Popular All Time
- The Daily Mail Dictionary
- Jan Moir: I'm thinking she's a piece of shit
- 'You can't talk about immigration'
- Ladies and Gentleman: I give you the Daily Mail
- Newspapers lie about the death of Georgina Williams
- Liz Jones: a total bitch
- Littlejohn's 2008: Year of the Nazi
- Daily Mail Racism
- Hillsborough Disaster, 20 years on
- Barack Obama, Swine Flu, a dead archaeologist and the truth
Search this site
Daily Mail Related Links
Fun Links
Other Blogs
Writers / Thinkers
Tags
Comments (3)
More thoughts
3
Tuesday, 09 June 2009 08:20
Apologies for the typos! Ironically, despite the surface hatred, the Mail is rather dependent on Google, and they also have submit buttons on each story for Facebook, Twitter, Digg & a few others. I'm betting the next Mail 'cluster' coverage will be Megan Fox. Transformers 2 is out, so while most papers will run the usual publicity bumph, the Mail is likely to have a pointless story in every day or two for the next six weeks; Megan goes the shop, Megan wears shoes, Megan eats biscuits. You're unlikely to get any articles on the work of Michael Bay or the process of creating dozens of CG robots as the search keywords for those are a bit more obscure. It's instructive to know that the content of newspapers is partly dictated by the search keywords of horny teenage boys around the globe...
Thoughts...
2
Tuesday, 09 June 2009 07:30
Another thing I wonder about it wether the Mail's online advertising revenues are built on a stick of cards (as well as other papers). A cursory glance through any story reveals seemingly dozens of foaming right-wing rants often from Americans or 'ex-pats'. The Mail is good at getting alarmist stories ("Muslims to take over universe") linked-to in the likes of the Drudge Report, thus attracting a guarenteed torrent of the most imbalanced American readers. Now, I bet the Mail go to their advertisers and say "We've had x amounts of hits, therefor you owe us y amount of cash" but don't actually say how many of these hits are from people who may legitemately purchase things from the paper or its affiliates. We can assume gun-toting Americans are probably not who advertisers are aiming at. Ditto for the Telegraph and others - from reading the comments on their articles you'd assume the only people in America were ultra-conservative fundamantalist nutcases. Maybe this is even another way to game their google ratings - am sure the rants about 'socialised medicine' and 'Muslim obama' are quite popular keywords in the paranoid realms of the USA.
One reason why they do it
1
Tuesday, 09 June 2009 07:20
I suspect the majority of the Mail's pointless celeb stories are actually an attempt to game their Google ratings. You will notice that they seem to have 'clusters' of stories all about the same non-issue (i.e. Tom Cruise's kid, Holly Willoughby's clevage). Whats probably happened is their SEO (search engine optimisation) people have told them the easiest way to get high ratings is to go through whatever keywords are popular on Google and write irrelevant copy about them. Then when Google's web-bots are scanning the Mail they pick up the fact that their content is constantly changing but within certain popular parameters, thus giving them a higher position on news/web searches. For example, what is the most popular web-site of today? Its either Facebook or Twitter. How many Mail stories mention Facebook or Twitter in the headline, rather than, say Slashdot or MIT OpenCourseware (also popular sites)? Thats SEO in action, folks... This may also explain why the Mail (and other tabs) have a fondness for banal or insulting neologisms (NuLieBoor, Hairy Angel, Jock McStalin) and why said words & phrases appear hundreds of times in comments allegedly posted by people all around the country.
Add your comment |









