Is SEO ruining the written word?

I would like to preface this with saying that I love the Web, and I think it's an amazing and essential tool through which to find information, especially information that 10 years ago would have been impossible to find from the relative comfort of your home and/or office.

However, this MediaPost column, "If you want to show up for a keyword, use it," got me to thinking about the role of writer in the Web equation. This isn't the first time I've heard people tout the optimization of text. At a previous job, it was customary for a "Web" person to rewrite the headlines to stories posted on our magazine's Web site, to search engine optimize them, and it was a source of constant struggle. Why? To me this gets to a fundamental question of what is more important when it comes to writing for the Web--is it that the information is clearly written, as it is in print, in order present a full story to the reader or is it more important that the story is chock full of keyword phrases so that a reader might more easily find that story?

I realize that I seem like a dinosaur here, but I think search engines have forced us to dumb down our copy and fill it with jargon in order that it might neatly fit into the algorithms they've devised so that we can feel better about the amount of traffic coming to our sites. It would be interesting to know whether people found content on the Web to be more useful before the advent of SEO or whether they've noticed at all.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Nikki Golden on Friday, December 7, 2007 @ 4:41 PM
Permanent link to this post  •
Comments:
I have not read the article in question. However, I believe both print and digital goals can be met.

You may call it dumbing down. I call it writing so that everyone immediately understands what the story is about, what it's usefulness is, why I should read it in the first place. Using keywords helps to do this.

In my view, there is simply little room any more for the creative, cute, punny headlines that obfuscate meaning and clarity.

Always think service journalism (Don Ranly and Jan White) for print AND digital.

And what if you had to index all those so very creative headlines? People would be scratching their heads wondering what the story was about and whether they should take their valuable time to figure it out.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : December 8, 2007 at 12:03 PM
 
I can see the previous commenter's point. Using terms that people would use to search would seem to ensure that article heads would be to the point.

But using keywords in copy can bring it to the opposite extreme, making for bland, vague headlines -- especially when you're trying to work a three- or four-word buzz phrase into a short headline. Doesn't leave much room for verbs, making it likely that you'll end up with

Nikki, do you have some examples (hypothetical or real) of the kind of thing you mean? Do you think the "dumbing down" affects text, or mostly headlines?

The second commenter on the MediaPost column, Clint Dixon, says it makes no sense for a writer to do search engine optimization. I have a feeling (because of his reference to revenues) that he's talking about marketing copy.

Of course editorial copy affects revenues, too, if indirectly, and of course there's no point in writing copy that won't be found and read. But I think this is one of those questions like "should you hire a subject-matter expert or a writer to write for your publication?": The answer is, "It depends." There are likely writers who are decent at SEO when trained and SEO specialists who are good at writing.
# posted by Blogger Martha Spizziri : December 10, 2007 at 3:01 PM
 
I think it would be better to focus on straight forward SEO ,like relevant keyword submission rather than confusing readers. If the readers don't take interest ,the content automatically loses its potential.Its like reading the newspaper , mostly you read whatever catches your eye. Frankly I don't think creativity has anything to do with it .
# posted by Blogger Unknown : December 11, 2007 at 1:36 AM
 
Martha,
This might not be a great example, but here was something that came up often on a publication I used to work on: We would post Web-only content that I'd want to refer to in the print edition, to drive traffic to the Web for related stories. But when I'd do a search for the headline on our Web site, it wouldn't come up in the search because it had been rewritten for search engine optimization. And I'm not talking about cutesy headlines but rather straightforward newsy type headlines. And a lot of time what would come up instead of any headlines at all would just be the keywords, which really is no help at all if as a reader, I'm trying to find relevant content.
# posted by Blogger Nikki Golden : December 11, 2007 at 8:36 AM
 
Re: Not finding the web-only content related to a print article when you enter the article title, it seems as if there should at least be some kind of system that would avoid that.

If they don't keep the same headline on the web, at least the headline should appear in metatags so it would come up in search. Or else the new headline should be decided on before the article goes to print so that readers could be directed to the web-only article by name in the print magazine. The first way is much more feasible.
# posted by Blogger Martha Spizziri : December 11, 2007 at 11:34 AM
 
Post a Comment



<< Home