Web Content on HTML5 in 24 Hours

Stop Optimizing and Add Content Instead

Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:34 +0000

So, you’ve built your website, and focused on SEO (search engine optimization) enough to start getting some traffic to it. You’re watching your stats grow week over week and month over month. It’s exciting. Your SEO efforts are working!

But what happens when you hit a plateau? And believe me, even the best sites plateau after time. If you have been focused on SEO it can be tempting to continue optimizing your home page and other pages on your site, but that can be a mistake. And with new search rules that Google continues to add, it can be a very big mistake.

Google Over-Optimization Penalties

Google has never been a fan of SEO. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if you cornered some of the search engine experts at Google, they would admit that they consider SEO to be a form of gaming of their system. And Google has always penalized gaming. So the fact that Google has announced that they will be adding additional penalties for sites they consider to be “over-optimized” should not be a big surprise.

How Can You Tell If a Page (or Your Whole Site) is Over-Optimized?

This is a legitimate, but tough question. Google doesn’t release their algorithms for us to see (as that would make it child’s play to game). But that means that most of the following suggestions are just that—suggestions. You might be able to continue to do these things without any penalty, while another site might be apparently penalized for much less. Here are some clues to help you determine if your page or site may be over-optimized:

Too much repetition of the keyword phrase This is the most common signal of over-optimization. If your keyword phrase occurs more than 10-15 times in your article, you might be over-optimized. One way to check this is to ask someone who doesn’t know your site to read the article and tell you what they think is the phrase you are optimizing for. If they can tell the exact phrase, with little or no prompting, you probably over-optimized.
Titles that are stilted and repetitive One strategy that was very common (in fact I’ve even recommended it) was to write your title in the format keyword phrase - something else keyword phrase e.g. “Meta Keywords - Using Meta Keywords.”
Multiple headlines using the keyword phrase While you do want your keyword phrase to be included in your main H1 headline, repeating it in every subsequent subheading can be too much and look like over-optimization. Strive to create headlines, headings, subheadings, and text that is natural sounding and only uses the keyword phrase where appropriate.
Including the keyword phrase in additional, less visible, locations This is the first place to look for keyword stuffing. If all of your image alt text, noscript elements, and other elements that don’t display on the page include some version (or worse, multiple versions) of your keyword phrase, you should change them to make them more natural.

What to Do When Your Site Plateaus or Falls in Search Results

The first inclination of most beginning and intermediate web designers when they see a plateau or drop in search referrals is to immediately go in and re-optimize pages. While there is some benefit from fixing the problems I listed above and editing content to keep it fresh and up-to-date, most of the time, your inclination to edit files is going to result in more over-optimization penalties, not less.

Instead, do what the most successful sites on the web do: write more content.

Adding new content to your website has a lot of SEO advantages:

Search engines see that your site is still relevant and focused on delivering content to customers. Since a search engine is useless without something to search on, by providing more content, you are providing the chance for more results.
More content means you will have expanded content. Once you’ve written about one aspect of a topic, you can then expand on it and write about other aspects. And after a while, if you continue to regularly add content on that topic, your site will be more and more valued as a place to find information on the topic.
More pages of content provides more pages to be found in search. This is simple math. If I have a 10 page site and you have a 1000 page site, you have 100 times as many chances as I do to get a page view or search referral.
New pages provide more linking opportunities. And every time you link to your older content, that sends a signal to Google and the other search engines that that content is still relevant as well.
Regularly added content tells the search engine that your site is still maintained. And if you keep to a schedule, the search robots will figure that out and start spidering your site more often.

Remember, too, that adding more content doesn’t have to be long. While longer articles might do better in Google, just adding a 2-paragraph blog post every day is enough to show that you’re paying attention to the site. In fact, it’s best to come up with a schedule that you can stick to, whether it’s once a day, once a week or once a month. More is better, but staying consistent is important too.

By regularly adding new content to your site, and doing basic maintenance on your older pages (but not worrying about re-optimizing for search on those pages) you can get better search engine placement than you can by just fiddling with the same 100 pages over and over.

Remember, write more content!

Is Calling It “Content” Offensive?

