isos Release “Director’s Cut” Of Old Post, Taking “Vanity Blog” To New Heights
Sometimes, a brilliant and insightful idea is ditched because of “creative differences” between me, myself and occasionally Scottie. I relented to myself on this one, but have regretted it ever since. That is why I am releasing a “Director’s Cut” version of the classic post: “Keyword Density Of Sandbox Articles Apparently Proportional To Density Of Authors“.
Compare and see which one you, our ever growing number of quasi-interested readers, prefer. isos: taking vanity blogs to a whole nuther level!
UPONG, in a continuation of their stated goal of doing cutting edge SEO market research and intelligence to provide more of the research UPONG members couldn’t be arsed doing for a public that couldn’t care less, has revealed the first extensive study into articles on the so called Google Sandbox phenomenon.
| Overall Issues | Score |
|---|---|
| Average Originality of thought | 2.67 |
| Average Deviation From Norm | 0.34 |
| Average Reading Age of Articles: | 8.47 |
| Statistical validity of Theories | 3.42% |
“So many articles are written on this contentious issue”, El Presidente Michael said. “and we at UPONG felt that, while the world didn’t need Yet Another Sandbox Theory (YAST for short), it sure as s#$@ needed an analysis of all the so called analysis. And I think you will agree, the results are shocking. ”
The fictional study, utilising cutting edge imaginary tools that analyse the form, structure and original content of articles, including running the articles through anti-plagiarism software and word matrix generators, the UPONG survey, titled “The Industry With One Brain And Far Too Much Bandwidth”, unveiled shocking trends.
“Unbelievably”, Michael said, “the average originality of thought is so low as to be almost non-existent. The plagiarism algorithms that we ran the articles through showed a strong likelihood of plagiarism in close to 98% of all articles. At first, we put this down to syndication or perhaps a few DMCA violations, but this proved incorrect, as despite their similarity, all articles were original, in so far as being new piece’s of writing. It was just that there was just a complete and utter lack of virtually any original thought.”
What the UPONG also found was a strong correlation in teh use of specific words and types of words. “The patented UPONG Bullshit-o-meter™, a tool we pioneered to detect and out peddlers of BS, man, that tool was flashin’ its lil red light Hollywood B-grade movie access denied style all night long.” .
| Bullshit-o-meter™ Statistical Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|
| Term | OF | KWD |
| Specific Terms | ||
| Sandbox | 100.00% | 8.00% |
| 100.00% | 6.00% | |
| TrustRank | 83.63% | 4.00% |
| DMOZ | 67.43% | 1.00% |
| Aging delay | 47.63% | 0.76% |
| BS Indicator Terms | ||
| Proven | 99.76% | 2.65% |
| Unknown | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Possibly / Possible | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Absolute | 90.83% | 2.06% |
| comprehensive research | 12.89% | 2.06% |
| Commercial Indicator Terms | ||
| Free | 67.08% | 2.06% |
| eBook report | 18.49% | 1.86% |
The Bullshit-o-meter™ was going nuts because its statistical analysis of words known to be frequently utilised by scamsters, as well as common phrasings and exaggerated claims, encountered many irregularities.
“Looking at the data”, Michael continued, “you will see that several terms are overused, many others are hideously under-used, and some that should have been present simply were not used at all.”
Particularly surprising, according to UPONG’s press release, was the almost complete lack of doubt, or almost anything that was less than absolute certainty.
“No one used the word ‘possible’ / ‘possibly’. Amazing. A theory without the word ‘possible’ is like a fat man sans man boobs. Unheard of! Either the SEO community has no idea how to do research or present ideas, or they are so advanced in their reverse engineering that issues such as detailed research and doubt are simply superfluous. Whatever it is, that level of confidence has to be admired, if nothing else!”
This research has, however, lead to a several criticisms, including a stinging rebuttal from vocal UPONG critique and isos regular Michael Motherwell.
“It is like I said to myself when I hatched this idea”, chief UPONG critique Michael Motherwell commented. “Fictional research debunking crap articles that itself employs no research is a very poor basis for an article, even if it is supreme irony. And those tables, they are just sooooo bland and lack creativity and flair. They just scream Web 1.0!
“IMHO, to make this idea funny, the least UPONG needed to do was research, for two seconds, some complicated terms related to Information Retrieval (IR for those in the know). That would at least have given the gag some weight.
“That is not to say that the central theme isn’t still a good one. Not at all. The idea that all these sandbox theory articles are just snake oil sold by used car salesmen who flunked their bar exam is extremely valid, and this director’s cut proves that isos innovate in ways even I struggle to keep up with, straddling that fine line between pure genius and total insanity.
“It is just that the execution here is just far too lazy and sloppy, and the lack of cutting edge terms that mean nothing but are real is hardly made up for with a stupid radar graph.
“And this final self critique! My God that is such a lazy way to make sure people got the gag, especially when no-one seemed to struggle first time round.
“So, for all these reasons, I will have to judge this the single worst isos mock-u-post so far, providing yet more evidence, following those lame Jeeves songs, that isos has well and truly, without doubt, jumped the shark, and that the heady days of the Trapezoidal Linking Matriflx™ and Netherworld Suite are but a fading memory of a brief period in which isos was almost readable. ”
“Very, very poor work indeed.”
Add comment April 6th, 2006
