Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 2698 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
Posted (edited)

I have a friend that opened a car shop. He has been doing very well just by word of mouth and social media. He now wants to create a website for the business that will basically list About, services, and current/past projects.  What would be the easiest way to get a nice looking website containing information and possibly a store section? He already has a domain registered. Is it as easy as using one of the online hosting services and their website builder? He is technologically savvy.

If using an online host is best, what are some the best from your experiences?

Edited by TN94z

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
59 minutes ago, TN94z said:

I have a friend that opened a car shop. He has been doing very well just by word of mouth and social media. He now wants to create a website for the business that will basically list About, services, and current/past projects.  What would be the easiest way to get a nice looking website containing information and possibly a store section? He already has a domain registered. Is it as easy as using one of the online hosting services and their website builder? He is technologically savvy.

If using an online host is best, what are some the best from your experiences?

Many ways to do this - I built out websites as a favor and for non-profits (it's not my specialty, but I know enough) using Squarespace, Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, etc... Squarespace is probably easiest, but you pay more. I built this completely from the sofa while watching tv. Wordpress with a cheap hosting plan is cheaper, but don't get all the automagic stuff of Squarespace. Picking a host is tricky, there are so many, I just know I hate GoDaddy.

Ecommerce is a little trickier, depends on what you're selling, volume, etc...

  • Like 1

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

I was reading about BlueHost. They look very reasonable on price. I don't know that he will be selling products at all as much as selling his services. So a store isn't big deal right now, but may be down the road.

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
7 minutes ago, TN94z said:

I was reading about BlueHost. They look very reasonable on price. I don't know that he will be selling products at all as much as selling his services. So a store isn't big deal right now, but may be down the road.

I used to use BlueHost, using something else now. You can Google research it but the advertising has been so gamed. If I were looking for one now, I'd look at the social media of respected web developers and designers and see what they recommend, but to be honest, I think the low price ones are pretty much the same although I would stay away from the likes of GoDaddy, Earthlink (yes still around), big companies, although many hosting companies have been bought out. Again, not my specialty, so caveat emptor.

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

I'd just use Squarespace. It's still really inexpensive, and they do a lot of the stuff for you.

Seriously, $18/month or something? If he's worried about $216/year, he's got bigger problems than creating a website…

  • Like 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
7 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'd just use Squarespace. It's still really inexpensive, and they do a lot of the stuff for you.

Seriously, $18/month or something? If he's worried about $216/year, he's got bigger problems than creating a website…

He's not worried about that kind of expense...haha.  He just wouldn't want to pay thousands for someone to build one.

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

Squarespace is even cheaper if you do the one page option. It's enough for most static content. Paying thousands for a web site those days are far gone. Very easy to DIY today.

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Having e-commerce enabled vs. not makes the biggest difference, in my opinion.

If your friend wanted a simple site that is flexible and where having a shop was not a big part of his strategy, I would say 100% use WordPress and use Bluehost for hosting. This combination isn't only cheap, but flexible and reliable. You won't have access to high-quality support, so you may want to work with someone who can be in charge of all the website updates and who can fix issues when they arise (which will happen). There is an ecommerce plugin for Wordpress called WooCommerce and it is pretty good, although I don't have a ton of experience managing it, so I'm not sure about what issues it may have. Hosting is like $90/year and you may have to pay a domain mapping to use WordPress with your own hosting (around $20/yr), then there are the domain name annual fees ($15/yr).

The second option is to use shopping cart platform (Shopify, BigCommerce, Magento). Choosing the perfect one is not going to happen because they are not perfect, you are going to experience integration issues and, if his business grows enough, different features will potentially become n obstacle in the future. Magento is the best one, but it's too expensive for small companies and development is more complex than the other 2 options. So, that one is out.

I have used BigCommerce and Shopify and they both work fine, they cost around $30 per month and integrate with multiple 3rd party solutions. Depending on the # of products, I would use Wordpress with WooCommerce (less than 50), but if he has a larger catalog, using one of those 2 is probably best. I personally like Shopify better and I think they adapt quickly to market changes, so they are more up-to-date with eCommerce resources and technology features.

All the easy DIY site makers you can find online are cheap, but they are sh#t. They do not have good SEO features that allow you to optimize your site for crawlability and have an actual strategy that can build traffic, so you pay extra in sweat.

