‘Content’, ‘content’ everywhere,
But not the time to think.

There’s been a deluge of ‘content’ onto the internet. We’re drowning in it already - and the internet is barely into its adolescence.

And you know who’s fault it is, don’t you?

Google loves content, and so like amorous suitors desperate to win her attention, the webmasters, the bloggers, the spammers and the entrepreneurs, we all lay our precious gifts of ‘content’ at her feet.

Everyone wants to catch the eye of the search engines. So anyone with a website is busy creating as much ‘content’ as possible. But what do they mean by ‘content’? Just word count?

Oh Google, Google, what have you done?

Look on the job writing boards and you’ll find webmasters who want thousands of articles on a particular topic, all to help their search engine optimisation. Forget quality, so long as there are keywords.

But what on earth are we going to do with all this content? How much of it has real value? How much of it is original? Is there a difference between ‘content’ and ‘writing’?

Oh Google, Google, what have you done?

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of a personal publishing revolution. I like the fact that anyone can be their own publisher, that everyone gets a voice.

But is there any real value in churning out content - any content - just so long as the social media types digg it, so long as it snags a few search terms?

Does Google assess quality, rather than simply counting the keywords? Inbound links are supposed to help here, as a kind of democratic arbiter, but the SEO experts know all too well how to game the system.

And when I say the ‘quality’ I’m not being a prose snob. It doesn’t have to be literature.

There are many sites out there with great writing and ideas and things to say; with personality, fresh thinking, solid information, facts and humour.

But there are plenty of sites where webmasters are piling on as much ‘content’ as they can, often without any real merit - hollow, vapid, uninformed, but packed with the right keywords.

Let’s name this monster

We need a term for it: content that only exists for search engines and ad clicks. It’s a kind of spam, really, dressed up as nourishing meal, but actually containing so few real ideas and information that it just leaves you more hungry than when you started.

If we can name this monster, maybe we can tame it.

‘Content’ that is really just a kind of website spam. What are we going to call that?

And do you think all this matters?

I do - because if people write like drones feeding keyword honey to the Queen Bee Google, then the real value of a personal publishing revolution gets lost somewhere.

There’s no real freedom of personal expression if everything you write is hackled by a subservience to keywords, and motivated solely by a desire to stuff yet more content into the slavering jaws of the search engine monsters.

(Hey, it’s my rant and I’ll mix my metaphors as vigorously as I please).

If I’m talking tosh, feel free to say so in the comments.

</rant>

Illustration of the Ancient Mariner is by Gustave Dore. The lines at the start of this post are, of course, a reference the the Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Coleridge:

Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider helping me promote it through whatever social media you use (Digg, StumbleUpon etc). Or link to it from your own blog. Or make a comment. Or tell people about it, in person or by email. Thanks for your help.

The use of the snarky tone of voice is very popular in blogging and online generally. Is that because readers respond well to it? I don’t think so.

People snark because its easy to do, and it has a built in self-defence mechanism. It says: “Don’t bother disagreeing, ‘cos I don’t care.”

It’s the punk rock of writing, and for that reason alone I’m willing to forgive it. To an extent. Because I’m old enough to remember the heyday of punk, and I thought it was great.

Just as punk is better than bland pop, snark is better than boring writing or lame blog posts any day.

But the problem is that most snarkers don’t sound like Johnny Rotten. They sound more like a postpunk, grown-old tribute band, apeing the sound of their heroes, but creating nothing original. Not being themselves. Pretending, believing the daydream. Copying someone else’s attitude.

What’s so punk about that?

No, snarky blogging is too easy. Too predictable, and usually not funny. Just like sarcasm.

And ultimately it will repel readers, because it becomes tiresome. The joke goes stale. And the attitude wears thin.

It’s much better in the long run to find your own tone of voice, not copy a received snarkiness.

Of course, if you don’t agree, you can always go snark me to bits in the comments (although I have the power of deletion…)

Photo by Hamad Masoumi

One of the keys to writing well is to understand your reader. You need to know what they want.

If you’re writing for an online audience, remember that generally people go to websites to get things done. Usually they are looking for something - such as a piece of information, perhaps an idea. They may have a task they are performing or something they are researching. They may have come to your site looking for one part of the puzzle.

This is not always the case, of course. StumbleUpon readers, for example, are typically browsing their way through sites looking for something that interest them or grabs their attention. A lot will depend on the nature of your content.

But by-and-large people go online for a specific reason. They may want to book a holiday, buy a book, find the answer to a problem, or discover how to do something.

This influences the way people write and explains why so many of the most successful blogs have a strong ‘how to’ element to them. It’s clearly seen in the kind of headlines you find on blogs.
I’ve already looked at the subject of headlines, very briefly. It’s something I’ll be returning to again and again, because it is so important in just about every type of writing.