[aageneral] Is the Internet history's greatest hoax?
You're welcome to publish this article free of charge
provided:
- you include the byline
- byline includes a functioning link to
http://www.divinewrite.com
- you don't change the article in any way
- you provide a courtesy copy once published
- in doing so you agree to indemnify Divine Write and its
directors, officers, employees and agents from and against
all losses, claims, damages and liabilities which arise out
of its use
Is the Internet history's greatest hoax?
By Glenn Murray | Advertising Copywriter & Search Engine
(SEO) Copywriter *
For a while there, the Internet and the World Wide Web
showed great promise. They whispered sweet nothings in our
ears, promising to be the voice of the marginalized, the new
democracy, the great equalizer.
But it wasn't to be, for the Internet has a new master. No,
it's not Google. No, it's not Microsoft. And no, it's not
even good ole' Uncle Sam. They're just caretakers. The
Internet's new master is bigger than they'll ever be, and
far, far older.
Meet the master
The Internet's new master is the same master who holds the
leash of all traditional commercial media.
The Internet's new master is money and power. Not the
capacity to earn money or the capacity to increase power
(although those are certainly nice fringe-benefits). No, the
Internet's new master is the moneyed, powerful collective.
Those who simultaneously mould and reflect `mainstream'
opinion, values, and behavior.
I suppose we should have foreseen it, given the Internet's
military birthplace. But then, we were young and optimistic,
and boy did we want to believe!
A little melodramatic? Perhaps. But fairly accurate
nonetheless. Let me explain...
The early promise of equity
The Internet started out as a network of computers set up
for military purposes. To cut a long story short, the World
Wide Web started out simply because it could; the Internet
was there to host it, and the technology was there to
deliver it. Both were heralded as the new face of democracy
at long last, the voiceless had a voice.
Of course, even in those heady days, we all recognized some
fundamental practical and technological limitations which
really threw a spanner in the works for the `New World
Orderless' theory. To begin with, the great majority of the
world's population didn't even have access to a computer,
much less own one with Internet access. In fact, that was
still the case even after the new master took the reins (and
probably still is).
But we had faith in the Internet's potential. I even wrote a
paper in the mid 90s discussing the Internet's promise for
empowerment, and I quote:
"Being such a decentralized, anonymous form of
communication, the Internet offers great opportunities to
the world's oppressed improved (anonymous if desired)
communications capabilities, and better access to more
sources of local and international news, to name just a
couple. At the same time, the Internet poses great threats
to the world's existing media and political powers, not only
because of the re-distribution of information (and,
therefore, power) to the populace, but also because of the
apparent impracticality (impossibility?) of regulating the
information flowing in and out of any country."
Alas, I did not see the Internet's true potential for
censorship and control... Content.
He who wields content is king
We often hear that "content is king". The logic of the
argument is as follows. For some time now, the lion's share
(some 80%) of Internet traffic to the average website has
been coming from the major search engines. What's more, when
people use search engines, they rarely look past the second
page of search results. Additionally, research suggests that
being number 1 in Google equates to twice as much traffic as
being number 2. This means you need to rank in the first two
pages of the major search engines ideally at number 1
before your voice begins to be heard. The only way to reach
the top of the search engines is to have thousands of links
back to your website from other websites. There are two
`reliable' ways of achieving this goal:
1) Publish helpful information on your website and
constantly update it so that others link to your site
because it's so great keep `eyes on paper'. Some popular
methods include news sites, BLOGS, folksonomies, journals,
e-newsletters, and customizable web portals like Google
Personalized, which allows visitors to choose (from a
pre-determined selection) what they see, e.g. news, email,
weather, stocks, etc.
2) Write helpful articles and let publishers of newsletters
and ezines use them for free on the proviso that they link
back to your site. (These articles are quite often written
by SEO copywriters, and they need to be submitted to
established article banks, from which they are gathered by
online publishers for free.)
In other words, to reach the top of the search engines, you
need to publish virtual reams and reams of high quality,
informed content (i.e. copy). And you need to keep doing it
indefinitely.
On the basis of this evidence, the saying that "content is
king" has become somewhat of a truism. But when we look
closely, the saying is inaccurate. There's nothing wrong
with the logic; it's the conclusion that's the problem. In
reality, content is no more king than was the sword. In
reality, he who wields the content is king (and I say "he"
with intent, as the wielder is generally male or some
patriarchal organization).
And who wields the content? Only those with the social power
to command an education and the money to indulge in the
time-consuming task of researching, writing, and publishing
said content (or those who have the budget and foresight to
engage an SEO copywriter).