Shopify and BigCommerce are very easy to use and set up, so you don't have to be a developer but you must understand and get familiar with the basics of the platform. WordPress is a little more complicated, so you will need support if you are not good at it.

DM me if you have further questions.


  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Having worked as a web designer, and sat the other side of the table a good few times procuring sites, I would urge the use of Squarespace unless there's real reason not to do so. Wordpress can be such a bore – forget to update it and nasty little hacking scum-bags will ruin your site.

  • Informative 1

Dan Vesma

M2 10.5, Old Bendy Fazer 3W, Mizuno MP-59 Irons, Cheapy Wedges & Monza Rossa Putter
Back playing after 6 years, no hcp yet, just lots of shouting


  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I have tried a few routes. First I did WordPress with Bluehost, then I tried Wix. I think I am going to try Squarespace for my next endeavor. There used to be an advantage to knowing the "technical" side of running a website, but that is now largely marginalized by the service providers like SP. Any time spent on web design is a loss in my opinion, focus on your business instead. 

- Mark

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 1:58 PM, TN94z said:

He now wants to create a website for the business that will basically list About, services, and current/past projects. 

A little late to the party, but as a small business which caters to local customers, why not use FaceBook and possibly a Mobile App which links to a web page for information.

An App is more useful than a website.

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
12 hours ago, Club Rat said:

An App is more useful than a website.

I disagree.

And you said "an app which links to a web page"? So even your app needs a web page…

Websites are useful, still, because people search for things in Google and other sites. Apps aren't often shown in search engine results.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, iacas said:

"an app which links to a web page"?

Apps can have links to websites for directions such as a google map to a location, send push notifications, link to email contacts or call anyone, contact various personnel, obtain service requests and pricing or estimates and host a website.

These are all useful tools for a small business operation.

I feel social media such as FaceBook is a really good means to advertise a business, especially a service orientated business. And it's a feasible low cost method.

When I mentioned apps link to websites, it would be for links which have information pertaining to the business and or if the OP desired to have their website.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Apps aren't often shown in search engine results.

True, but Apps are very useful when used frequently.
As an example, I could write an App for a Teaching Pro such as your self.
Within the App, any client could make a reservation, view available times for a lesson, send you a text or phone call, obtain directions to your facility, view package pricing, select a level of lesson, send pics or videos. 

Most people use mobile devices nowadays and spend less time on a PC.
They want quick, to the point information.
Not a Google search result which pull up thousands of Auto services and products.

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
20 hours ago, Club Rat said:

Apps can have links to websites for directions…

You completely misread what I was saying there.

John, I've written, apps. I've written software. I've developed websites. I know that apps can link to web pages.

20 hours ago, Club Rat said:

Within the App, any client could make a reservation, view available times for a lesson, send you a text or phone call, obtain directions to your facility, view package pricing, select a level of lesson, send pics or videos.

They can do all of that on a web page, and they don't need an app to do it. Just a browser.

20 hours ago, Club Rat said:

Most people use mobile devices nowadays and spend less time on a PC.

And smart phones have web browsers.

20 hours ago, Club Rat said:

They want quick, to the point information.
Not a Google search result which pull up thousands of Auto services and products.

Uhhhhh… They have to find the app, John. It's not just magically on their phone.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I'll cry "UNCLE", I give up. :beer:

Websites are great, along with using Social Media. ;-)

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 1 year later...
  • Moderator
Posted

So I built my buddy a website and it turned out pretty good. Now my question is, how much would be a fair amount to charge? I put quite a bit of time into it. I will be maintaining it going forward as well. I don't want to make him think I am ripping him off or anything, but I would like to be compensated for my time.

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

Bryan, we can't answer that question. I've built websites for free, and I've built websites for $15,000. I've maintained sites for free, and maintained websites as a full-time job paying most of my yearly income.

It may even be in YOUR best interests to swap services, if you need any automotive work done.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Bryan, we can't answer that question. I've built websites for free, and I've built websites for $15,000. I've maintained sites for free, and maintained websites as a full-time job paying most of my yearly income.

It may even be in YOUR best interests to swap services, if you need any automotive work done.

Very true. He is a good friend and has helped me in the past. He also charged me for the work he did, albeit at a discount...lol. I'll ask for the website fees back and maybe a couple hundred in return.

Edited by TN94z

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2698 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.