Standardise and Monetise: The Decline of Online Content
I use a browser extension called Control Panel for YouTube, which allows me to determine who many videos are displayed on my YouTube homepage and to filter the content that is shown. At present it is configured to display rows of six. Something that I have noticed of late, is the amount of videos with hyperbolic titles and thumbnail images created by AI. Both of which are design choices made to increase engagement. Clickbait titles are contrived to meet current SEO optimisation criteria and as such feature more and more in search results. The fact that they frequently have no relation to the subject I am researching, seems to be neither here nor there. The same issues arise with regard to AI generated images, which again frequently have no bearing on the matter. The fact that more and more content creators do this, infers that it works and is now an essential part of the process you must follow to be seen and featured in search results.
I use a browser extension called Control Panel for YouTube, which allows me to determine who many videos are displayed on my YouTube homepage and to filter the content that is shown. At present it is configured to display rows of six. Something that I have noticed of late, is the amount of videos with hyperbolic titles and thumbnail images created by AI. Both of which are design choices made to increase engagement. Clickbait titles are contrived to meet current SEO optimisation criteria and as such feature more and more in search results. The fact that they frequently have no relation to the subject I am researching, seems to be neither here nor there. The same issues arise with regard to AI generated images, which again frequently have no bearing on the matter. The fact that more and more content creators do this, infers that it works and is now an essential part of the process you must follow to be seen and featured in search results.
What worries me is not so much the inherent hyperbole, both written and with regard to images, but the fact that YouTube content is driven by a standardised process. A prevailing meta is often creatively stifling, generic and tedious. We have seen this time and time again online. TED Talks being a prime example. When these lectures first began to gain an audience in 2006/7, the talks had a degree of individuality about them. Over time people began to notice what worked and what didn’t work within the format and so began establishing a process. Eventually this evolved into a sort of unofficial formula that became commonly adopted. This resulted in a noticeably generic style that eventually became an impediment to the way a presentation was received by audiences.
Today, the prevailing philosophy that shapes how people approach, make and present their online content seems to be “standardise and monetise”. That is not to say that there isn’t any good quality content online as there certainly is. What it means is when you search for a video, podcast or blog post related to a specific subject, it is harder to discern what meets your criteria. The algorithms return results that have met SEO standards but not necessarily the users intellectual, or presentation requirements. To put it candidly, you may type a very nuanced search request in a search engine pertaining to something niche and specific, such as Etruscan pottery. The search engine then returns a list of links allegedly relevant to that inquiry. However upon inspection you may find that links to relevant sites, such as Museums in Etruria and other historical resources, are surrounded by irrelevant results, such as local pottery suppliers and tourism in Italy.
I believe this problem goes beyond the iniquities of SEO. You only have to look at the everchanging terms and conditions for YouTube. The company seeks to monetise content but only in a manner that meets the sociopolitical foibles of its advertisers, financiers and political associates. Any material that does not meet this ever shifting set of rules or offends in some manner is effectively disenfranchised by the algorithmic gods. It won’t be seen or returned in search results. Anyone trying to produce video content within such an ecosystem has a stark choice to make. Produce videos in accordance with their own personal principles and risk being demonetised and buried. Or attempt to self-censor one’s content to satisfy YouTube’s standards. The latter results in risible bogus phrases such as “unalived” and “graped”. The notion of trying to sanitise a global platform as YouTube so that the only content that prevails is “marketable”, is ludicrous and possibly immoral.
Upon reflection, YouTube’s policy should not come as a surprise. Similar market forces have been at work in the film and music industries over the last 35 years. There was a time when a film could be made on the merits of its story alone and its subsequent rating was a secondary consideration. Nowadays, mainstream films are frequently made to achieve a specific rating and thus be accessible to a broad audience. Filmmakers of note with a history of success at the box office struggle to find financing for their new projects, if they are deemed to lack mainstream appeal or reference subjects that are at odds with the politics of the prevailing establishment. It is for the same reason that politics and expressing views on social matters have all but vanished from mainstream, popular music. Both industries are now driven by proven formulas and market requirements. This is to their artistic detriment.
Finally it is pertinent to mention blogs with respect to this conversation. Despite rumours to the contrary, they still exist and constitute a major part of online content. Blogs are still a medium for fandom but I do not think that it is considered the first choice of platform. Long form writing takes time, effort and thought. As does reading such content. Videos are immediate and potentially require less application from the viewer. Video content can also be tailor made in a specific idiom and then targeted at particular audiences. Hot takes, controversies, militant fandom, gatekeeping, nostalgia and numerous other “perspectives” can quickly find an audience and gain their creator notoriety. Blogging seems at times quaint compared to such a bellicose alternative. It is also often pilloried for not monetising by default, as if fandom for fandom’s sake is a naive or a fiscally crass decision.
Despite all this, there is still good material to be found online. There are engaging and intelligent blogs, podcasts and YouTube channels. Good quality cinema still exists as does innovative music. The problem is that it is much harder to find among all the bland, homogeneous and spurious material, due to a fundamentally dishonest search methodology. The market may well have won according to some but in doing so it has led to a universal race to the bottom. It is not just a question of inferior content being spoon-fed to the credulous. The internet is partly responsible for creating an audience that cannot consume any other form of material. This is the price we pay for clickbait, dumbed down content, diminished concentration spans, educational decline and an inability to think critically. This is the reality of “standardise and monetise”.
Thanks Google Page Experience Update For Desktop
Last Tuesday, I noticed a drop in traffic to Contains Moderate Peril. As I’m currently only writing every other day, I assumed that it is normal to have occasions when visits to the site may decrease. However the decline has persisted and to date, works out broadly as a 20% reduction of traffic to my blog. At present, I have a lot going on in my life so blogging and website growth are not my highest priorities. However, I am a firm believer in cause and effect and so a situation like this must be down due to other external factors, rather than just the capricious nature of my readership. So I searched online to see if Google had made any changes and I subsequently found that they had rolled out an algorithm update starting on Tuesday 22nd February 2022. Apparently Google Page Experience Update For Desktop “is designed to highlight pages that offer great user experiences. Page experience remains one of many factors our systems take into account. Given this, sites generally should not expect drastic changes”. I beg to differ.
Last Tuesday, I noticed a drop in traffic to Contains Moderate Peril. As I’m currently only writing every other day, I assumed that it is normal to have occasions when visits to the site may decrease. However the decline has persisted and to date, works out broadly as a 20% reduction of traffic to my blog. At present, I have a lot going on in my life so blogging and website growth are not my highest priorities. However, I am a firm believer in cause and effect and so a situation like this must be down due to other external factors, rather than just the capricious nature of my readership. So I searched online to see if Google had made any changes and I subsequently found that they had rolled out an algorithm update starting on Tuesday 22nd February 2022. Apparently Google Page Experience Update For Desktop “is designed to highlight pages that offer great user experiences. Page experience remains one of many factors our systems take into account. Given this, sites generally should not expect drastic changes”. I beg to differ.
Please feel free to search about Google Page Experience Update For Desktop and to read exactly what it’s supposed to do and how it “works”. I have and it is simply beyond my skill set to fully comprehend it. From what I can ascertain it’s supposed to ensure that the best content continues to appear in search results, which is the usual corporate mantra. My real concern is whether it’s fair and if the system can be manipulated. Will smaller content creators be able to equitably compete with the big players. Well, it looks like the answer is “no”. I am not the only person to see a drop in traffic. I have found several posts over at SEO subreddit and they squarely point the finger at Google for this change. There also seems to be growing concern over Google’s continued push for standardised criteria governing content creation. If your site doesn’t entirely comply with these it will have difficulty being found. Sadly, a poorer quality site that is compliant, will rank higher in search results.