Tue, 08 Jul 2014 17:53:53 +0000

I’ve been working on the web since 1995, and I’ve been calling the text, images, and media on web pages “content” since around that same time. I consider myself a writer and web designer. And in both of those roles I have worked as a content provider. I created graphics for the Netcom personal web page customers to use. I wrote documentation that went online. Later on in my career I’ve created videos and podcasts for web pages as well as all of the many documents I’ve written for About.com and other websites. Also, as a web designer and CMS builder, I have worked with other content providers to get their words, images, and media on websites.

So it surprised me when I read in an article recently that calling web page writing, images, and media “content” was somehow offensive. And calling the photographers, writers, artists, etc. who created that content “content creators” was somehow trivializing their efforts.

What are we supposed to call it? Sure, I am happy to refer to an individual as a writer or photographer or graphic artist. But when I’m referring to the portions of the web page outside of the design, layout, typography and so on, “content” is the most general term. And when referring to the people who build that content, “content creators" seems most accurate. After all, I don’t consider myself a graphic artist even if I have created graphics for web pages. I’m also not a photographer, even though I’ve posted photos that I’ve taken. But if I were to get photos from Ansel Adams, I wouldn’t call him a writer, even if he wrote descriptive text about his photos.

Being a Creative is Hard

You spend hours, days, weeks, or even months on a project and then your customers come and look at it for just a few seconds before pronouncing it “good” (or “bad”). You will get lots of positive comments and feedback but when you ask for even a fraction of the amount you spent to create your content, your customers look at you incredulously and seem to feel that you’re being unreasonable that you want to feed your children and pay your mortgage.

It’s especially difficult online, as many online companies pay little or nothing for the content, whatever form it takes. And there are always more and more novice writers, photographers, and artists who are happy to give their work away for the chance at “exposure.”

But this has always been the case. And while I don’t recommend working for free, lots of people will want you to.

Does the Name of Your Creativity Really Matter?

The fact is that whether you like it or not, “content” is the term that companies and website owners use to describe the elements of their pages that go beyond the design. It is not intended to offend anyone or belittle their efforts. It is just a generic term.

And in the web industry, this term is here to stay. There was a time back around 2000-2005 when some companies were calling content “digital assets.” And they called the management tools “digital asset management” or DAM. But DAMs lost out to CMS (content management systems) and the items they were managing became “content.”

The trick is to keep enjoying creating whatever you create regardless of what it’s called. And hopefully you get paid for your content in more than just exposure.

What Do You Call Yourself or the People Who Create Content for Your Sites?

Is calling them “content creators” offensive to you? Let me know in the comments what you think. Personally, I call myself a writer and web designer as I mentioned, but I don’t mind being referred to as a content creator or creative when it comes up.

Comments:

Dave - Jul 2, 2014

Offensive? If you called some one an aardvark, that might be questionable. Calling someone a ‘content creator’ is innocuous. Taking offense could place the sensitive objector in a whole other category with pejorative meaning. Is it kind to call them ‘content creators’? Is it true? Is it helpful? I think yes to each question. No foul.

Amanda Morin - Jul 2, 2014

To some degree, it’s a matter of semantics. I think I may have read the same article you did about why calling it “content” diminishes our role as creators or artists or whatever we creative types call ourselves. As an author, I agree. I don’t want my books to be called “content,” because in my mind they’re not. As a web writer, I disagree, and some of that is simply because “content” is the word used to describe what we put into content management systems. In and of itself, the word is not meant to diminish what we write; it’s meant to identify how what we write fits as an element into the Web. I really believe it’s a matter of how it’s used. Some people call what we create “content” and us “content creators” as a way to deliberately diminish or trivialize what we do. In that sense, they’re speaking of our writing or art as something that merely fills space, so it doesn’t matter who makes it. It’s an attempt to justify using people who are not as highly qualified or willing to work for free. After all, if that content is there simply to fill space, does it really matter who makes it?

