SEO

In which I attempt to boost my Google ranking through devious means

I was trying to explain to a non-journalist friend what search engine optimisation was, and why it could be important to a freelance journalist in Redhill or a freelance journalist in Surrey.

“Hm,” she said, when I’d finished, “sounds like a load of bollocks”.

Obviously I hadn’t done a very good job at explaining why being search engine optimised could be of interest to a copywriter in Surrey.

But I can see why she might have thought so. I mean come on, it does sound massively tedious, doesn’t it. I could almost send myself to sleep talking about it. It doesn’t interest me in the slightest, other than in its potential usefulness to a copywriter in Redhill.

It might be bollocks, I conceded primly, but it’s bollocks you need to know. In other words, BUNK. Rather like how to check your tyre pressure, or how to bleed your radiators. You’d rather not fill your mind with such things but, unless you have someone else to do them for you, you need to have at least a passing acquaintance with the subject.

Anyone who’s still reading might have noticed I’ve been trying to SEO this very article. Yes, those magic phrases freelance journalist Redhill, freelance journalist Surrey, copywriter Redhill and copywriter Surrey are the cheeky ones I need to get SEOd.

I was delighted, when I did that most egotistical of things, Googling myself, to find that the F Words name appears as number 3 on Google. And Sue Fenton (me, not any of the rest of the clan I discussed in a previous blog) comes in at position 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. An egoist’s dream.

But Google “freelance journalist Surrey” and I don’t show up till page 7 – and of course no-one ever gets that far. As “freelance journalist Redhill” I get one mention on page 2, and nothing else.

For “copywriter Redhill” I’m number 2 on the first page. But “copywriter Surrey” is simply nowhere.

One’s not supposed to post web copy blatantly and irrelevantly repeating phrases like “freelance journalist Surrey”. Apparently Google frowns on such carry-on when it sends its little spiders out to crawl about on the internet.

But I’m fascinated, far more so than the subject warrants, to find out if it works or not.

So, sorry Google, forgive me this little transgression of the SEO rules. I’ll try not to do it again – after all, I’m usually too busy waffling on about steam rooms and cats and things. Which might explain why I show up on Google when people do searches on phrases like “Italian cookware” and “swearing at police”.

I’m not convinced that it’s vital to be near the top on Google if you’re a freelance journalist – in Surrey or anywhere else – I think potential clients are more likely to search on the NUJ or LinkedIn. But it all helps.

And a quick plug for WordPress – I know it’s SEOd, cos a couple of nights ago someone was looking for a blog post I’d just written – and she found it on Google, less than an hour after it was posted. Well done, WordPress.

Pic credit: digitalart, http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=2280

Spammers delight me with gloriously incomprehensible English

Felt initial delight on checking site stats, at seeing a relatively enormous number of comments had been posted. Most turned out to be spam, which was mildly disappointing, though funnily enough I actually rather enjoyed reading them.

Is it compulsory, I wondered, for spam to be written so badly? Why would someone who is trying to flog a service – in this case, various kinds of web-hosting and SEO – opt for Double Dutch as their language of choice?

It seems a shame that such glorious examples of mediocre English should go to waste, so here are some of the best bits before I consign them to the trash.

“I like this weblog very much, Its a very nice berth to read and obtain information,” said the first spammer.

Aw, that’s nice, thanks! First time I’ve ever been told I have a nice berth – whatever that is.

Another spammer wrote: “I don’t unremarkably comment but I gotta admit appreciate it for the post on this special one”.

Glad to hear I am appreciated, if only “unremarkably”.

Winning the award for Most Incomprehensible Mangling of the English Language is this contender:  “Thanks for spending some time to talk about this approach, I think honestly with it and then cherish reading through more to do with this subject. However, if opportunity, any time you realize know-how, everything that thought processes updating your primary net equipped with in addition details? This is useful for me.” Sic.

This latter one is so bad it’s probably the result of free online translation software. It reminded me of the results when, bored one night, I got the internet to translate Keats’ “Ode to a Nightingale” into French, and then back, then back into French, then back to English again. With each translation it became less and less coherent, and more and more funny. I might try it again sometime and post the results here.

Pic credit: Master Isolated Images, http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1962

Why bad English is bad for business – and a sub’s disillusionment

A recent report suggested that businesses were damaging their trade by using bad English on their websites.

Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Communicate badly and you alienate your audience, who either don’t understand you or think you are patronising them and being disrespectful of their intelligence.

It’s high time site owners started paying attention to getting their content right. What’s the point of investing in all-singing, all-dancing, user-friendly, easily-navigable sites if you’re going to fill them with rubbish text that a 10-year-old could have produced?

Everyone’s obsessed with their text being “search engine optimised” – which, from what I can gather, means using the same tired old phrases over and over again – no-one seems to worry whether their text is good or not.

In the newspaper and magazine world, it’s a standing joke that the ad sales people refer to editorial as “the stuff that fills the pages between the ads”. They argue that it’s the ads that make the money, so why waste money on the non-profit-making editorial pages? It’s a logic of sorts, if you ignore the fact that what really sells a publication – what makes it attractive to readers and hence advertisers – is well-written, informative and compelling editorial.

Bad English, as used by those who should know better, is bad for journalists – because we’ll all be out of a job – but it’s also bad for business, because it damages the impact and effectiveness of communications. More importantly it’s bad for society, because it lessens the precision of messages and our ability to convey shades of meaning.

I had to admire the well-timed opportunism of a journalist contact of mine who seized on the recent report as a chance to promote her website re-writing service at £100 a pop. I hope she will capitalise on any sense of shame the report has created among the more self-aware of businesses.

Regrettably, a dismissive attitude towards good English is not unique to websites but is becoming endemic among newspapers, which used to be staunch upholders of the language. Say what you like about the politics of the tabloids, but in the past you had to look long and hard for a typo, because there were so many pairs of eyes overseeing and checking every single story.

Now, newspaper group owners believe that sort of nonsense is far too expensive. Subbing teams are being dismantled and reporters, even junior ones, are expected to fill their own pages, which then go straight to print without anyone checking the content or questioning its quality.

The result? Major errors in spelling, grammar, usage and accuracy. I’ll be delighted when one of these cost-cutting tightwads gets the court case for defamation or copyright infringement that they deserve.

I quote from a friend who’s seeing the standards of her own daily paper plummet as the f***wit owners piss on the subbing department from on high.

“I am feeling very disenchanted about the whole subbing business. The latest round of redundancies at our place targeted only production staff – there seems to be no recognition among management that we do a worthwhile job. It is all about reporters writing into boxes – any monkey could do it and probably will. Today was the first day of a horrible new shift pattern, only for subs. I’m starting at 3pm and finish after my last train home [and the firm won’t pay for a taxi].
“Subbing used to be a skilled job. But new technology meant any idiot could cast off, and when work pressures are such that any sloppy old thing will do (woefully short headlines and captions, typos, orphans – you name it, we do it) it’s not the same at all. Not fun, not enjoyable, not secure employment.”

Perhaps we should all stop trying to use our lovely language properly, and just communicate in Neanderthal grunts?

Pic credit: Renjith Krishnan, http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=721