March 10, 2007 20:38
Category: Writing
[]
[To Blog Main]
I may be skeptical. But pray wonder awhile if this is so. For nearly a year, as an avid web-watcher, you may have seen an exponential growth in content writing. A problem of just too many, if you say. This begs the question, 'Do all contents make qualified reading?'.
If the answer is 'No', perhaps prudence demands that we revisit our skill in content writing and examine without bias if we're doing honor to our ability of improving thereupon. To put it mildly, I guess it is incumbent that we do so. Lest readers of this article suspect yet another instance of 'know-all-arrogance', let me say I do not intend to cast aspersions. Instead, I just mean to let some light enter through the cobwebs of contents mushrooming around us.
How it all started - the keyword game
Not long back, content writing for search engine optimization meant emphasis on meta-keywords. This translated into every seo expert worth his salt rushing in to stuff keywords there. Word went around that this would ensure top rankings, and soon we came to see 'mile-long' keywords jostling in the meta-tag. Opinions surfaced thereafter that there should be comas between keywords. Some said comas were not essential. Others did opposite and suggested further that there ought not be space after comas, and so on.
To be sure, this tactic in content writing paid back for a good length of time. Till search engines awoke from slumber to take note of this 'wise' misuse. In quite a few instances, websites found it worth to stuff completely unrelated, yet highly popular keywords to catch eyeballs. Those were days when search engines were supposedly weak in their algorithms, and as a result, websites with overstuffed meta-keywords ruled the roost.
Things changed soon. If Google was thought to have taken lead to totally wean away from over-importance of meta-keywords in content writing, others followed suit in no time. This altered the game dramatically. For good.
On to incoming links
As meta-keywords slowly faded into oblivion, in came the next avatar, the 'incoming links'. For whatever that followed, I feel Google has a fair share to contribute. Why? First, Google let it known that no matter what your content writing is, a new website will be crawled only when it is linked from at least another website which is already in Google's database. In its opinion, a new website is an orphan (and not to be crawled) till it is 'mothered' or 'fathered' by another 'known' website.
It is a good logic, Google's. Yet one that couldn't seriously dampen a newbie's spirit to come into being. In the process, locating a known website (to link from) became the first step before coming alive, even while the main thrust of content writing was slowly taking shape. What though did alter the eyeball game was something more than what Google meant.
Google said incoming links weigh a lot in its consideration of a webpage's importance (and 'popularity' by corollary). No sooner was Google's stance known than a no-holds-barred game began. Link farms grew in every nook and corner of the web. Businesses that offered nothing but links flourished gaily with focus on good content writing taking a beating. Indeed it was fortuitous that Google's 'noble' intention gave birth to thousands of link-related businesses all over the web, many of them spurious.
Links turning sour
Here is a perfect example of antithesis. You want one, get something different. No doubt when Google stressed on links, it intended to help surfers shuffle unhindered across related content writing over a wide section of similar web topics. What instead happened was chaotic intermingling among websites that were as disparate as chalk from cheese. It isn't that Google cared for them, but the idea lingered that one link too many is a boon, no matter where it comes from.
Feeling about, one may surmise that Google's algorithm was structured in a way that did prefer links among related topics, yet not factoring in unrestrained quantification. As if that were so, Google started altering the search results in sporadic spurts. The screening continues and each time it happens, the search results take on a different hue.
Predicting Google is a zero-sum game, and I am not one to hazard a guess. However, looking at stories around, I can't help saying that Google has probably relegated the importance of incoming links. If indeed that is true, what emerges is that reciprocal links will shortly become passe.
Content writing to rescue
This brings us to links generating from content writing. Here was where the web started. If it wasn't for content, the internet wouldn't have flourished. In early days, contents smelled more of quality, less of irrelevance. There was a ring of authenticity in what we read on the net in the sense that people who delved in content writing in those days seldom resorted to deliberate misinformation. Once commerce entered the scene, the entire picture changed and the web became a motley crowd of few truths and more half-truths. This was perhaps inevitable since no public domain can be expected to ever remain free of litter.
In a way therefore, the coinage of the term 'content is king' is indicative of returning to roots. Or, is it? Going back to where I started, one can't help being suspicious of this new-found love for content writing. For, if you sniff around, you'll find there is no dearth of content per se, but rare are those that offer you quality information.
Overflowing supply
I happen to receive hundreds of articles everyday. It's tedious sifting them, and after I devote couple of hours each morning, I am more often than not left utterly disappointed. Make no mistake. Most articles, barring a few, are immaculately dressed so far grammatical perfection is concerned. But just about a handful content writing offers new insight or some sense of analytical thinking. A frightening majority is dull, boring, repetitious, and easily predictable. If I were to post guest articles in my website (which I don't for other reasons), it would be tough time selecting the pearls.
Why such paucity of good content writing? Rather, why such proliferation of contents? The reason may be close at hand. Since content-generated links became re-important, many websites shifted its game to acquiring large volumes of it, quality being secondary, if any. Little wonder therefore that there is a huge need of ghost writers these days, for how else would you expect to gain prominence double-quick! Did you say prominence? Prominence for what? If it is only to fetch links (through author bylines or otherwise) or to impress search engines, luck may soon run out.
The logic is simple. Accumulating quality content is an ongoing effort, not something you do off and on. Top information sites like SearchEngineGuide, Clickz, Travelwriters, WilsonWeb and others are doing it for years at a stretch. It thus follows that any effort to attract search engine's attention, whether by sheer number of keyword-enriched content writing or by garnering author back-links, it must be planned for long haul. Moreover, content writing must preferably conform to larger objectives of website.
It's not my case to prove or disprove any point, but who knows an overdose of semi-relevant content writing growing in sudden spree may not after all be to Google's liking! Better to be trim than fight to become fat overnight.
