Anorak News | Britney Spears Naked Angelina Jolie 9/11 Joe Swash Charlie Brooker Knob Feast

Britney Spears Naked Angelina Jolie 9/11 Joe Swash Charlie Brooker Knob Feast

by | 6th, December 2008

BRITNEY Spears naked, Miley Cyrus naked, Angelina Jolie naked, Israel vs Palestine naked, Joe Swash, iPhone, 9/11 conspiracy, Facebook, MySpace, and Anthea Turner clothed.

There, that should guarantee this column gets oodles of traffic. Thanks to the Guardian’s Aida Edemariam for using that top search fodder in her piece, words also used in frowning Charlie Brooker’s Guardian feature.

Not that Anorak saw it, having spent the past week searching for “Joe Swash pots Nicola McLean” in Paddick’s pocket; McLean being the only women to be snookered by her chest.

To avoid risk of duplication Brooker’s and Edemariam’s words, and so affecting our SEO rank, Anorak has jumbled them up a bit and chucked in a new element. Can you guess what it is? Yeah, 9/11. There is no conspiracy. The Jews did it. Fact.

Says Edemariam:

“Britney Spears, World Wrestling Entertainment, Barack Obama, Miley Cyrus, RuneScape, Jessica Alba, Naruto, Lindsay Lohan, Angelina Jolie, and American Idol.” Anthea Tuner.

It’s internet Tourette’s. Porn. Gay. Porn. Sex. Porn. Naked. Nude. Porn. Turner. Porn. Edmonds. Naked. My eyes! Porn. My hands!

Says Edemariam:

A common way to get a lot of links very quickly is by getting people in India or somewhere to make them for you,” says Paul Roach, the Guardian’s head of SEO.

Mumbai. Massacre. India. Porn. Anchita Turner. Call centre.

There are more aggressive, automated ways, too – scripting, using hijacked computers to add links to blogs, hacking messageboards – but these are referred to, in somewhat Disney-esque fashion, as “black hat” methods, and Google thoroughly disapproves: in fact, if you’re caught using them, you’re immediately banned. “We’re what you call white hat,” says Roach. “We follow Google’s terms of service. Then again, we’ve got no reason not to – Google trusts the Guardian, so we generally do all right.”

Trust the Guardian. Google does not give a naked toffee about the Guardian, although it does care for all its clients – the Guardian once bought up Google keywords for “Madeleine McCann”. It’s white hat magic with a missing blonde rabbit.

Edemariam goes on:

Google News does privilege large news organisations, but on a big story like that it has 4,500 or so such organisations to choose from, and it is, to a large extent, pot luck (otherwise known as a non-human Google algorithm) as to which one ends up on top.

So it’s nothing to do with trust. It’s just luck which of the countless articles saying the same things ends up on homepage.

For such reasons newspapers should worry about Google-ised web: it has no brand loyalty, other then to itself. And it owns the content. Who is the Guardian writing for: its readers or Google?

That question to you, naked 9/11 terrorist Britney Spears…



Posted: 6th, December 2008 | In: Reviews Comments (2) | TrackBack | Permalink