This Boring Headline is Written for Google 317
prostoalex writes "The New York Times is running an article on how newspapers around the country find their Web sites more dependent on search engines than before. The unexpected effect? Witty double entendres, allusions and sarcastic remarks are rewritten into boring straight-to-the-point headlines that rank higher on search engines and news-specific search engines. From the article: 'About a year ago, The Sacramento Bee changed online section titles. "Real Estate" became "Homes," "Scene" turned into "Lifestyle," and dining information found in newsprint under "Taste," is online under "Taste/Food."'"
Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't do that anymore. Just like companies that hope to market their news agencies have got to stop depending on search engines to reel in traffic. The sites that attract visitors through searches and make revenue by serving ads are established and have consumed the available market share.
To be successful doing what they do, one of them has to go under right around the time you have something similar already seeding in search engines. Its quite a long waiting list folks.
If you want to reach a niche news market you need to hit people during rush hour in their cars with radio advertisements, or find another way of luring them to your site and when they arrive your titles had better not be crafted for Google.
Look at the explosion of over a million
Don't re-write the titles, take the hint that what you're doing just isn't working. Either change your marketing strategy or re-evaluate the fiscal sanity of continuing to publish.
Insanity is doing the same thing over, and over and over again yet expecting different results. The market is flooded - get creative in your advertising and MORE creative with your content and you may enjoy some success. Otherwise the sad fact is
Go take a look at shitlance [scriptlance.com] and search for "need articles, need articles re-written, SEO content author". Trying to succeed doing what they're doing is like punching yourself in the nuts until you pass out.
Completely *wrong* direction, imho.
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't do that anymore. These days, users become subscribers so that they can get first post and fool the moderators into thinking that what they wrote was insightful. Rather than discuss, as mentioned in the article, how a witty title that perhaps employs humor or puns is rewritten to something mundane so that a search engine can pick up on common keywords, people these days are engaging in what Linus Torvalds calls little more than a public wanking session trying to post comments more insightful than the rest.
Don't try for first post. Instead, take the hint that your posts just aren't really all that informative nor insightful and re-evaluate the sanity of continuing to post such drivel. Go take a look at comments like this [slashdot.org] and realize that trying to succeed with content like that is like punching moderators in the nuts trying to get excellent karma.
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't do that anymore
Why the hell was this modded as a troll? Granted, nacturation hasn't been around that long (hah! I mock your six-digit user ID), but he does seem to have hit the nail on the head with the extra big hammer.
I know I've been guilty of replying to the first highly-modded comment, even t
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:4, Interesting)
I like digg style moderation better, it's more spur of the moment - I can sit there and say "wow, that was a good comment" or "that was really stupid" and assign a plus or minus point without hassle and spontaneously, when I feel like it.
With
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've heard that a new rating system is in the pipelines. Good. A Javascript/AJAX implementation shouldn't suffer from "scalability" problems that the /. programmers are always complaining about.
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:4, Insightful)
Really not! You can find the information to be unrealiable, you undo an 'informative' moderation. Or you notice a redundent post, you cull the posts. Stuff like that.
Trying to silence the voices of those you don't agree with isn't a perfectly good way to use moderation points.
Being modded down is criticism, not censorship.
No, THIS is criticism.
Modding down someone into the noise of the crowd IS censorship. You're trying to make it as hard as possible for people to get to the comment you disagree with by hiding it in a bunch of idiotic trolls, flameguerillas and spams..
Yeah, when I mod down a troll, I act as censor [m-w.com] (2nd def.). I'm fine with that, not everythng that is said deserves to be heard... unless you want to.
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I look at digg, the percentage of idiotic, flamebait and stupid-but-common-misconception posts that are modded up and of witty, insightful and thought-provoking posts that are modded down is disheartening.
Yes there are stupid mods on /.; a number of my posts have been modded down because the mod simply didn't know what he was doing or because he had an ax to grind (or modded up for the same reasons =). But overall the situation's much better here especially when the discussion's about things that tend to end in flamewars (Apple, Linux DEs etc =)
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Insightful)
It pisses me off because I spent time contributing, and now most people won't see it. I don't post just for the sake of doing it, I work in the business of helping people make sites successful and had some things to share. I don't care what people reply about it, the kick in the ass is because someone's ego got a boner nobody is going to even
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Funny)
Moderation: +1 Mentions Linus
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't post to earn brownie points, I post because I like participating here. You read articles, and post your thoughts regarding them. I bought a subscription because I got sick of the ads (I thinK I complained about ads in my post
You're welcome to challenge anything I have to say, but
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:2)
That's funny... I just use Adblock. I have a subscription as well, but it's more to see what's coming up and to browse back beyond the first page of history for a given user.
