Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Sunday, 26 April 2015

The Men in Hats: Several Sides of SEO (sample copy)


Once you’ve finished with the nitty-gritty of setting up your business and are ready to hit the web, you come to the next problem, a rather major one: no-one on the internet knows who you are. In order for people to start finding you, you’re going to have to figure out a way to get yourself indexed on the various search engines that people use to sift through the internet. Thankfully there’s already a field of industry that covers this niche, and that is the process of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). SEO uses a variety of different techniques that work towards the same endgame: your website, highly ranked on Google. But! Not all of these techniques are what you might call good – they’re effective, sure, but morally, they might leave something to be desired. These techniques are known as black hat techniques, the modern wild west of the internet having appropriately absorbed the nomenclature of villainy that a man in a black hat represented in Hollywood’s classic westerns. Similarly, the better SEO techniques are known as white hat; we’ll get to them later. First, let’s meet the villains.

The Black Hat Gang


Probably the very worst thing about the gang of vagabond techniques that represent black hat SEO is how obvious they are. The most sinister offender, the ringleader of the gang, is probably keyword stuffing, the technique of shoving whatever particular word or term it is that you’re looking to pop up in search results for into a text as many times as possible. This is the text-based equivalent of when you get sent to a dodgy website to download something and are greeted by fifteen different ‘download’ buttons in various fonts and styles, each of which is poised and ready to ruin your day with popups and malware. If my keyword was keyword, then using the keyword keyword as many times as possible ends up with sentences like this one, which feature the keyword keyword so many times that the keyword keyword starts to seem like it’s haunting you, keyword. This is no use to anybody, because it makes your content look amateur and doesn’t actually help anyone who finds it. What’s the point of being the top result for ‘western metaphors in SEO’ if someone who is looking for information clicks on it and finds garbage? Well, you got a click; if that’s all you’re after, congratulations. But we can do better!

Other black hat techniques include the application of tiny, hidden text, links that don’t look like links and will, upon accidental click, send the browser off on another adventure, sneaky redirects, and the incredibly cheeky act of directly changing the content of a page once it’s been indexed!


The White Hat Sheriff


The real heroes of SEO are the ones who wear the white hats, and who outdo the black hat outlaws simply by being better than them. The true sheriff, the most important difference between black hat and white hat SEO, is a focus on user experience. Implement keywords, sure, but where they’re relevant. Focus on putting together a quality piece of content that helps the person who’s searching for those keywords; if the second best result for ‘western metaphors in SEO’ is a complex treatment of the theme, then that disgruntled user who clicked off the previous result is more likely to stick around – and time spent on a page is just as important as the initial click that gets us there. So write like a human, not like a robot that got stuck repeating keyword keyword keyword.

The search engines themselves are designed to reward this kind of content; thanks to the continued evolution of machine learning, their algorithms are getting smarter at detecting context all the time. Google can tell the difference between keyword spam and a well-written sentence, and will sort accordingly; good content goes up, bad content goes down, and the worst content might even get removed if it’s judged to be suitably unethical in its SEO applications. The Black Hat Gang will, inevitably, end up in internet jail.

The idea of user experience goes beyond the text, as well. It’s also about presentation; if your content is pleasing to the eye, it’s pleasing to the owner of that eye as well. So optimise! Design a website that looks good, reads well, and presents itself nicely on computer screens, phones, tablets; any conceivable means by which people might visit it. Then apply some of the other white hat SEO techniques: pop keywords into URLs, use keyword tails that search engines themselves suggest, curate strong, legitimate backlinks; even something as simple as having a website that loads quickly is a boon. All of these techniques, when used well, will drown out the black hats, and send your content to the top.

The Taming of the West


The web is different now to the dark days of the early 2000’s, when the black hats had an easy time of it. SEO isn’t just about language anymore; search engine results aren’t driven by how many times one can stuff variations of a keyword into a text. Nowadays, the most important difference between black hat and white hat SEO techniques is that one type has a future. Here in the dying days of the new west, the black hats are the last few cowboys, clinging to a land of lawlessness that is slowly being tamed and remade into a civilised land of quality content, with reputable locales that are linked by serviceable infrastructure and curated by good people. It might not make for as exciting movies, but at least we can find what we need!

Thursday, 1 January 2015

Sonnet 17

Who will believe my verse in time to come
If it were filled with your most high deserts?-
Though yet, heaven knows, it is but as a tomb
Which hides your life, and shows not half your parts.
If I could write the beauty of your eyes,
And with fresh numbers number your graces,
The age to come would say ‘This poet lies;
Such heavenly touches ne'er touched earthly faces.’
So should my papers, yellowed by their age,
Be scorned, like old men of less truth than tongue,
And your true rights be termed a poet’s rage
And stretchèd metre of an antique song.
But were some child of yours alive that time,
You should live twice: in it, and in my rhyme.


