Old Content Still Gets Readers Excited

By | November 22, 2011

image

Here’s evidence that online publications should try to re-use—and make accessible—old content. The most emailed story on the BBC website at the moment—Aug 5 2008—is actually a story from January 2004:

image

which is this one:

image

I have no idea why it is—although the subject matter is pretty compelling, I must admit. (The gadget, it turns out, is not half the price it was back then. You can find it here; the BBC link no longer works.)

Bottom line: Some stories are just too good to allow to grow old.

Update, Aug 23: Further to comments, I don’t think this is deliberate self-promotion. I noticed another story near the top of the most emailed list again today, which didn’t offer anyone any obvious commercial benefit. It was on raining fish, a story from 2004:

image

The Splog Thickens

By | November 22, 2011

I was amused, and somewhat perplexed, to read on BuzzMachine yesterday about a bizarre splog—spam blog to the rest of us—which copies text and then converts it to synonyms. Jeff explains: 

New splog tricks

In my ego searches, I just saw a splog that copied text of mine but ran it through ridiculous almost-synonym replacements. I’m assuming this is done to fool Google into thinking it is original content and perhaps to fool the text cops folks like the AP hire.

I still can’t quite work out what the function of this is. But I did come across another one on one of my own ego searches. It took me a bit of time to figure out where it came from. (It’s from Betsy Weber’s blog.)

Here’s the splog text, with the original in italics first. My questions:

  • How the hell does group become “Washington entranceway”?
  • and member become “sorority girl”?
  • I kind of like the fact that loose wire blog has become “Unfixed Twist Blog” and the WSJ has become the “Commodity Exchange Annual”;
  • But somehow which you can see here became “which her philander play against hither”.
  • And the last two paragraphs are so full of weirdness I don’t know where to start.

Join the New Screencast Group on Facebook

Clique with the Untouched Screencast Colligate in reference to Facebook

Are you addicted to Facebook like I am? I recently joined and find myself checking my Facebook page daily! Facebook is a great way to keep up with friends all over the world. Anyone can join Facebook for free.

Are them addicted up to Facebook freak out on You double sideband? Yourselves before heaped and decree myself checking my Facebook serve weekly newspaper! Facebook is a severe want as far as bear in cooperation with friends under the sun the people. Anyone heap up build up Facebook so footloose.

I was excited to see that Amit Agarwal from the Digital Inspiration Blog recently started a new group in Facebook all about Screencasting (link will not work unless you are a member of Facebook). I’m excited to learn and swap tips with fellow members in the group. I’m in very good company – I know expert screencasters, Beth Kanter and Long Zheng have joined the group. Plus, technology expert Jeremy Wagstaff of the Loose Wire Blog and Wall Street Journal is in there too! Remember Jeremy? He wrote a great directory of screencast resources which you can see here.

I was chafing over against run in that Amit Agarwal off the Radical Direct communication Blog previously started a fashionable Washington entranceway Facebook all nigh about Screencasting (deduction plan not lick excepting alter are a sorority girl re Facebook). Ba’m fidgety into go into training and trading tips with fellow members fellow feeling the peer group. Ba’m in very noble cohort- I savvy technical expert screencasters, Beth Kanter and Unrelenting Zheng force twin the collect. And, craft informed in Jeremy Wagstaff re the Unfixed Twist Blog and Commodity exchange Annual is ultra-ultra there inter alia! Think back Jeremy Yourselves wrote a commanding business directory upon screencast capital goods which her philander play against hither.

You cannot access the Screencasting group without being a member on Facebook. But, it’s painless to sign up for Facebook. Click here to register. And, if you join, feel free to add me as a friend!

You cannot access the Screencasting dig up except existing a belonger wherewith Facebook. Unless that, ego’s Mickey Mouse so do a tour in behalf of Facebook. Go as of now up bound. And, if number one knit, glance freely in contemplation of figure out you now a playmate!

Hope to see you join Facebook and in the Screencasting group to share your tips and tricks! Now I have an excuse to go into Facebook while at work. 😉

Hope into smell subliminal self link up Facebook and in the Screencasting detail up to quantum your tips and tricks! The present hour Better self buy an breast-beating up to talk Facebook lastingness at advanced work.

So could someone explain the point of these? There are no ads on the page—it’s a WordPress.com blog, so there can’t be. And, more importantly, what kind of synonym engine are these guys using?

I’m off to register unfixedtwist.com and, while I’m at it, numberoneknit.com.

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » New splog tricks

Books. The New Google Juice?

By | November 22, 2011

image

Increasingly I find that if I enter a search on Google for something that I need explaining to me, the first result is a book. Of course, the book is in Google’s Book Search, but chances are the search is in a page that has been scanned and is available without having to buy the book. What I’m not clear about are the implications of this.

(The above example is from me finding myself watching a UK quiz show from 2001 on the BBC’s Entertainment Channel, which I noticed is free this month on our local cable network. As a long-term expat I find these programs compelling viewing, because they offer a window on a culture I’ve lost access to huge chunks of. So when they ask about something old, I’m good, but if it’s a reference to EastEnders since 1987, I’m stumped. Hence the search for what ‘bank’ means on The Weakest Link.)

So back to the implications. Well, Google may be gaming the system. But it looks like a legit result to me:

image

I don’t really understand how this works—I always thought links to a page affected its prominence in the rankings, but I’m not complaining. I found what I was looking for. But what does this mean for books? For publishing? Do authors and publishers try to SEO their books? Or will it eat into sales? Is it worth book-ising a website so that it scores higher on Google? Is it worth putting ads into books so when they appear in the scanned form on Google Book Search, readers see the ads? Just some thoughts.

Word Processing: Still in the Dark Ages

By | November 22, 2011

image

I’m amazed by how word processing is still in the dark ages, considering it’s what we spend most of our day doing. Case in point is Microsoft Word 2007, which throws all sorts of weirdness—artefacts, I guess we’d call them—in text. Try scrolling through a longish document—anything over 5,000 words—and you get this kind of thing (see above) where three lines repeat themselves. And it’s not just a brief, trick of the eye type thing. It sits there like a dumb duck until you fiddle with it and it goes away.

I’m very surprised that this kind of thing happens, and that it happens on such a regular basis. These are not complicated files that contain big tables or fancy graphics, or imported ones. They’re normal Word files.

It tends to confirm my suspicion that software developers rarely concentrate honing the functions that we actually spend most time in. There’s a tendency to add features, or change interfaces, or in some ways to count value, not in terms of making sure the basics work well, but in the stuff around it. (And no, sadly OpenOffice.org isn’t a whole lot better.

I guess what I’d like to see is someone come up with a real word processor: something that really processes words properly. So far I don’t think we’re there.