You're welcome to challenge anything I have to say, but
When I reply to a post, it's done so as I please... whether or not you feel like bantering is, of course, up to you.
[...] Otherwise you just sound like a rather un-hap
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:2)
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:5, Funny)
then went looking for someone who actually knew how to start a fire, with two appropriately different sized sticks.
KFG
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:4, Funny)
then went looking for someone who actually knew how to start a fire, with two appropriately different sized sticks.
Surely the second part of his unfinished sentence was: "...and bang them together while shouting 'someone give me matches!'"
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they laugh at you for such suggestions!
I really don't see the problem here... If the topic involved writers of fiction, writers of poetry, some form of "artistic" endeavor, I would say that writing-to-Google could destroy it.
But the topic does NOT involve "art", it involves NEWS. Writers (supposedly) of "fact".
If Google forces every journalist on the planet to stop thinking themselves "cute", if it finally and fully destroys the abomination of filler they call "human interest", if it means I can read a story about a dead cat and not mistake it for a physics pun (or vice-versa), I applaud the change Google has forced on journalists!
My advice - Don't fight a positive change for your profession. Embrace it. Google has made it possible for anyone with an interest in your story, whether you write for the NYT or the East Nowhere Gazette, to find and read your words. It has also, as a POSITIVE side effect, forced you to stick to the point and not assume airs that you create some form of art. It even makes basic fact-checking a 30-second (rather than all day) task.
You can either use all of that to your benefit, or complain that it forces you to do your job better. But whichever you choose, keep in mind that Google has also lowered the bar for entry - Any of a million bloggers could (though you can take comfort that very few do) decide to post about something more interesting than what Sam said Hunter did to Crystal and how much it pissed off Joey.
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, then I owe you an apology. On that point, we agree - Entirely too much news has turned into cookie-cutter ripoffs on what the Big Boys decide to cover.
I had taken your earlier post as more of a stylistic complaint
Re:Completely WRONG direction to take. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is wrong or at best, misleading. Online advertising continues to grow. New publishers succeed. New niches are discovered. Competition increases but online advertising continues to florish.
>Sorry guys, but the days of putting up hundreds of pages of content and waiting for Google to do your marketing are gone.
Welcome to yesterdays news. Doorway pag
Maybe I should apply to be a journalist (Score:4, Funny)
God forbid... (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome "boring, straightforward" news headlines. After all, it's news. Not commentary, not opinion. If I see a newspaper section marked "Scene" I'm not likely to know what it's about.
Re:God forbid... (Score:5, Funny)
I've written some headlines in my time; getting something to fit to the page, convey the meaning and (hopefully) be elegant is an art. The occasional pun is no bad thing.
I remember the story of a UK national newspaper sub-seditor who had a headline all made up in hot metal which sat above his head for on a wall for years on the off-chance that the suitable event occurred. It never did.
The event? He wanted Michael Foot (labour party leader) to be put in charge of the organisation monitoring IRA decommissioning.
The headline?
Foot Heads Arms Body.
Ah well.
Re:God forbid... (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
100% of newspaper puns are bad.
I'd rather read Variances and Zoning Volume XIV.
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:5, Funny)
I once worked for a Flight Simulator company, who came up with a rather innovative solution to the problem of displaying lights, especially at simulated night-time. The simulators cockpits are basically surrounded by a big curved mirror, onto which the final rasterised image is projected, to give a wraparound view. The projectors were called SPX projectors.
They found that if they just put the lights into the rasterised image that was displayed on the mirror, it looked a bit rubbish - pixelated, aliased etc. So someone came up with the idea of plotting point lights during the flyback period - they could control the beam on the way back to show up to N points of light (by flicking the beam on momentarily). I forget what N was. It looked significantly better, which is important when you're training to fly at night, as pretty much all you can see are landing lights, so you notice if it looks bad.
Anyway, they came up with the term 'calligraphic' to describe this technique - something to with it the beam being used in a more analogue, continuous way, I guess.
The real reason was, of course, so they could give the product this name:
I apologise on their behalf.
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:4, Funny)
Super Caley go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and now the only thing sacrificed to the false god of objectivity is basic reason and logic. "NASA scientists say that the sky is blue and the Earth orbits around the sun, but not all agree: here is an opposing view from Mr. P. Gumby about how the sun is actually a piece of brightly colored yellow paper taped to a giant eggshell that surrounds the Earth. Which is correct? We'll report both sides and leave
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:2, Funny)
On second thought, maybe you're right.
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:2)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:4, Funny)
Brezhnev, leader of the USSR, had just died, and so the staff of the paper was gathered to write up an article about his life, politics, death, etc. etc. Obviously, this would be front page news. The article was written quickly and easily enough, but the editorial staff argued for over 6 hours straight over whether or not to run it with the headline "HEAD RED DEAD."
Sadly, they decided against it.
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:5, Funny)
BOOK LACK IN ONGAR
While a student, working on the campus newspaper, some anarchists invaded the stage at the student theatre, the Bedlam. This let me write the priceless (to my 20 yo ears) headline:
BEDLAM ANARCHY CHAOS
The Guardian ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe this ain't so bad (Score:2)
This is a good thing (Score:5, Informative)
Human readers can get fooled just as easily. Heres an example:
I was doing research to show that Kryder's Law (a kind of super Moore's Law for hard disks that says bit densities have increased factor of 1000 in 10.5 years meaning a doubling every 13 months) is no longer being achieved by hard drive manufacturers. Instead I discovered that Kryders Law was just a creation of Wikipedia's overenthusiastic editors that misinterpreted a single Scientific American headline. Wikipedia editors accidentally invented the "law", and it isn't even correct.
You can read about it at my site here: http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/Kryder's.html [mattscomputertrends.com]
The search engines are dong us all a favor getting rid of this problem.
Re:Kryder's Law (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Kryder's Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and that law was called Moore's Law. I think the role of an encyclopedia is to document, not invent.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Funny)
Truer words were never spoken.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I think newspapers on the web have a far broader, and less knoweldgeable (or at least less "locally" knowledgeable) audience than their paper brethren. I know before the web I would read the LA Times (I'm in LA), the NY Times, and *maybe* the Washington Post. Now, I read newspapers from all over the U.S. and the U.S. and the world. In that setting puns, allusions, double entendres, sarcastic remarks, etc. don't work for me. I'm supposed to understand puns in headlines from the Pakistan Times? Sophisticated allusions from the Soweto Daily? I don't think so. Even headlines from Birmingham, Alabama that require I'm knowledgeable about "obvious" local knowledge? No. Just give me a "boring" headline that might catch my interest and that I can understand.
Second, I recently read that English is, or soon will be, the first language in the history of the world where more people speak it as a second language than speak it as their first language. This is expected to have an impact on the evolution of English. I think it will have an effect of "dumbing down" the language on the Net. The New York Times and Chicago Tribune headline writer is now thinking of his audience in Japan, Korea, etc.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Funny)
And all 87 of those people live in Quebec.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
English is my third language. I'm capable of talking to people online without problems, and can read technical manuals and books just fine. However, I wouldn't get even half of the witty headlines.
To put a few examples from the comments here:
"Super Calligraphic Raster SPX Projectors": This would take a while to sink in, but I'd eventually get it, having seen part of the movie. Have in mind though that not all movies are translated so literally that you can tell a reference to something in
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
"Sick Gloria in transit Monday": Don't get it.
This has nothing to do with your knowledge of English and everything to do with your knowledge of Latin. "Sic transit gloria mundi" means "thus passes the glory of the world". It's apparently recited as part of the papal coronation ceremony. Anyway, 98% of Americans would not get this either. But that's not the point - for those who do, it's funny.
"Close but no cigar"
Not a pun at all. There's nothing to get here - it's just a saying that means "close, but you missed the target". Either you know what the saying means or not, there's no way to figure it out. Apparently a reference to the mid-1900s practice of giving out cigars as prizes at local fairs for winning contests.
"Foot Heads Arms Body"
This would mean nothing to an American either (well, an American would get the pun value, but not know who Foot was or what Arms Body they were talking about).
"COPS MAKE BUTT-ER KNIFE CON SPREAD 'EM"
This one I didn't get until I looked at the story either, it doesn't really parse even to a well-educated native English speaker. Basically, this pun is only funny even to a native speaker if you know the story behind it (that the con was hiding the butter knife in his butt and the cops had to umm... search his orifices for the knife).
So... give yourself more credit. Most of what you didn't get was pretty much impossible to get, or has nothing to do with the English language.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
This stuff makes perfect sense for local newspapers, where 90% of the audience can be assumed to be native, and to know what's going on in that specific area. But online is a different world, where content is equally available to everybody.
Also, things like RSS allow very quick scanning of headlines without seeing pictures or text, which almost guarantees that many people will ignore something they don't get at first glance. Reduci
Content (Score:5, Funny)
If a site's content is good, people come regardless.
Slashdot's popularity is an anomaly though...
Re:Content (Score:2)
It's a strange thing, and I'm not resistant to it, either (both with McDonald's and with Slashdot).
Re:Content (Score:2)
i think its the journalists (Score:3, Interesting)
Revert the Pyramids (Score:3, Interesting)
Two headlines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it be that hard to develop a standard (perhaps much like meta-tagging), giving one set of data easily digestible by the bots (and not displayed to the human reader), while retaining an entertaining writing style for human consumption? Computers don't always have an easy time digesting data a human would find simple to understand, and vice-versa. Shouldn't that generally be acknowledged by design? (Disclaimer: I don't do much work with web design. If you do and you know why this hasn't been done or won't work, please let me know.)
Google will blacklist you for that. (Score:5, Informative)
Google doesn't like you presenting different data to their search engine than the user would find if they visited. And I can easily see why. Sites would abuse the heck out of it.
See this link amongst many.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4685750.stm [bbc.co.uk]
It's a lazy spam proxy measure (Score:2)
Except it's a damn lazy proxy measure of spam. Instead of measuring "WHAT", (spam or ham), they measure "HOW", (how is this text delivered). If it's not visible to a user, it must be spam, if it is visible to user, its ham. Hoping that the user will verify the text for them.
I think the following sentence needs to be capitalized:
TH
Re:Two headlines? (Score:5, Informative)
That won't ever happen (or more precisely, if it ever happens, it will fail). The problem is that we've done that before with the meta tags you mentioned. See what the SEO world has to say about them (summary: they're nearly useless now). Here's the deal. Any time you create a system for someone to deliver one thing to search engines and another thing to humans, what happens is a small group of opportunists will create massively spammy porn pages for human viewing, while making the search-engine content about every popular topic under the sun. You'll see a headline-made-for-Google which reads, "Britney Spears on Will and Grace" but when you click it, the headline-for-humans reads, "3 lesbian midgets have a pee party!"
Re:Two headlines? (Score:2)
Re:Two headlines? (Score:2)
Re:Two headlines? (Score:4, Insightful)
As another poster pointed out, something like this is already possible, via CSS and/or meta tags. The problem is that the system gets abused. Scammers will feed "NATALIE PORTMAN NAKED AND PETRIFIED" or some other high-demand content as the headline to Google, while hapless human users get to see Cialis ads and penis enlargement spam. Naturally, search engine designers know about this and use countermeasures to punish sites that send different content to webcrawlers and users, on the assumption that such tricks are usually employed for malicious purposes. The collateral damage is any site that actually has a legitimate reason to serve different content to webcrawlers than to users.
I know from personal experience that designing for Google has had a negative impact on the aesthetics of my wife's website. Some might argue that designing for Google usually results in a "slimmer" design with more text and less unnecessary images, but when your website is about something visual (say, art), that can be counterproductive. Also, making a (visual) art site have better support for screenreaders seems kind of pointless, and maybe even cruel. What would the ALT tags say? "A really nice painting--too bad you can't see it".
Re:Two headlines? (Score:2, Informative)
Like the keyword meta? It was a tag designed specifically so content authors could assist the search engines to classify the information easily, without poluting the readable canvas. Very useful in theory.
Search engines stopped using the keyword data as search engine opti
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two headlines? (Score:2)
However they are just anchored links to the areas of my page, i.e. content, header, footer and navigation.
I use them for easy linking from other pages, so I can cut down on the amount of anchored links inside of the respective sections. It's more for lazyness and organization than SEO.
They also help on the odd chance someone is using a text based browser to view my pages, right up top so only a few arrow strokes i
Ugh (Score:2, Funny)
"Sex" turned into "Scatting on a midget who's being busy with a horse"
Writing for Alta Vista, maybe. (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the boring, machine-readable stuff (i.e., not just headlines) was supposed to be in metadata. No need to do a hatchet job on a descriptive or witty title. Of course, I just may be an old codger in Internet time.
