             15%
     Quakerfinder.org 8782            1997            340%
     Quakerbooks.org  7498            1611            366%

While the internet grows in use every year, the increases on Quakerfinder and Quakerbooks represent a quantum leap over that incremental increase. They represent “search engine optimization” of those sites, or what we all refer to the “googlization” of the sites.

Links:

One way of measuring the visibility of a website is to count how many other webpages link to it. Here are

     Site              October 2004    October 2003    Increase
     FGCQuaker.org     496             396              25%
     Quakerfinder.org  196              46             326%
     Quakerbooks.org   151              96              57%

For comparison: Quaker.org is up to 11,900 links, Phila. Yearly Meeting is 248, PendleHill.org is 420, FCNL.org is 10,200, Nonviolence.org is 20,900 and AFSC.org is 21,800. See Miscellaneous & Notes at end to see how numbers were obtained. See How Can We Measure the State of the Peace Movement? for more on this method of measurement.

Part 4, The FGCQuaker.org Site

Visitors

Use of FGCQuaker.org continues to grow at a good clip. We have a 38% increase this fiscal year compared with last’s. The site received over 114,000 unique visitors from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004.

To the right is the chart showing unique visitors by month for the past three years:

Referrers: Where did visitors come from?

In September 2004, there were 9459 “unique visits” to the FGCQuaker.org site, still our most-visited site. Here’s where they came from.

1021 from Quakerfinder.org. One surprise this year is the jump in Quakerfinder-referred visits. This is due of course to the phenomenal visibility of that site. In a recent one-month period, FGCQuaker received 983 visits from Quakerfinder links, two-thirds of which came from the “googlized” Quakerfinder pages. About one in ten visitors are now coming to FGCQuaker through Quakerfinder. Up 288% from last year.

842 from Google. We get a lot of Google traffic because we have a lot of content on our site: dozens of pamphlets, years worth of FGConnections, large parts of the old Fostering Vital Friends Meetings resource binder. Visitors via search engines often don’t know FGC exists but they want to know about our programs and work. Because FGC does such great work (and because we publicize it online!), many of our resources answer questions people have. I think this is great outreach.

Here’s an example. This Spring I noticed that we were getting visits on fairly generic searches for racism. Here’s a list of search inquiries that brought people to the CMR pages on FGC:

“ending racism”
“racially diverse communities”
“quaker racial diversity”
“diversity in friends”
“ethnic diversity”
“responsibilities to racism”
“pastoral care racism”
“activities for ending racism”
“testimonies racial unity”

This is a fascinating list precisely because these are generic searches. People aren’t looking for “Quakers ending racism,” they’re looking for anyone “ending racism” and Google is bringing them to us (we’re number 6 on that search term). This is surprising: I would think the much bigger denominations would all have committees ending racism that would come up higher just because of their larger institutional clout. That we are so high suggests that this work is not as common as I we might hope and that Friends might have the opportunity to play a role in larger faith dialogues.

When people use search engines, they get results from all over the FGC website. Searches might pull up some four-year article on FGConnections, or one of the “Friends And…” pamphlets that we’ve put online. Google up 12% from last year. There were about 83 more visits from regional Google sites.

434 from Quaker.org. Most of these people are coming directly from the Quaker.org homepage to the FGCQuaker.org homepage. I estimate that about 60% of these visitors leave the FGC site without clicking on any links. They’re probably just superficially curious about us, but not enough to look around the site. Up 39% from last year.

253 from other search engines: 118 from Yahoo (118), MSN (74), AOL (42), Ask (19).

81 from Beliefnet. Beliefnet has a popular “Belief-o-Matic” quiz that will magically tell you what religious faith you should join. It’s rigged in such a way that a lot of people unexpectedly come up as Quaker. The qui zthen directs people to an information page on Friends, which includes some links to FGC. Most of the Beliefnet visitors are coming from that information page directly to the FGC homepage. Up 200% from last year.

69 from UVa’s Religious Movements site. This is a pretty good description of Quakerism

60 from Quakerbooks. Our own bookstore website attracts a lot of new people who aren’t part of the established Quaker networks and many of them first learn of FGC this way.

53 from Religious Tolerance. A popular website from a Canadian Unitarian that profiles religions..

52 from QuakerInfo.org. This is the Philadelphia Quaker Information Center, a joint project of a number of Quaker organizations, including FGC.

Where did people go?

Top Destinations in September 04:
* To the homepage: 2396;
* Library’s “Welcome to Quakerism” pages: 463;
* A&O “Resources for Meetings”: 320 (prominently linked from Quakerfinder);
* Gathering pages: 309;
* “Silent Worship Quaker Values” tract on the Library section;
* Gathering’s pictures from last year: 149;
* Religious Ed: 149;
* FGConnections articles: 129;
* Ideas for First Day School”: 127;
* Advancement & Outreach homepage: 124;
* Young Quakes: 118;
* Publications: 100;
* Development 97.

These are pretty typical numbers. The only significant variation over the year comes in Spring, when traffic to the Gathering pages goes up. In May 2004, 961 people visited the Gathering homepage, and 355 visited the workshop listings.

Forget the Aggregates: How Do People Use the Site?

So far I’ve looked at tallied-up numbers: how many people visited, how many pages were looked at. The problem with this sort of statistic is that it doesn’t give us a feel for how individuals are actually using the site. Looking at usage explodes the preconceptions that many of us “Insider Quakers” might bring to the web.

The first lesson: most people don’t come into our site via the FGC homepage. Even more shocking: close to half never even see the homepage!

This blew me away when I first realized it. We spend so much time designing the homepage and wondering how we’re going to direct seekers from it but a lot of this work is in vain.

Of that 45% or so that enter the site via the FGC homepage, most of them leave the site immediately without following any link whatsoever.

Let’s splice this another way: 70% of the people who hit our site (wherever they enter) don’t look at any page other than that first one. They don’t click on anything but the back button.

What are some of the lessons on this: one is that content is all important. Those majority of visitors who bypass the homepage to parachute directly inside the site are coming for specific information. Many of them don’t know anything about FGC and most of them don’t care to learn about FGC the organization. They’re looking for some specific piece of information on Quakers (“painting of Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society Quakers” and “Quakers prison reform”), or on religious education in general (“religious meeting”), or on how churches are dealing with racism (“racial diversity” and “do blacks worship with only blacks”). These are all search phrases that have brought visitors to FGCQuaker.org. So it’s great that we have our pamphlets online and FGConnections and RE materials and A&O brochures.

There are hundreds of pages on our site, most of which we probably forget are there, but Google knows them and will display them up when the query is right.

Another lesson is that we shouldn’t rely on our homepage to help visitors navigate. We shouldn’t even worry much about using how its design will work for both insiders and seekers: most of the seekers never even go there. Most of the people coming to the FGC homepage are looking for FGC the organization.

Committee Page Case Study: One committee, Advancement & Outreach, is considering redesigning their committee page. In preparation I’ve looked at the usage and I think it makes a good case study. The A&O committee gets the most visible link on the FGC Homepage (top left, it gets this position because the committee list is alphabetical). Despite this prominence, almost no visitors actually follow this link. Only 1.5% of visitors to the FGCQuaker.org site ever get to the A&O homepage and even at that it’s the most visited committee page on our site!

Most of the visitors that did get to the A&O page
left without clicking on anything. It is safe to say that most of those
visitors didn’t thoroughly read through the page. The most-followed
link is the first one, for the “Inreach/Outreach” review. In the one-month period I examined only 9 people followed this link! This doesn’t mean A&O material isn’t used: Quakerfinder is very successful and the pamphlet “Resources for Local meetings” is popular. And over 300 people in this month came to some part of the A&O site. Committee pages are useful for the relative trickle of Quaker insiders who visit the page, but we should focus more on the content committees are producing.

The lesson is clear: visitors are primarily looking for 1) good useful content from the “Quaker Library” resources and 2) practical information about the Gathering. Pages about committees and internal FGC workings are not well used. We need to continue the focus on practical resources. We also have to accept that people will not be looking at what we think they should be looking at. Through these visits we will slowly build up FGC’s reputation but many people only dimly know what they’re looking at.

What I didn’t say in the report

In my official FGC report, I only hinted at the differences between institutional websites and focused online new media sites.

One surprising find that didn’t make it into the report is that the three most-viewed pages on my own Quaker Ranter site were seen by more people than all but the two most-viewed FGC pages. The most viewed pages on FGCQuaker are the homepage and the Welcome to Quakerism page. Three of the pages on “Quaker Ranter” are seen by more people than any other page on the FGC website. FGC’s Religious Education and Advancement and Outreach and Publications pages all are more obscure than my homepage or my “resources on plain dress” directory.

Institutional websites by their very nature have too many conflicting audiences and too timid a voice to act as much more than a reference resource. The Friends General Conference website is probably more friendly to seekers than most other institutional websites out there but even it gets a lot of people hitting the “back” button as soon as they hit the homepage.

Religious seekers are looking for individual voices with something to say and I suspect new media seeker websites will only become more important as time goes on. I suspect this will come as a surprise to institutional insiders as it happens. Sort of relatedly, see my Peace and Twenty-Somethings for some of the generational aspects of this shift. My Books and Media section collects similar sorts of essays.

One more piece in this: the FGC websites didn’t get a lot of blog traffic. If all I were was the webmaster of Friends General Conference, I’d assume that all this blog talk in the media was hype. But as the “Quaker Ranter” I know that a popular blog and/or personal site can get a lot of readers. The lesson here is that there’s little cross-over. Blogs seem to send little traffic to institutional websites and vice versa (actually institutional websites can’t really send people to bloggers for a variety of reasons). I’ve had a number of people read my blog and declare they’ll be coming to the next FGC Gathering so I know personal blogs can help raise organization profiles but that interest doesn’t manifest itself as an immediately-followed link. I suspect the community being formed by the blogs is far more important than the raw number of referral links.

Part 5, Quakerbooks.org and Quakerfinder.org

Quakerbooks.org

The first of our two sites to be “googlified” was Quakerbooks.org. I had long hoped to have our book listings show up on the search engines, especially since we carry a lot of hard-to-find ones. I had opened up the discussion board of my peace site to Google and been happy with the results.

Back in early 2003 we installed new software by Steve Beuret to power the bookstore website, one that would allow easy transfer of information between the website and our inventory program. The website could now list whether a book was in stock, and orders would go directly into the system (no more retyping them!). Once the new system was running smoothly, I emailed Steve about optimizing it for Google. There were two parts to this: having the books show up (Steve) and linking them in such a way that Google would index them properly (me). It took awhile to get ito all working but on December 17, 2003 Google came through and indexed the site.

The most visited pages are the introductory ones:

Welcome to Quakerism
Becoming a Member
Basics for Everyone

The search phrases that are bringing in visitors used to be generic (“quaker bookstore”) they now are very specific. September’s list is typical:

crash by jerry spinnelli
Andrew Goldsworthy
celebration of discipline
the misfits by james howe
rufus jones

I knew we’d show up high in the Google rankings for obscure books but I’ve been pleased that we’re right up there with Amazon and Barnes and Noble even with mainstream books.

Our online best sellers are pretty

Grounded in God: Care And Nurture In Friends Meetings
Friends for 350 Years
The Quaker Way
Philadelphia Faith and Practice
Listening Spirituality Volume 1
Silence and Witness
The Journal of George Fox

The bookstore inventory software is not very good at pulling marketing statistics. While it’s very good at telling us what books have sold and what books need to be reordered, it won’t tally up things by type of sale (phone vs. web vs. mail-order). The bookstore report should include more information on actual web sales.

Anecdotally it appears as if about half our web orders are new customers. Many of them are from geographic areas which are not traditionally Quaker. A&O has produced a flyer which goes into orders for new customers.

Quakerfinder.org

After we saw how successful the “googlization” of Quakerbooks was, I thought we should try it for Quakerfinder. It took a little seasoning to get everyone on A&O to sign off on the project but I am delighted to say they saw their way clear. The result has been nothing sort of amazing. Use of the site has grown by 340%. But the actual numbers are even more important: by my best estimate, over 6000 a month are using Quakerfinder who would not have even found the resource if we hadn’t made it search engine friendly. That’s 72,000 people a year–twice FGC’s membership, and these are the EXTRA people coming. Altogether at our current rate, this site is being used by over 100,000 unique visitors. Even if only one in ten of them make it to a Meeting, that’s a lot of people.

