Embedded Files
Google Sites usage is exploding. Sites are easy to built, simple to maintain and fully integrated into our expanding Google ecosystem. Contrary to other solutions, Sites are free of charge.
When companies launch Sites for the first time, Sites' perceived lack of control can cause uneasiness. It's time to address this.
Nobody goes to jail for creating Slides. Let Sites roam free.
Sites as an intranet
Sites as an intranet
Google Sites is commonly understood to be a website building tool. Google sells it that way. Websites can be microsites (clusters of pages), like "Our team", "My thesis" or "My cool blog". Or they can be more complex and become intranets - it's a continuum. The difference is a communication strategy and a determined team behind it, with a mandate to send newsletters, direct people to the Site, post official content there and so on.
When we say that Google Workspace is our intranet, it is much bigger than Sites. One of the main drawbacks of Google Sites is that they are not easily found, unless they are built and maintained by professional comms teams and promoted over official channels. There is no way that individuals or teams can compete with "official" sites. There is also no value in artificially restricting Sites because of that fear.
Sites as an editor
Sites as an editor
The other way to look at Google Sites would be as a simple editor. It is very easy to quickly create a Site that looks good - arguably, it is easier than to create a good-looking Slides deck. You may already be using Sites to create captivating engagement proposals.
Most people view Sites as an editor like Docs, Sheets and Slides. The fact that Sites can have a "nickname" in the form of a URL does not change much.
Sites is internal
Sites is internal
Within big companies, Sites can normally only be reached internally - like Docs, Sheets, Slides.
You can share individual Sites with people from Visitor Sharing domains.
Sites are stored in Drive
Sites are stored in Drive
Sites are stored in Drive and have an owner. Ownership can change.
Sites can also be moved to a shared Drive.
Sites have version history
Sites have version history
Like other editors, Sites are secure, collaborative and have version history.
They can be restored to earlier points if needed.
What would "control" look like in practice?
What would "control" look like in practice?
Back to the demand: Can we "control" what people do in Sites? Some people dream of things like:
A process where people request Sites.
Reports with a great many columns
The Site police, knocking at people's doors when they violate rules.
Some of these are legitimate - there are naming conventions, for example. But asking for reports about freshness or waving through Sites requests are just silly. Sites are editors for mainly internal presentations - it would never cross your mind to make people ask for permission to create Slides or PowerPoint files, or to get pages and pages of who created what Slides deck.
Also, you have loads of active Sites. There is no way anyone can monitor or visit them. Freshness should not be an issue, because Sites may have a life cycle like Slides decks. The exception are strategic, intranet-style sites, which should be held to a different standard.
Dictator says "no Site for you!"
We are already living the most successful, most all-encompassing intranet since Google Workspace was introduced. Sites is a big part of this story, but so are many other components that together make up this mesh of information. This is why decisions about where to put information are important: Deciding not to enable Sites, storing it in other systems or deleting it after a certain time will make that web of information less useful for everyone. We are going the other way, with richer links and more integration.
Thank you for reading!
#sitesPublished 2020-10-20 by Holger Matthies.Modified 2022-10-29 by Holger Matthies.
Page updated
Report abuse