Profound Works no image

Published on October 12th, 2012 | by 011100110110010

10

Redefining ‘Quality Content’

I’ve just seen an amusing tweet from Lyndon Antcliff (if you’re not following him, go now and do so.) which links to this article

The post talks about not aiming to make specific content but just to make something exceptional.

The post and tweet combined made me think of a few possible ways to redefine ‘content’ into something else. I feel that because I’m above so many other SEO’s clambering their way to the SEO summit I can have a decent bash at redefining something, so here goes…

  • Successful internets
  • #RCS (Real Content Shit)
  • A page that shepherds the user to a place you want them to go. (snappy)
  • #AP (Achieved Potential)
  • #STM (Superior To Market)

Fuck it I’m blabbering, just wanted to brainstorm. What do you think? Have any further ideas of what we could redefine it too?

Really like these ideas:

Rob Duckers

  • Con(ver)tent
  • Con(vert)(in)tent
  • Eye Velcro
  • Penetrating Entity Nudges Into Sales (use as acronym)

Lyndon Antcliff

  •  Narrative structured usability

Chris Gilchrist

  • Stuff & things
  • Stuff
  • Things
  • Shizzle
  • Or why not just ‘goods’ as used in economics. “Goods – Objects that can satisfy people’s wants.”

Dustin Verburg

  • Quality Words and Code (QWC)
  • WebGuts
  • CyberSubstance
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.7/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Redefining ‘Quality Content’, 6.7 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Bookmark this on Delicious



About the Author

One day I will make a living out of this industry, until then I'll carry on writing here.



10 Responses to Redefining ‘Quality Content’

  1. Rob Duckers says:

    How about:

    Con(ver)tent
    Con(vert)(in)tent
    Eye Velcro
    Penetrating Entity Nudges Into Sales (use as acronym)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. How about “narrative structured usability” ;)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Stuff & things
    Stuff
    Things
    Shizzle

    Or why not just ‘goods’ as used in economics.
    “Goods – Objects that can satisfy people’s wants.”

    Yes users aren’t physically paying to consume most of our ‘content’ but they are paying with their precious time and in opportunity costs. We want them to ‘spend’ their time with us and not someone else so in effect it’s still purchasing what we produce.

    If you agree let me know and we can tell the internet we’ve decided on this and they can change how they refer to it. Will you let Matt Cutts know before his next vid?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Hey Chris,

      I did consider Goods and Stuff, they’ll be added into the mix. I’d make a poll if I wasn’t so lazy & people would actually do it.

      I like this point:

      Yes users aren’t physically paying to consume most of our ‘content’ but they are paying with their precious time and in opportunity costs. We want them to ‘spend’ their time with us and not someone else so in effect it’s still purchasing what we produce.

      Matt and I aren’t really talking at the moment so I’ll probably just let him find out via this post.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. AJ Kohn says:

    To me quality content is memorable. Of course then you have to figure out what makes content memorable.

    I keep thinking (and writing about this). Right or wrong I believe quality content has to be read. It can be War and Peace (or whatever novel you think is awesome) but if it’s tough to read then it doesn’t matter.

    Then it gets a little wonky. Because content needs to be useful and to engage. It can’t just be about perceived value (i.e – someone important wrote it it or it’s got a long list of tips so it must be good) but real value. You’ll rack up Tweets like ants on honey but that doesn’t make it quality content.

    Memorable content has a point of view and a real voice. Is it authentic. Lots of ways to do this though storytelling is often a good way to go. In the end, is it content that someone is going to be able to reference when talking to a friend or colleague?

    In the end, have some stones and put some real THINKING out there. You’re OWN thinking. Not just some regurgitated drivel copy and pasted blender-style with some additional and clumsy grammatical adornments. (I need some coffee.)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    • You’re right AJ, sounds like you need some coffee :)

      It’s interesting you talk about perceived value. I’ve just watched the whiteboard Friday about on-page factors in 2012 and have to say I was left slightly surprised at how a website like SEOmoz can get away with creating a piece of content that adds so little to the ‘on page debate’.

      The thing is this video will get a shitload of tweets and probably links due to where it is and who made it. Maybe because Rand made the video it makes the content more memorable and that allows for a lack of ‘quality’?

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Dustin Verburg says:

    Content is weird. I mean, PBS compares popular webcomics to ‘Ulysses,’ so I don’t think content has to be airy and easily absorbed, but there does have to be something there that sticks. Chewing gum, meet expensive loafer.

    New names for content:
    Quality Words and Code (QWC)
    WebGuts
    CyberSubstance

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Back to Top ↑