Charlie Zegers - Jul 2, 2014

Speaking as someone with a background fairly similar to your own… “Content” is about as innocuous a description as I can imagine… a catch-all term that can describe any sort of media. But “content creator” has a number of connotations that are pretty troubling depending on context. When I hear “content creator” I think “hack who posts articles for free on HuffPo or steals people’s online photos to gather into clickbait articles on Buzzfeed.” As such, it’s fairly offense to refer to, say, a network of vetted subject-matter experts as “content creators.” It’s an accurate descriptor, but it’s also a lowest common denominator.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 2, 2014

Good point. I think that many larger content websites tend to want to generalize the people who create the content that they then sell into something less “expert” less “professional.” That way they can dump them at a drop of the hat. After all, there are always more where that cog came from.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 2, 2014

Yes, yes YES! Any company that uses the term “content” as a deliberate way to marginalize the effort made by their writers, photographers, and artists is definitely using it in an offensive way. Unfortunately, I think the term “expert” is also gaining that stigma. More companies are referring to their writers as “experts” in an almost tongue-in-cheek fashion. And that is offensive as well.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 2, 2014

Dave, if you want to call me an aardvark I’d be okay with that. :-) I do think that the term content creator is innocuous, at least in the fashion I use it. I think that some corporations use it, as I mentioned in my reply to Charlie, as a way to de-humanize the people who are doing the creative work so that they don’t feel too bad when they dump them for the next cheap or free creator.

Amanda Morin - Jul 2, 2014

You make a great point in separating out the word “content” from “content creator.” Until you mentioned it, I hadn’t realized that the phrase “content creator” is what rankles me. I’m okay being a writer whose work is called content, but I’m not okay being called a “content creator.”

Jon - Jul 2, 2014

To me, the term content has no negative connotations. However, the term “content creator” does, and smacks of “user generated content” or “community created content”. Not that user generated content is necessarily poor, but I think the impression it gives is “unvetted”.

Charlie Zegers - Jul 2, 2014

Funny, we all seem to be talking about the same organization.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 2, 2014

Yes, “content creator” really does sound like they’re looking for content farmers doesn’t it?

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 2, 2014

I’m sure that’s just a coincidence… ;-)

Amanda Morin - Jul 2, 2014

Well, yes and no. Unfortunately, more than one organization I’ve contracted with is looking for “content creators.” Note the past tense, as in “do not cuttingly contract with.” :)

Sam Curcio - Jul 3, 2014

Content, when meaning everything as a whole, without being specific to one asset, is fine. Content creator is a new designation to me. If someone is talking about a group of individuals that have a part in creating the assets, then he should use “content creators”. However, when talking about one member of that group, it is best to use the proper title (designer, artist, etc.)

Ferne Arfin - Jul 3, 2014

I disagree with those who don’t object at all to the term content. As someone who came into writing for the web as a writer - not as a technology expert, or a food expert or any one of a number of other areas in which people use their own expertise on the internet - I think it’s belittling. It trivializes the expertise required to translate one’s professional expertise into words by suggesting that writing is not also a professional expertise. I know there is nothing I can do about it but as someone who: – has worked as a writer and journalist since we used manual typewriters to make newspapers – has two professional degrees in writing – and has seen the bad grammar and misspellings that pass for “content creation” on many websites I can’t help thinking that calling any writing online “content” trivializes it and by extention trivializes those of us who create it. So, yes, I’m offended but I consider it all part of the revenge of the nerds I’m afraid.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 3, 2014

That would be ideal. I think that what happens, especially in large companies, is that the managers get in the habit of calling the group “content creators” and then generalize even when talking to individual writers, designers, etc.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 3, 2014

True, and I understand you, but then what would you call the entire group of stuff posted on websites? I mean the writing, photography, art, etc. If calling all that content is offensive, then what should it be called?

Ferne Arfin - Jul 4, 2014

What we always called it in the days of journalism. The generalized term for all the stuff that was not advertising was simply called “editorial” - it was a general term that applied to opinion, fact, features, sports, recipes, how-tos, the lot. It was different from “the editorial” or “an editorial” which were ways to distinguish opinion pieces - the voice of the publication or of a contributor. And what are now referred to as content creators were, as you see, contributors. I think these older terms respect the individual who actually contributes the material rather than turning everything into a commodity.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 4, 2014

Editorial. Interesting. I wonder if we could bring that back? I’ve been called a contributor before, but editorial always brings to mind “opinion” to me. I see your distinction, but that’s the connotation I get anyway.

Sam Curcio - Jul 4, 2014

What do managers know? Their job is managing people, not content.

Jennifer Kyrnin - Jul 4, 2014

lol - sometimes it’s managing both. ;-)