"We’re Packaging for Google"
Posted by Curt Franklin on 13 December, 2007
Once upon a time, we designed pages to draw readers into a story. There were story meetings, then meetings with the art department, all intended to create a page (or a two-page spread if the needs of the well and the advertising budget allowed) that would convince a reader to spend time reading the story. Sometimes, you would get to see illustration proposals that the art director had commissioned from an artist. It was enjoyable, and the layouts created were occasionally spectacular.
Recently, I took part in a conference call for a publication I write for. The editor outlined a process much like the one in the last paragraph, then told us it was no longer the case. Instead of packaging articles for readers, he said that we’re now packaging for Google. He meant that studies have shown that getting readers to your story is far more critical than precisely how it looks once they get there. I’m still trying to figure out precisely how I feel about that.
It must be said that, in a very important way, how I feel doesn’t matter at all. The research is there to support the view that high search-result placement brings more reader. Full stop, end of story. Still, while I understand the importance of putting your story in front of the reader (and that’s what search engines do), I can’t help but be uneasy about all the ramifications of designing pages for search engine optimization, even the sort of enlightened SEO discussed in the reading for Week 12.
I’ve taken part in SEO training classes presented by people who seemed rather more expert in algorithms than in English. They told us to do things like put every key word associated with the article into the headline, with the more important and commonly-searched-for words placed earlier in the hed. Under their tutelage, the headline for his entry might read something like:
Google Blog and Article Optimization Packaging Successful On-line Publication Makes
You’ll excuse me if I don’t buy it. Now, I absolutely do buy that we should do more to make headlines meaningful (even if I dearly love the obscure hed to make readers curious), and that tagging has to be part of a meaningful scheme to help readers search for and find particular articles. These things are critical to making our on-line publications easier to read. What I will resist is the notion that the search engine is more important than the reader. We must continue to write clear, accurate, compelling stories that readers will love once they’ve been found. I’ll work hard to make that part of my craft — but I practice the craft for readers, not search spyders, so the readers will get the bulk of my effort.
Mindy McAdams said
Very nice post, Curt. The example I like to show (and I forget whether I showed it in your class) is a Google search for:
audio editing ethics
See what comes up, at the top of the list. Then look at the blog post heading and also the TITLE (top of the browser window). It’s a good example of how SEO and headings work together.
Curt Franklin said
Mindy, thanks for the comment. I performed the search you suggested and found your post on audio editing ethics. It is a good example of a good headline working for both search engines and humans.
In my post, I’m afraid I came off as much more of a grumpy old man than I want to be. I have moved with every technological change that’s come along in my career, and urged others to do the same. I’ll continue to adapt to new ways of telling our stories. I do get grumpy, though, when I hear someone saw that the reader isn’t the most important set of eyes on a story. I never believed that an advertiser was more important than the reader, and I won’t believe that Google is more important. Making stories easier to find: absolutely yes. Making headlines for a search engine algorithm rather than a reader: absolutely not. Thank you for pointing out with great clarity that it doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.