Statistics are not the defining reason why I and many other people write online. But let us not be coy. Finding an audience is important and you cannot do that if your website is not visible. However, whether anyone finds Contains Moderate Peril ultimately is a matter out of my hands. I could slavishly follow the prevailing content writing styles and SEO trends in an attempt to “game the system”. However, I like to write in the same manner in which I express myself in real life. Having to conform to a specific regulated standard to reach a broader readership is a double edged sword. You may gain accessibility but at the expense of nuance, maturity and character. Personal blogs are often not just about the content but the content creator as well. However, all of this is academic while we deal with the reality of Google Page Experience Update For Desktop. Perhaps it is naïve to expect an equitable process and a level playing field from a corporate entity such as Google.
The Relevance of Domain Authority?
According to Wikipedia, Domain Authority (also referred to as Thought Leadership) is a measure of a website's relevance with regard to a specific subject area or industry. Be warned, do not read the summary I’ve linked to if you are averse to bullshit marketing speak. I vomited blood when I typed “Thought Leadership” but take comfort in the fact that the marketing executive who came up with that inane platitude is currently closeted at home with a partner and children that hate them and will be facing divorce proceedings roundabout Christmas. But I digress. The reason I mention Domain Authority is because it came up in conversation of the Blaugust Discord channel. Author and fellow blogger Tessa mentioned it as a metric that may have changed for many writers over the course of the Blapril blogging event. It has done so for her, although I didn’t take that as a sign that she puts particular stock in this measure. As this wasn’t a statistical measurement I was familiar with I Googled the term and hence discovered the aforementioned Wikipedia entry.
Really?
According to Wikipedia, Domain Authority (also referred to as Thought Leadership) is a measure of a website's relevance with regard to a specific subject area or industry. Be warned, do not read the summary I’ve linked to if you are averse to bullshit marketing speak. I vomited blood when I typed “Thought Leadership” but take comfort in the fact that the marketing executive who came up with that inane platitude is currently closeted at home with a partner and children that hate them and will be facing divorce proceedings roundabout Christmas. But I digress. The reason I mention Domain Authority is because it came up in conversation of the Blaugust Discord channel. Author and fellow blogger Tessa mentioned it as a metric that may have changed for many writers over the course of the Blapril blogging event. It has done so for her, although I didn’t take that as a sign that she puts particular stock in this measure. As this wasn’t a statistical measurement I was familiar with I Googled the term and hence discovered the aforementioned Wikipedia entry.
Now setting aside the usual sage advice about not focusing upon website stats, I was curious about this term, because although I’m not exclusively driven by the numbers for Contains Moderate Peril, I do like to know what is or isn’t getting read. Statistics can be a useful tool, as long as you don’t obsess over them and harbour dreams of global domination and a volcano lair . So, to cut a long story short I used the first URL that Google listed to determine what my Domain Authority is and found it to be 45. As I initially had no context for this specific number, I was neither impressed nor unimpressed, just flummoxed. A little further research yielded some background information that made the number a little easier to qualify. Apparently a “Domain Authority score ranges from one to 100, with higher scores corresponding to a greater ability to rank with search engines. Domain Authority is calculated by evaluating multiple factors, including linking root domains and the number of total links, into a single score”.
Here is an obvious metaphor about alchemy
So it boils down to trying to ascribe a simple numerical value to assess how well a website will fare with respect to internet searches. SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) has become the Holy Grail among internet marketing alchemists for a while, spawning an entire online industry offering such services, although the results are “questionable”. According to the following blurb “Domain authority scores between 40 and 50 is considered average, between 50 and 60 is considered good and over 60 is considered excellent”. This allows me to put my score of 45 into perspective. Perhaps that’s why I get so many emails addressed to “Dear Contains Moderate Peril” offering to collaborate with me and my team (?) to improve my site ranking. They all go in the recycle bin. Call me old fashioned but I always thought it was the quality and style of your written work, along with knowledge and experience that gained traction with readers. When, for example, I’m looking for a movie review for an obscure genre title, I don’t necessarily want the most popular one but the most cogent. As for Domain Authority, I’ll file it under spurious bollocks along with politican’s promises and the appeal of Mrs Brown’s Boys.