—————

I've really rather fallen for this sonnet. As opposed to its immediate successor, Sonnet 18, it feels incredibly human and fallible. The poet is far less confident of the infinite nature of his art, or more accurately, less confident of his poetic ability to represent the beauty of his subject without invoking such dramatic hyperbole that the scholars of the future think he’s lost the plot. I know the feeling, when words don’t work. It manifests here through the rather shaky start; 'come’ and 'tomb’ is a half-rhyme at best, and there’s no damn way I can make a rhyme of 'desert’ and 'part’ without severely mangling at least one of those words. But then the poet gets it; play to the impossibility, and do the impossible:

If I could write the fortune of your eyes,
And in fresh numbers number all your graces,
The age to come would say 'This poet lies,
Such heavenly touches ne'er graced earthly faces’.


Even if I could tell the tale of your beauty, says the poet, it wouldn't matter, because I’d get called a hack for it anyway. This subtle jab against the very nature of the romantic sonnet, which is reiterated in the hilariously self aware 'stretchèd metre of an antique song’ at line 12, is Shakespeare at his most deconstructive, and a wonderful precursor to Sonnet 18, when he takes umbrage against the very nature of a summer’s day as a rubbish thing to compare such beauty against. But it’s also heartbreakingly romantic in how it pierces through to the very core of affection, and both laments and celebrates how the curious nature of love individualises our opinions of its targets in ways only we can see. The author tried to leave this note for the world, to mark his love, to save a portion of his subject’s beauty, and ultimately he doesn't seem to care very much whether anyone believes him or not.

Of course the point of this sonnet is a procreation sonnet, which is why the closing couplet turns towards 'have a baby, nudge nudge’ like its precursors. I'm not a big fan of this part of the sequence, as I honestly just think it’s kinda weird, but it doesn't faze me in this sonnet because, whatever the poet might have intended when he started Sonnet 17, the nature of procreation ends up as an afterthought, displaced by rising senses of affection and a preoccupation with survival through verse that leads us very nicely into Sonnet 18, and a'swinging off from there. 17 is ultimately a turn-point, a pivot, but that doesn't make it any less than what came before, and what will yet follow after.

So we've got romance, transitioning themes and deconstruction. No wonder I was so inclined to write about this rhyme.

Sunday, 9 March 2014

Building English, one adjectivised medical condition at a time

Today I'm concerned about the word 'halitosical’, which basically means ‘of the nature of a breath condition’. Or at least, that’s what I’m deciding it means. It’s basically the adjective form of 'bad breath’ that doesn't officially exist - by which I mean, it’s not in the Oxford English Dictionary, a fairly solid resource for words that are real and words that are kblupt.

Just to be fair, though, I googled 'halitosical definition’, and got three results. That was thrilling enough in its own right for being such a rare combination of words to not even generate a full page of results, but the real point of this was that none of those results I did get were definitions, from the OED or otherwise. This doesn't change the fact, though, that if you search for 'halitosical’ on its own you get 66 results of people who have used this word, in defiant ignorance of the fact that it doesn't actually exist.

Anyway, I joined the halitosical party (which would be the worst party ever) because I needed the aforementioned adjectival form for my book, and it was either that or 'bad breathy’. The only other option that OED does have an entry for is 'halituous’, but since said word only takes the Latin root 'halitus’, for breath, and omits the suffix 'osis’ that denotes the medical condition aspect, 'halituous’ only means 'of the nature of breath/vapour’, and so wasn't quite sufficient.

Basically what this all means is that I've discovered myself to be part of a small group of people who have thought fuck it, bent the language to their will and made a new word happen when they needed it. I'm a witness to a live change to the English language, and it’s pretty cool. A prescriptivist like the person I raged at on Facebook last week when she sniped at people for daring to use non-standard English in conversation would probably be reloading their shotgun right now, but fuck 'em; this is what our language is - effervescent, constantly in flux, changing to the needs of the speaker - and I wouldn't take it any other way.

“Swelled with the potency of potential agency, Marcus found that he just couldn’t quite bring himself to go along with letting this halitosical hustler nick his stuff.”

P.S, or more aptly, Note-to-self: In delving the etymology of 'halitosis’ I've also discovered that a more apt translation into layman’s English would be 'breath condition’, not 'bad’ breath’ as I've always considered it. The more you know.