Wielding content is getting harder
Even for search engine (SEO) copywriters like myself, this
is a task which is becoming more and more time consuming,
simply because more and more content is being added to the
Internet. To illustrate: In 1997, there were an estimated
200 million pages on the World Wide Web (K. Bharat and A.
Broder, `A technique for measuring the relative size and
overlap of public web search engines' [WWW1998]). By 1998,
that number had jumped to 800 million pages (S. Lawrence and
C.L. Giles, `Accessibility of information on the web'
[Nature 400:107-109, 1999]). A mere 7 years later, the
estimate is now 11.5 billion pages (A. Gulli and A.
Signorini, `The Indexable Web is more than 11.5 billion
pages' [2005]).
In other words, nowadays your Internet opinion is only heard
above the virtual din if you can really REALLY churn out the
content. And that takes a great investment in time and
money.
Information overload the most effective form of
censorship
Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the Internet denies
us access to information. It certainly doesn't do that. But
ironically, it's the Internet's very openness that provides
its greatest censorship power. With 11.5 billion pages
currently online, and nearly 10 million more added each day,
we're all starting to wonder how much of that information
can be trusted. We look for helpful content, and we keep
going back for it, but only if we trust the source. And, as
a rule of thumb, we only trust websites which:
rank highly in the major search engines;
have a high Google PageRank (PR) - PR is how Google scores
importance. It gives all sites a mark out of 10. Any site
with a PR of 4 or above is generally considered fairly
credible. More and more web-savvy people are using PR to
assess site credibility and authority. (You can see the PR
of every site you visit by downloading the Google Toolbar
(http://toolbar.google.com).); and/or
are referred to us by a friend, colleague, or industry
thought leader (which usually only happens if at least one
of the first two conditions applies).
The result... We only trust the very people who were feeding
us misinformation and disinformation for years before the
emergence of the Internet.
And where does this leave average Jo on the street? Even if
she has the education, time, and money to publish a website,
an increasing state of e-information overload will likely
result in the marginalization of her website anyway. At
best, she'll be seen as an uninformed minority; at worst, a
muck-raking conspiracy theorist!
Conclusion dare we hope?
Several generations have wondered what they could achieve if
they could only get on TV. Television being what it is, that
wish never came to fruition unless you were happy to appear
on the Jerry Springer Show, Cops, or Judge Judy, or you have
what it takes to star in American Idol, Big Brother, Amazing
Race, or Survivor. Then along came the Internet. It claims
to offer everything TV cannot. Unfortunately, as it stands,
the Internet is no more true to its promise than TV. The
vast majority of high ranking, highly trafficked websites
are published by powerful, affluent corporations. There are
a few anomalies, but they're no more than that. Like the
`everyday' people on `reality TV', the small-time stars of
the Internet are the exceptions to the rule.
But I haven't given up hope. All previous comments
notwithstanding, I'm inclined to see the cup as half full.
After all, every now and then, when the master's back is
turned, someone manages to slip the beast a treat to get it
to perform a trick or two (such as a folksonomy). I like to
think that my early days of optimism were something more
than idealism bolstered by naivety. I still believe the
technology of the Internet offers great promise. I just hope
that `the powers that be' don't have too great a head start,
and that all of us small people won't be pushed to the
margins where we'll have to content ourselves with a
lifetime of chanting "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"
Maybe folksonomies are the answer or the prelude to the
answer or a part of the prelude. Or maybe the Internet
will turn out to be history's greatest hoax after all. I
don't know. What I do know is that I'm looking forward to
watching it unfold. For better or for worse, it will
certainly be interesting...
* Glenn Murray is an advertising copywriter and search
engine (SEO) copywriter and heads copywriting studio Divine
Write. He can be contacted on Sydney +612 4334 6222 or at
mailto:glenn@divinewrite.com. Visit
http://www.divinewrite.com for further details or more FREE
articles.
########################################################
Looking For Quality Content?
The Syndicator provides free, quality syndicated articles
for your website that are automatically updated each week.
Syndication feeds include:
Business/Sales
Internet Marketing/Promotion
Web Design/Development
Biz Tips
Web Design Tips
Home & Family Matters
Dinner Ideas
Health & Fitness
Horoscopes
AngelVoice
Headlines
and more...
http://www.web-source.net/syndicator.htm
########################################################
Post Articles: mailto:aageneral@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: mailto:aageneral-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: mailto:aageneral-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change subscription: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aageneral
List owner: mailto:aageneral-owner@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
provided:
- you include the byline
- byline includes a functioning link to
http://www.divinewrite.com
- you don't change the article in any way
- you provide a courtesy copy once published
- in doing so you agree to indemnify Divine Write and its
directors, officers, employees and agents from and against
all losses, claims, damages and liabilities which arise out
of its use
Is the Internet history's greatest hoax?
