Deciphering Internet Writing

What makes good online content? What doesn’t? There seems to be a difference between online content and print content in terms of their structures and functionality. While print is more formally written and usually contains a narrative, online content appears to be informally written in chunks and with more ease. Online content also usually provokes some sort of interaction with the reader, whether it’s to get the reader to “Like,” share or link a website.

In How to Create Compelling Content that Ranks Well in Search Engines, Brian Clark states, “Unique and frequently updated content makes search engines happy… content should be tightly on-topic and strongly centered on the subject matter of the desired keyword phrases (this goes back to the spoon feeding analogy).” By having a centered theme, readers who stumble upon a website and like it, are mostly likely to bookmark or visit the website again. And readers usually visit websites again if the content of the websites are engaging and of interest, which means good online writing is crucial in driving more traffic.

A blog that I often visit, Smitten Kitchen, has good online content. Smitten Kitchen is a food blog with a myriad of recipes, especially comfort food. Not only is the blog filled with gorgeous photographs (food porn!) but it also includes visual and detailed step-by-step instructions. Everything is clearly laid out so the reader can follow the instructions accordingly. The blogger, Deb, also offers tips and includes stories from her personal life, which not only engages the reader but also paints a picture of who she is. As stated in How Will Change The World with Social Networking, “Through that sharing, we are becoming passively aware of one another’s existence. And through our own sharing, we infuse the very public conversations we’re having with our values, our experiences, and our versions of the story.”

Another example of good online content can be found in Cary Tennis’s “Should I Donate A Kidney to My Friend?” I find it pretty clever when writers propose a question as their headline. Not only does it makes the reader want to know the “answer” but it also pressures the reader to click on the article. Tennis does a decent job in presenting her advice and offering reassurance-“having second thoughts doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.” The language is concise and straight to the point- not flowery at all. She even provides links to helpful resources, which is a plus.

As for bad online content, here is a blog that mimicked the late Steve Jobs. Some of the content may be humorous, but a majority of the posts lack substance. Sometimes it’s just a video or photo of some random occurrence without an explanation. Some of the blog’s content is just ramblings of nothings; they’re not really engaging the reader. Another example is this article from TMZ. Yes, it is sensational, but that’s all there is to it. Using euphemisms like “BS” and caps locking words (“COVETTED” and “NEVER”) is meant to draw attention and make the reader react; however, again, that’s all there is to it.

Internet changes the way people write. Compared to print, online writing is more casual and conversational, sometimes with errors and excessive use of euphemisms. There are, however, good online content, which writers take their time to explore a theme that they are passionate about and help readers better understand the subject.