RSS FEED
MOST SHARED
- U.S. May Wind Up Green With Envy
- Japan Third Quarter GDP Jumps; 2010 Growth May Slow
- Warren Buffett to CNBC: 'I Haven't Bought American Express In Years'
- Analysis: APEC Nations Back Face-Saving Climate Plan
- The Cost of Thanksgiving Dinner 2009
- Dipping Into Green Investing
- For Investors, The New Green Looks To Be White
- Disaster Film '2012' Drowns Rivals at Box Office
- CNBC Video: Warren Buffett & Bill Gates - Keeping American Great
- Sustainability Indices Sprouting Up
- Warren Buffett to CNBC: 'I Haven't Bought American Express In Years'
- CNBC Video: Warren Buffett & Bill Gates - Keeping American Great
- Lightning Round: CVS Caremark, Devon Energy, Tyson Foods and More
- Lightning Round OT: Ford, NewAlliance Bancshares and More
- Why You Should Speculate on Stocks
- Next Week’s Top IPO
- U.S. Stocks Rally for the Second Straight Week
- Cramer: 5 Earnings Reports to Watch Next Week
- Your First Move For Monday November 16th
- Web Extra: Where Will The Next Bull Come From?
Text Size 
If you like stock advice and need stock advice then you should check out our stock advice section because it has various bits of stock advice from experts who make their living giving stock advice.
Did you like that paragraph? Me neither. But a search engine optimization consultant would love it.
That's because it repeats a key phrase that people are likely to search on -- "stock advice" -- several times. That, plus using the phrase in various parts or "tags" of the Web page structure, means this item could appear first in a Google [GOOG
Loading...
()
] or Yahoo [YHOO
Loading...
()
] search on "stock advice." That would translate into more clicks back to this site. Hence, the piece is "optimized" for maximum search engine exposure. The soul less Web manager in me thinks that is good.
But the writer and journalist in me thinks that it is bad. From high school English we learn that using the same phrase over and over again in a paragraph or sentence is bad diction ... it's repetitive. It makes for bad reading.
And in a journalistic point of view, you should be more about telling the tale, not what search engines are going to look for. Sure, plenty of news copy can fit into the search optimization mold. But how about stories with anecdotal or first-person quote leads? Those don't meet the search engine optimization bill. But sometimes they are the best way to relate a story.
The search engine optimization consultant would argue (I know because I've argued with them a lot) that a nicely written story doesn't do any good if no one sees it. Journalists would counter that a snazzy headline often gets more eyeballs than a straightforward one does. And so on, and so on ....
Hey, I like traffic. And so I listen to most of what the search engine optimization folks say. Most of the time it's not that big an issue. And people do a lot of their Internet searching via engine. I know my competitors are talking to their consultants, just like I talk to mine, about how to take advantage of that.
But I try to balance the practice. I get emails complaining about bad grammar and bad diction, both on the Web and on TV, so I know at least you care. Well, some of you. When you are not looking for stock advice.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes