Haha, I particularly like Webguts!

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

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’?

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.)

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.

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?

I like this too. Added!

Added to the post 🙂 Excellent ideas Rob.

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