"People makes billions of unique searches each month... and those people are in focus mode. In other words, compared with most Internet traffic, searchers are the most motivated people who hit a website. This is important," says Brian Clark of his compellingly and critically analytical essay, "How to Create Compelling Content that Ranks Well in Search Engines." Now as critical thinkers, we have no choice but to ask ourselves, "Well, why is this important? Why is it that searching generates the most online activities than social media websites for that matter?" In essence, we look to search engines as a fundamentally reliable means of accessing compelling, relevant, valid content of high rank and credibility. The process in which we do this is known as the SEO. In, my opinion, this idea stood out as really interesting. SEO, or Search Engine Optimization, essentially regulates the search traffic (mostly consisting of target audiences) to the visibility of a top-ranking web page. One might ask, "What benefits emerge from SEOs?" Intriguingly enough, Clark tries to argue that the benefits would be "the usefulness and relevancy to the website visitor(s) as well as the comprehensive and appealing content that people would be excited to link to." Moreover, through the use of important keywords, landing pages, retention, optimization, and external links, the dichotomy between what serves as good online content versus that which makes up bad online content has been made distinctly clear. Think about it. Would it be a good SEO if Google kept a visitor on a Forever 21 page because they searched "NYC times square clothing stores" or if they lost a visitor to BEAR CAFE New York Homepage because they searched "Bear nyc" with the hopes of landing onto the Build-A-Bear Workshop site?
With that said, I strongly believe that Forever 21 can be considered as an example of what makes for good online content. Why? Through the aforementioned keywords, the useful links to Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, and the polished exquisite content targeted towards trendy fashion-ish consumers, Forever 21 no doubt deserves the icing on the cake as a good online content.
http://www.forever21.com/Product/Main.aspx?br=f21
Another great online content would be the campus tours webpage of the Hunter College website. As a fresh-out-of-High School Student, me along with thousands of target audiences may search "CUNY Hunter Information" and will be highly convinced of visiting the page which promises information about the campus, tour dates, as well as links to more information about Hunter, the staff, alumni, etc. Also, the idea that this site is linked to Flickr poses itself as a good online content.
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/ugprospects/pressroom/announcements/campus-http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giftours
I strongly believe that these two sources are of bad online content material:
1)http://www.watch-movies.net.in/
2)http://farmington.craigslist.org/
The aforementioned are bad because often times, the sites produce too many links that lead to spam messaging and virus-based content, use flash-based players to host links to other unaccredited sites, and more importantly, are not connected to the social media of networking and sharing.
However, as best resourceful as SEOs present themselves to be, SEOs are not the only method of linking a visitor to a content credible web page. Social networks, according to Clark, are also able to fundamentally patch us through links towards sites we find desirable and appealing in terms of content. On a similar note, Deanna Zandt uses social networking as a the drive for her critical theory approach as well. One of her interesting arguments is that social networking is a tool ultimately used for shaping one's so-called "online" identity and how he or she would like for themselves to be perceived through other users. From a Gender Studies perspective, one could draw the conclusion that online users try to establish a sort of gender performance with those the interact with, because whereas in reality we are agents in the act (or simply social actors), in the cyber-realm of the Internet, we are social "users." I strongly believe that this claim could be reasonable explained where Zandt says, "Social media tools provide us with a way to do effective relationship management. That’s true for the personal side of thihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifngs, as well as the professional side. Through these tools, we have direct access to loci of power and influence that whttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gife previously either had to be born into, or had to go to Harvard to get into. I don’t want to pretend that it’s a silver bullet of egalitarian rule out there, but being able to participate in conversations with our peers and our leaders can make all the difference in what paths we might end up taking."
READINGS:
http://www.deannazandt.com/presentations/claremont-mckenna-college-how-you-will-change-the-world-with-social-networking/
http://scribeseo.com/downloads/How-to-Create-Compelling-Content.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment