I almost never write editor logs. Probably because I (guiltily) view what I do here as something on the order of sneaking around the wainscoting when nobody's looking, at least as far as 'being editorial' goes. I don't really consider my level of effort worthy of the buttons, but somehow I haven't convinced the relevant people to take 'em back.
I don't want you thinking this is some form of golly-gee-whiz self-deprecation. This is basically a model for how I view myself and my life, and I fully recognize that in some part of arguable proportion it is a symptom. But I haven't discovered anything that I can do about it, so for now...yeah.
And now for something completely different. Because Ed logs shouldn't be about eds.
One of the things the estimable jaybonci has done since his triumphant conquistadorial return is to give some of us access to the Google webmaster tools analytics data about this here our site. There's a wealth of stuff in there. Some of it is prime fodder for self-flagellation if you as a writer go looking for proof of just how many fucks the internet doesn't give about you. But some of it says good things, very good things, about this our site, and some of it says things which aren't good or bad but are (and yes, I hate this word) interesting.
For example, this here site attracts several million page views per month onto which Google manages to impress ads. This number (north of five million, south of ten) has remained remarkably consistent for the time I have been looking at it. This is a goodly number of eyeballs, people. It could certainly be better. But when compared with the relatively low number of actual users that we all have kvetched about for years, it tells us somebody out there is reading our stuff. Remember, none of those page views are from logged-in members (who don't get ad impressions) so it's not just one of us sitting there on autorefresh every five seconds.
And on to the real meat of this ed log. The particular nodes which attract the most traffic are in some cases predictable, in others not. I'm not going to talk about that, because that sounds like keeping score, and it's not relevant (but don't worry, mine aren't anywhere near the top - in fact, I don't think they're even on the map). However, Google has what I consider a much more fascinating stat. Notably, 'Search terms by average position' - specifically, those at the top of the list, with a 1.0 value. In other words, these are terms that people have searched for using Google for which E2 has been the number one suggested search result (like, we're all authoritative and shit). Some of these are win. Some are sad. But it's a list I compulsively read, once in a while. Here are some highlights, and all of these searches are ones which we are the top hit for (test it if you don't believe me, although this data is anywhere from a few days to a month or two old- the ones I checked came up as advertised). Note: these are all multi-search terms (i.e. searched for more than once, usually more than ten times, some much higher) and the position is data from the preceding (rolling) month.
- how to put on camo face paint
- chugule
- 365 reasons to party
- universal sea state code
- worst knock knock jokes
- porn vocabulary
- a discourse by three drunkards on government summary
- finnish words for snow
- the brown color of faeces comes from
- what fresh hell is this shakespeare
- self-portrait of the laureate of nonsense
- it was past midnight the room was full of smoke
- function of a spigot
- pas devant les domestiques
- best thing for menstrual cramps
- archetypes in alien
- why is the death rate in nicaragua so low
- best way to cut your wrist
- does it hurt to cut your wrists
- music has seven letters writing has twenty-six notes
- reversionary bailment
- who wrote the first rfc?
- you must signal during the last 100 feet before turning, or at least ____ seconds prior to changing lanes on the freeway.
- if god didn't exist
...I should point out that these entries are all from the first 75 on the list of search terms that reached us (some 20,000 or so search terms last month).
I thought about putting commentary on them, but find that in fact I feel I should just present them as they are for you to turn over in your head. Perhaps they will tumble there, amongst the superfine polishing medium of your ideas, to emerge as gemstones or smoothed rocks, earning a sparkling place in the sun.
NOTE: While I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'd nonetheless urge you to only create nodes with any of these titles if you have content to put in them. We don't want to look like we're deliberately naming content-free nodes to match search terms - that way lies spam and SEO crapfests, right?