In last year’s report I pointed out that most of Quakerfinder’s traffic was coming from the FGC site. At that point, it didn’t looking like giving the location look-up utility it’s own domain name was paying off in any tangible way. Now it’s clearly worth it. Just the extra 600 or so visitors Quakerfinder is throwing to FGCQUaker.org site makes it worth it! Horray!

Twenty Times the Google-Linked Visits: I compared two typical months, one before and the other after the “search engine optimization.” In May 2004 Quakerfinder received 241 visitors from Google searches (footnote 1). In September, it received 3813 visitors–that’s over twenty times the visits. Overall visits almost tripled, from 2292 to 6037, with 60% of those extra visitors directly attributed to the Google bounce. The chart to the left shows daily Google-referred visits since the middle of March.

More Than Just Google: Other search engines were affected too: all together search engine visits went from from 311 in May to 4134 in September. For those interested, the top five search engines for Quakerfinder traffic are:

Google.com 83%
AOL: 5%
Google Canada: 3%
Yahoo: 1%
Comcast: 0.8%

As you can see, Google far overwhelms everyone else, which is why we often just call this “the googlization” of Quakerfinder!

Part 6, Miscellaneous and Notes

Miscellaneous

Mailing Lists

Late in the fiscal year, we purchased bulk email software. No, we’re not going to try to sell Viagra or a new home mortgage. This program will help us get information out to our bookstore customers and committee lists. Our occasional bookstore emails (“Book Musings from Lucy”) have been very well received, with only a tiny fraction of recipients asking to be taken off the list.

Web Host Changes

A big project, though not very exciting, is that we’re changing our web hosting company. FGCQuaker.org is with the new company (OLM) and Quakerfinder.org and Quakerbooks.org will be moving shortly. The new company organizes our accounts better and we hope that their service is better. (We’d recommend avoiding Data Realm also known as Serve.com.)

Notes

Programs I Use to Collect Stats:

For overall numbers, I used a extremely-common program called Webalizer, which gives useful monthly summaries.
For details I used a program called AXS Visitor Tracking Program, which lets me watch individual users as they navigate the site. With AXS I can also get details on where visitors to specific pages come from.
I have a list of key words which I watch on Google; every few weeks
I record where our sites stand on those phrases and watch how
navigational changes I make affect our Google rankings.
I also use Google to see what other websites are linking to us. I
look at what they link to (often not our homepage) and how many sites
there are linking.
I also follow links using more specific search engines such as Technorati, which indexes blogs (“web blogs” or personal diary-like sites).

Measuring Links:

I use Altavista’s search engine to measure how many links a site has. For good reasons, Google doesn’t list obscure websites and also counts how a site’s links back to itself. Here’s a sample Altavista query:

link:www.fgcquaker.org/ ‑site:www.fgcquaker.orgSee How Can We Measure the State of the Peace Movement? for more on this method of measurement.

Unique Visitors:

The most standard measure of website usage, here is a definition: “A real visitor to a web site. Web servers record the IP addresses of each visitor, and this is used to determine the number of real people who have visited a web site. If for example, someone visits twenty pages within a web site, the server will count only one unique visitor (because the page accesses are all associated with the same IP address) but twenty page accesses.”

Visioning the Future of Young Adult Friends (1997)

Martin Kelley — Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:10:00 +0000

This is a visioning essay I wrote in March of 1997, for Friends Institute (FI), the Philadelphia-area Young Adult Friends (YAF, roughly 18–35 year olds) group I was very involved with at the time. I repost it now because many of these same issues continually come up in Quaker groups. See the bottom for the story on this essay, including the controversy it kicked up.