What's more, I thought the whole point of Pagerank was to make your page associated with what others think your page is about... that if your obituary about Gene Pitney is entitled "Tulsa star: The life and career of much-loved 1960's singer." it'll show up in a search for Gene Pitney because (hopefully) that string will be indexed from the page body and that as other people associate your page with Pitney — irrespective of the <title> that obituary will float towards the top. And if they use your witty title, not only will you get more popular for "Gene Pitney", but also "Tulsa Star" as well.
But there are unwashed masses that do use other search engines, but I thought the last people to rely absolutely on metadata were Alta Vista and WebCrawler.
GOOOOD (Score:5, Insightful)
i personally would rather actually know what articles are about based on their headlines, than be tricked into reading something by a misleading headline. most headlines aren't "creative", so much as they are "dishonest" in the newspaper.
i skim through my university's paper every other week, and i usually am reminded why i don't read it more often.
Direct, Content Relevant Headlines Are Good (Score:5, Informative)
Really, not only is it good for search engines, it's good for my brain's relevance filter for trying to see if I care about the story the headline points to.
POOR BABIES (Score:2)
Not about search engines (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be a potential reader would be standing in front of a magazine stand, or leafing idly through a newspaper. To grab that reader, a witty, slightly hard-to-understand headline was great - it catches your attention and makes you at least look closer since you want to know what that mysterious piece is actually about. And thus you made the single-copy sale, and perhaps, in time, sold a subrscription.
Today we increasingly don't start by picking up a paper and looking within for what we want; we find things by searching for what we want and end up on anyone of a large number of newspapers and magazine sites. The choice of paper isn't the start of the process - the search is. And when we search, that witty off-color headline is going to mislead us since it doesn't actually contain the key terms that would indicate relevance. Making headlines and summaries clear, straight and to the point isn't about pandering to search engines, but of adjusting to the changing behavior of the readership.
It's the reader behavior that has changed. The search engine angle is just a smokescreen.
Why are so many people threatened by puns? (Score:4, Interesting)
-1 Flamebait out of the way, it's time to go for my weak attempt at +1 Insightful:
Wouldn't it be relatively simple for Google to allow newspapers the use of "alt" or "meta" tags for their headlines? Considering there's a small, reasonably finite number of trusted news sources, couldn't some sort of whitelist be easily implemented?
Re:Why are so many people threatened by puns? (Score:2)
Stix Nix Hix Pix! (Score:2)
obvious solution (Score:2, Insightful)
good (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been the case for some time (Score:2)
Search Engine Optimisation is a misconception (Score:3, Insightful)
How come does anybody, not to speak of web designers, get the stupid idea that one has to optimise ones website for search engines anyway? Isn't that totally backwards? I should optimise my website for *users* and their expierience and the general webstandards. If the search engine is to stupid to find content on my site that is relative to a search, then it certainly isn't my job to optimise for them. That's the job of search engines themselves. That's where the name comes from.
Guess why Altavista missed out when Google appeared. The had the more optimised search engine.
I allways thought (and still think) that so-called webdesigners that offer their customers 'search engine optimisation' (whatever that's supposed to be) to be the used-car sales and multilevel marketing lot of IT field. Some shady semi-professionals offering some non-product. Whenever I'm finished building a Web CMS Site for customers I take the time to feed the URL into the searchbots so they do the first scan of the site more quickly, but that's it. If anyone comes to me bickering about the bad search results a searchengine comes up with I usually tell them that if the searchengine sucks, they should use a different one. It's that simple, really.
Bottom line:
If you're doing *anything* on the web, forget about search engines and just build a good site. If your site is good and the search engine is good, both will find each other fast. All else is just bogus.
Re:Search Engine Optimisation is a misconception (Score:2)
Guess why Altavista missed o
That's naive (Score:3, Insightful)
British Left Waffles on Falklands (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it hard to believe that posters don't see the value in this sort of word-play. For goodness sake, as a computer scientist, language and grammar are highly important and our wordplay sets us apart from the machine!
-Starfishprime
Praise be to Jeebus! (Score:2)
It seems to have become the law that every paper must do this for every headline possible. It makes me want to rip the paper into shreds and piss on them.
Bless your little hearts, Google, if you are indeed having this effect. Give me a straightforward headline over an insipid one any day of the week.
He Must Have Been A Jounalist (Score:3, Interesting)
--Lau Tsu
It's the headlines, stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stick that in your Google and search it.
Too Bad (Score:3, Funny)
newspapers used to be really clueless about SEO (Score:3, Insightful)
The Sydney Morning Herald has not only replaced its old-style "meaningless without context" headings with "boring" ones, but it's stuck them into its URLs - which is another SEO idea.