By Glenn Murray | Advertising Copywriter & Search Engine
(SEO) Copywriter *
For a while there, the Internet and the World Wide Web
showed great promise. They whispered sweet nothings in our
ears, promising to be the voice of the marginalized, the new
democracy, the great equalizer.
But it wasn't to be, for the Internet has a new master. No,
it's not Google. No, it's not Microsoft. And no, it's not
even good ole' Uncle Sam. They're just caretakers. The
Internet's new master is bigger than they'll ever be, and
far, far older.
Meet the master
The Internet's new master is the same master who holds the
leash of all traditional commercial media.
The Internet's new master is money and power. Not the
capacity to earn money or the capacity to increase power
(although those are certainly nice fringe-benefits). No, the
Internet's new master is the moneyed, powerful collective.
Those who simultaneously mould and reflect `mainstream'
opinion, values, and behavior.
I suppose we should have foreseen it, given the Internet's
military birthplace. But then, we were young and optimistic,
and boy did we want to believe!
A little melodramatic? Perhaps. But fairly accurate
nonetheless. Let me explain...
The early promise of equity
The Internet started out as a network of computers set up
for military purposes. To cut a long story short, the World
Wide Web started out simply because it could; the Internet
was there to host it, and the technology was there to
deliver it. Both were heralded as the new face of democracy
at long last, the voiceless had a voice.
Of course, even in those heady days, we all recognized some
fundamental practical and technological limitations which
really threw a spanner in the works for the `New World
Orderless' theory. To begin with, the great majority of the
world's population didn't even have access to a computer,
much less own one with Internet access. In fact, that was
still the case even after the new master took the reins (and
probably still is).
But we had faith in the Internet's potential. I even wrote a
paper in the mid 90s discussing the Internet's promise for
empowerment, and I quote:
"Being such a decentralized, anonymous form of
communication, the Internet offers great opportunities to
the world's oppressed improved (anonymous if desired)
communications capabilities, and better access to more
sources of local and international news, to name just a
couple. At the same time, the Internet poses great threats
to the world's existing media and political powers, not only
because of the re-distribution of information (and,
therefore, power) to the populace, but also because of the
apparent impracticality (impossibility?) of regulating the
information flowing in and out of any country."
Alas, I did not see the Internet's true potential for
censorship and control... Content.
He who wields content is king
We often hear that "content is king". The logic of the
argument is as follows. For some time now, the lion's share
(some 80%) of Internet traffic to the average website has
been coming from the major search engines. What's more, when
people use search engines, they rarely look past the second
page of search results. Additionally, research suggests that
being number 1 in Google equates to twice as much traffic as
being number 2. This means you need to rank in the first two
pages of the major search engines ideally at number 1
before your voice begins to be heard. The only way to reach
the top of the search engines is to have thousands of links
back to your website from other websites. There are two
`reliable' ways of achieving this goal:
1) Publish helpful information on your website and
constantly update it so that others link to your site
because it's so great keep `eyes on paper'. Some popular
methods include news sites, BLOGS, folksonomies, journals,
e-newsletters, and customizable web portals like Google
Personalized, which allows visitors to choose (from a
pre-determined selection) what they see, e.g. news, email,
weather, stocks, etc.
2) Write helpful articles and let publishers of newsletters
and ezines use them for free on the proviso that they link
back to your site. (These articles are quite often written
by SEO copywriters, and they need to be submitted to
established article banks, from which they are gathered by
online publishers for free.)
In other words, to reach the top of the search engines, you
need to publish virtual reams and reams of high quality,
informed content (i.e. copy). And you need to keep doing it
indefinitely.
On the basis of this evidence, the saying that "content is
king" has become somewhat of a truism. But when we look
closely, the saying is inaccurate. There's nothing wrong
with the logic; it's the conclusion that's the problem. In
reality, content is no more king than was the sword. In
reality, he who wields the content is king (and I say "he"
with intent, as the wielder is generally male or some
patriarchal organization).
And who wields the content? Only those with the social power
to command an education and the money to indulge in the
time-consuming task of researching, writing, and publishing
said content (or those who have the budget and foresight to
engage an SEO copywriter).