I think the YAF/FI challenges can be roughly divided into three categories. They are introduced in the next paragraph, then elaborated on in turn. They are:

*Accountability*. Communication and group process within YAF/FI has never been very good. We can change that, revitalizing the role of Business Meeting as setter of the vision and forum for subcommittee feedback and policy setting.
*Outreach*. Who Do We Serve? YAF/FI has done no outreach to newly-convinced Friends and the planning of events has shown an insensitivity to the needs of this group.
*Activities*. We’ve had a lot of conferences with mediocre programs that have little spiritual or Quaker focus. We can set yearly themes as a group in advance, giving Steering Committee guidance for particular programs.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

PYM/FI has not been an organization with good communication skills, group process or accountability. Business meetings have been thought of as a necessary and begrudged task where half the participants fall asleep.

Business Meetings should have clear, advance agenda. The YAF clerk should call for agenda items by email two weeks before the meeting (phoning prominent members who don’t have access to email), and send out a draft agenda the week before. Basic agenda items should include variation on the following (my facilitation experience comes from Quaker-inspired but not Quaker process, so some of these tasks might need to be turned into Quakerese):

silent worship;
agenda review;
reports from all subcommittees (treasurer’s report, steering committee report, distribution committee report, email/web report);
two substantive issues;
setting next date;
evaluation of meeting;

All reports should be written (ideally distributed by email beforehand and with a dozen copies at the meeting) and should include activity, fiscal activity, policy questions needing business meeting input, approval of future tasks. Every decision should have specific people as liaisons for follow-up, and part of the next Business Meeting should be reviewing progress on these tasks.

OUTREACH: WHO DO WE SERVE?

I have a very large concern that the official YAF/FI organization does not do extensive outreach and that it hasn’t always been sensitive to the needs of all YAFs.

As a convinced Friend who first ventured forth to a Quaker Meeting at age 20, I spent years looking for YAFs and not finding them. The only outreach that YAF/FI does is to graduating Young Friends (the high school program). Our outreach to newly convince Friends has been nonexistent.

Other underrepresented YAFs: the Central Phila. MM group, thirty-something YAFs, YAFs of color, les/bi/gay YAFs (our President Day’s gathering conflicts with the popular mid-winter FLGC gathering, an unfortunate message we’re sending), YAFs with children.

Some of the outreach challenges for YAF/FI include:

Cliquishness. Many plugged-in YAFs know each other from high school days and it can be intimidating to jump into such a group. There’s also a reluctance to review assumptions brought down from the Young Friends (high school) program;
The poor communication in YAF/FI keeps many disenfranchised YAFs from having a forum in which to express their concerns and needs. We can reach out to under-represented YAFs and ask them what a age-fellowship could provide them;
Single-type events: the weekend gatherings keep away many YAFs with responsibility. The tenor of YAF/FI events often keeps away the more mature YAFs. I doubt one type of event could satisfy all types of YAFs. We should be open to support the leadership of disenfranchised YAFs by providing them the money, resources and institutional support to address their communities’ need (keeping in mind YAF events should be open to all).

ACTIVITIES

YAF events have had their problems. Thematically, they usually have not had Quaker themes, they have not been geared toward spiritual growth (usually First Day’s Meeting for Worship is the only spiritual component). They have followed the patterns of Young Friends events (3 day gatherings), even though this format excludes many (most?) YAFs.

We could easily have more of a mix of events. Some could be the traditional weekend events, some could be day events, like the successful apple-picking expedition and Swarthmore gathering a few years ago organized by Friends Center-employed YAFs.

As far as I’ve known, there has never been any Business Meeting brainstorming for themes, and each event has been organized in an ad hoc manner by a small group of people without feedback from the general YAF population. This is partly a result of the need for conference organizers to have a conference planned long in advance.

I propose that we set Year-Long Themes, a process that some groups employ to interesting effect. In the fall, there could be a Business Meeting to decide the next calendar year’s theme; Steering Committee could then organize all of the programmatic events around this topic. This would give large YAF input into the selection process and also provide an interesting unity to topics. Each topic should be broad enough to allow for an interesting mix of programs and each topic should have a specific Quaker focus. One pedagogical motivation behind these events should be to introduce and reinforce Friends’ history and culture.

