We’ve been streaming “Restaurant Impossible,” a Food Network program that’s been on for over twenty seasons. In the show, a self-important, British self-styled celebrity chef visits bad restaurants and supposedly fixes them in just two days. Watching the show is like watching train wrecks. It’s obviously phony and according to the Food Network site, almost all of the restaurants fail shortly after the “chef” leaves.
We’re well past season ten. I’m amazed every time at how horrible the conditions are at these places. They are hemorrhaging money but still get people to eat there. It’s hard to believe that these places are allowed to remain open. Yuck! It makes me even less inclined to try new places to eat.
The reason I decided to bring this up is that much of the content I find on the Internet is like those bad restaurants. The content is horribly inaccurate, the writing is at a second-grade level, and the writers surprise me that they can work a keyboard at all. I won’t name names, but take a look at some other male chastity sites and forums. Yeesh! Maybe we need a new reality show, “Website Impossible.”
Each week a needy blogger would get two days of help with the design and content of their website. A self-styled blogging expert would expand his ego while pretending to help the hapless blogger. No, I’m not thinking of myself as either the host or a hapless blogger. I might qualify as the latter, but no thanks.
When Mozilla released the first web browser, critics were excited at the possibilities of this new medium. They claimed that the only problem with the concept of the web was the lack of content. Boy, were they wrong! There are over a billion websites available to misinform and bore the public. Blogs are free and easy to publish. Anyone with access to a computer (or phone) can become a journalist. Democracy at work!
The big question is, how many of these people have anything of value to say? The bigger question is, if they do have something important to say, how do they get an audience? Most non-commercial online bloggers never get more than a few readers. Bloggers so jealously guard their little fiefdoms that they won’t refer their handful of readers to other sites. It’s third grade all over again. Buried in the giant dung pile of the blogosphere are some wonderful gems; websites with verve, humor, and content of value. Finding them is the problem.
google is not your friend
Another sad fact is that Google is the primary way people find things to read on the Web. When it comes to blogs, Google is not your friend. Search results are manipulated by experts who are hired to get links high in Google searches for popular topics. Google searches almost always list places to buy things before sites with information. If you Google “Male Chastity,” you won’t find a single reference to this site. Odd, huh? We are in our tenth year with over 6,000 posts on the subject. Oh, wait! I don’t allow Google tracking links on our site. Could that be it? Maybe I’ll add one and see what happens.
I’m using us as an example. Google actually has thousands of links to us, just none on the main topic of our site. Yet, if you search “male domestic discipline,” we are in the top five listings. Obviously, we could profit from some expert help in search optimization. My point is that there are two mutually exclusive issues facing the Web. The first is content quality. We’ll never see that fixed. Anyone can have a website. Anyone, even Donald Trump. Hey, I have one.
The second problem is that while it’s easy to have your own website, it’s very difficult to get it discovered. I’ve heard that most blogs are only read by other bloggers. That’s fine with me. I love bloggers who share their lives with me. I lean a lot. I share links to other blogs that I find interesting and on topic. I love discovering new gems. They’re hard to find. If you run across one that you think might be fun to read, let me know.
My point is that it’s hard to be a successful blogger. It’s even harder to find good reads. They’re out there. I wish there was an easier way to find them.
|
|