Danny.
This All Relates To How We Now Use Information (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh - the Times article's own headline will be ineffective to search engines.
I've written more about this on my blog: http://www.geofffox.com/MT/archives/2006/04/09/it
Re:Taste food? (Score:2)
Re:Creativity in Journalism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Copy editors write the headlines, not journalists. That explains why you get those kitshy headlines in the first place, it's their only creative outlet.
Re:Creativity in Journalism? (Score:2, Funny)
I've got a few of those among my family and friends.
One of them lost his job over "32 Scoot to Shoot with Plane Aflame."
I'm afraid I wasn't terribly sympathetic.
KFG
Re:Creativity in Journalism? (Score:3, Interesting)
You've all seen it before, but for example:
In house, wife murders husband
By all, a good time had
On spring break, not taking it Easy
I couldn't think of many good examples, (the last is taken from washingtonpost.com) but I'm sure you see my point. Why bother? It
Re:Isn't there a way... (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree with the spirit of your remark insofar as you're suggesting that technology can trivially solve this problem.
Not just for this, but for an international audience generally (many of whom read English but have trouble with idioms, sarcasm, and other advanced usages), it wouldn't hurt to have an XML or HTML markup that is, effectively, the ability to associate a plainer meaning to text for alternate use. A browser could be put in a mode to show the fancy use, show the basic use, or show the fancy use but with plain use pop-ups like tool tips (or plain-use explanation-on-demand-by-right-click). Doing it this way would allow search engines to offer a radio button saying "search idiomatic uses" which was, perhaps, defaultly off, but that could be re-enabled if the witty text was what stuck in your mind.
Good headlines are like good subject lines in mail. One of the best subject lines I ever saw in email was the text "crowbar in head". No, it wasn't about crowbars, it was about a "brain-damaged program" someone was alleged to have written. It might be a bad search keyword if I was searching for info on crowbars literally, but it is very easy for me to find in old mail because it was unique and easy to remember. I would hate to see the net move away from the ability to make useful labels.
I also worked at a company where the User Interface people got overzealous and started to rename all the editor commands from things like "View xxx" and "Show xxx" and "Print xxx" and so on to just "Show xxx" because they thought that was more regular. But at some point someone noticed that the emacs-style command keys like Control-V (formerly mnemonic for View) no longer made sense. Those UI people were soon pejoratively nicknamed the "View Police" because their entire focus seemed to be on stamping out flexible use of language. People started to rightly question whether eliminating all the synonyms in the language was good, because it meant every time you searched for "Show" you got a zillion hits and every time you searched for "View" you got zero. There are times when this is right and times when this is absolutely wrong, but the problem is not fixed by renaming commands. A better fix would be to have search commands that understand likely synoyms and then the option to turn that on and off. I think that lesson might apply here, too.
So I think there's a lot you could do with, for example, an extended USAGE="sarcasm|wit|pun|joke|..." MEANING="this is a rewording" attribute in, for example, a SPAN element of HTML, for example.
What I don't agree with is doing something like making an IMG tag that has sarcasm or wit or whatever in it and then having the ALT attribute for the IMG element use the plain text. The reasons are many, but include such issues as: eventually Google will search text found in images so it's a temporary solution, people on non-image-based browsers (including the sight-impaired) deserve access to wit, and, most fundamentally, the whole point of markup is that it allows a flexible ability to tag things with their true nature. The true nature is not "wit is graphical and plain meaning is text"; that's just a way to shoehorn a solution into existing frameworks.
(If this is not what you meant, then I've misread you and would appreciate a more detailed explanation of what you're going after.)
Re:Isn't there a way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be warned that you need to block your stylesheets from being crawled though if you try to hide text from users with CSS because search engines can mistake (or be correct in some cases) that as spamming and kill your search placement because of it.
It's a handy way to put more keywords in
Re:Isn't there a way... (Score:5, Insightful)
- UN concerned about Iraq and free hentai
- Pope Benedict XVI replaces John Paul II in bondage
- France strikers and Natalie Portman arrested
Re:All this tells us.... (Score:3, Interesting)
is that computational linguistics still hasn't been able to make reasonable progress into Pragmatics
Two quick points, one regular, one meta...
First, I wanted to say something more but didn't want to read all the posts to see if I was duplicating. So thank you for saying essentially the same thing as I was going to say. That is, that mostly this shows up the limitations of full text search and that I hope Google and others are investing in better forms of search. The whole point of full text search w