Themes that I’d love to see:

Spiritual and historical roots of Quakerism. (Becca Grunko, Margaret Hope Bacon, Peggy Morsheck might be good resource people). Events could include a look at the fiery birth of Quakerism and an historical exploration of Friends Institute itself (founded in the 1880s, FI played a role in unifying the Hicksite/Orthodox schism in PYM and provided key assistance to the early AFSC; Gennyfer Davenport is hot on the trail of this history!).
Quakers in the world. a look at volunteerism, and witness and ministry. An obvious event would be to participate in a week- or weekend-long PYM workcamp.
Neat Quaker figures (maybe even neat PYM figures!). Conferences that look at the history of folks like John Woolman, William Penn, Lucretia Mott, perhaps current figures like the Willoughby’s.
Quaker Lifestyle and the Testimonies. Egads, we could read Faith and Practice! For those of you who haven’t, it’s really an interesting book. Not all events should be thematic, of course. The early December Christmas gathering doesn’t need to be; neither does some of the day long events (i.e., the apple-picking expedition was a fun theme in itelf!).

This essay written Third Month 21, 1997 by Martin Kelley

The Story of this essay (written fall of 2003)

I wrote for Friends Institute, the Philadelphia-area young adult Friends group, back in March of 1997. I was very involved with the group at the time, serving formally as treasurer and webmaster and informally as the de-facto outreach coordinator. We had a visioning retreat coming up in a few months and I wrote this as a strengths / weaknesses / opportunities piece to get the ideas rolling. I thought we had some work to do around the issues of cliquishness, and I also thought we could become more thoughtful and spiritually-focused but I tried to find a sensitive way to talk about this issues.

I got a lot of reactions to this essay. Some people really really loved it, especially those outside the Philadelphia insiders group: “Thanks for the insightful analysis! You really did a wonderful job of objectively explaining the frustrations that some PYM YAF’s (myself included) have with FI” and “I was so inspired by your essay ‘YAF vision for future’ that we are hoping bring it forward and circulate it here in among Australian YAF.”

But some of the insiders felt challenged. One didn’t even like me talking about cliques: “I think that as a group we have all been aware for some time of the problems plaguing Friends Institute… I don’t like the word clique because it makes me think of an exclusionary snobbish group of people that looks down on others.” (of course this was my point).

As if to prove my analysis correct, the insiders immediately started talking amongst themselves. Within two weeks of emailing this essay, both of my formal positions in the organization were being challenged. One insider wrote a request to the yearly meeting to set up a competing Friends Institute website; others started wondering aloud whether it proper for an attender to be Friends Institute treasurer. No one ever questioned my dedication, honesty and good work. I was more actively involved in Quakerism and my meeting than most of the birthright members who participated in FI, and I was the most conscientious treasurer and webmaster the group ever had. My essay had obviously hit a nerve and the wagons were circling in against the outsider threat. Realizing just how ingrained these issues were and to what extent the insiders would go to protect their power, I eventually left Friends Institute to focus again on my monthly meeting’s thriving twenty- and thirty-something scene.

The essay continued to have a life of its own. The May 1997 visioning retreat focused on nothing at all and subsequent business meetings dropped to a handful of people. But the issues of the high-school focus, cliquishness, and unfriendliness to newcomers came to the forefront again a few months later, after some sexual assaults took place in the young adult community. A conference on “sexual boundaries” produced an epistle that hit some of the same topics as my visioning essay:

We identified a number of habits and issues in our young adult community that tend to bring up dangerous situations. For example, some of our sexual boundaries carry over from our experience as high-school aged Young Friends… Newcomers become “fresh meat” for people who come to gatherings looking to find quick connections… People get lost especially when we have larger gatherings, and we don’t watch out for each other.

Friends Institute drifted for a few years. By the summer of 2000, a convince Friend became clerk and tried to revive the group. She found my essay and emailed me: “I’ve been looking over the FI archives and am impressed by your contribution. Do you have any advice, suggestions, or time to become active again in FI?” Sad to say this attempt to revive Friends Institute also had a lot of problems.

I repost this essay here in 2003 partly to have a ongoing record of my Quaker writings here on my website. But I suspect these same issues continue in various young adult friends groups. Perhaps someone else can see this essay and be inspired, but a warning that I’ve seen these dynamics in many different young adult friends groups and seriously wonder whether reform or revival is impossible.
[/box]