Wielding content is getting harder
Even for search engine (SEO) copywriters like myself, this
is a task which is becoming more and more time consuming,
simply because more and more content is being added to the
Internet. To illustrate: In 1997, there were an estimated
200 million pages on the World Wide Web (K. Bharat and A.
Broder, `A technique for measuring the relative size and
overlap of public web search engines' [WWW1998]). By 1998,
that number had jumped to 800 million pages (S. Lawrence and
C.L. Giles, `Accessibility of information on the web'
[Nature 400:107-109, 1999]). A mere 7 years later, the
estimate is now 11.5 billion pages (A. Gulli and A.
Signorini, `The Indexable Web is more than 11.5 billion
pages' [2005]).
In other words, nowadays your Internet opinion is only heard
above the virtual din if you can really REALLY churn out the
content. And that takes a great investment in time and
money.
Information overload the most effective form of
censorship
Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the Internet denies
us access to information. It certainly doesn't do that. But
ironically, it's the Internet's very openness that provides
its greatest censorship power. With 11.5 billion pages
currently online, and nearly 10 million more added each day,
we're all starting to wonder how much of that information
can be trusted. We look for helpful content, and we keep
going back for it, but only if we trust the source. And, as
a rule of thumb, we only trust websites which:
rank highly in the major search engines;
have a high Google PageRank (PR) - PR is how Google scores
importance. It gives all sites a mark out of 10. Any site
with a PR of 4 or above is generally considered fairly
credible. More and more web-savvy people are using PR to
assess site credibility and authority. (You can see the PR
of every site you visit by downloading the Google Toolbar
(http://toolbar.google.com).); and/or
are referred to us by a friend, colleague, or industry
thought leader (which usually only happens if at least one
of the first two conditions applies).
The result... We only trust the very people who were feeding
us misinformation and disinformation for years before the
emergence of the Internet.
And where does this leave average Jo on the street? Even if
she has the education, time, and money to publish a website,
an increasing state of e-information overload will likely
result in the marginalization of her website anyway. At
best, she'll be seen as an uninformed minority; at worst, a
muck-raking conspiracy theorist!
Conclusion dare we hope?
Several generations have wondered what they could achieve if
they could only get on TV. Television being what it is, that
wish never came to fruition unless you were happy to appear
on the Jerry Springer Show, Cops, or Judge Judy, or you have
what it takes to star in American Idol, Big Brother, Amazing
Race, or Survivor. Then along came the Internet. It claims
to offer everything TV cannot. Unfortunately, as it stands,
the Internet is no more true to its promise than TV. The
vast majority of high ranking, highly trafficked websites
are published by powerful, affluent corporations. There are
a few anomalies, but they're no more than that. Like the
`everyday' people on `reality TV', the small-time stars of
the Internet are the exceptions to the rule.
But I haven't given up hope. All previous comments
notwithstanding, I'm inclined to see the cup as half full.
After all, every now and then, when the master's back is
turned, someone manages to slip the beast a treat to get it
to perform a trick or two (such as a folksonomy). I like to
think that my early days of optimism were something more
than idealism bolstered by naivety. I still believe the
technology of the Internet offers great promise. I just hope
that `the powers that be' don't have too great a head start,
and that all of us small people won't be pushed to the
margins where we'll have to content ourselves with a
lifetime of chanting "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"
Maybe folksonomies are the answer or the prelude to the
answer or a part of the prelude. Or maybe the Internet
will turn out to be history's greatest hoax after all. I
don't know. What I do know is that I'm looking forward to
watching it unfold. For better or for worse, it will
certainly be interesting...
* Glenn Murray is an advertising copywriter and search
engine (SEO) copywriter and heads copywriting studio Divine
Write. He can be contacted on Sydney +612 4334 6222 or at
mailto:glenn@divinewrite.com. Visit
http://www.divinewrite.com for further details or more FREE
articles.
########################################################
Looking For Quality Content?
The Syndicator provides free, quality syndicated articles
for your website that are automatically updated each week.
Syndication feeds include:
Business/Sales
Internet Marketing/Promotion
Web Design/Development
Biz Tips
Web Design Tips
Home & Family Matters
Dinner Ideas
Health & Fitness
Horoscopes
AngelVoice
Headlines
and more...
http://www.web-source.net/syndicator.htm
########################################################
Post Articles: mailto:aageneral@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: mailto:aageneral-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: mailto:aageneral-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change subscription: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aageneral
List owner: mailto:aageneral-owner@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aageneral/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
aageneral-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
posted by Scott Fish @ 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home