Traffic Experiment #2 – An Update

I sit here in awe. I am stunned by the number of people searching for “onionbooty”. Until recently I had never even heard the term. Sadly, I searched it myself to see what it was. Big ‘ol round ‘Baby Got Back’ style booties. No lie. Think soca album covers.

I’m sure the people searching for onionbootys are sorely disappointed when they end up here.

Anyway, we are still in the middle of a contest and I thought I would give you an update on how all your pervert clever search terms are doing.

Is is going very poorly. I haven’t had crap for hits on any of them. In fact, I’ve had more hits for Mike Gravel, and I just wrote about that guy yesterday.* I also got one hitΒ  today for “Why do cats puke in shoes?”. I wish I had the answer to that question.

I was going to put a list of our current leaders here, but since there are none instead I will ask you a technical question. Do you think it is possible that by bolding the search terms it makes the search engines refuse to recognize them?

* I also got linked to by a Tom Tancredo website. I hope his people don’t try to come and get me.

Does this read more thing piss you guys off? Tell me if it does and I’ll stop doing it. I’m just experimenting with where to put my footnotes since I can’t seem to stop using them. See, Gabe was giving me a hard time about using too many parenthetical asides and so I’m trying to use little astericks instead. What do you think? Which way is better?

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Comment Via Facebook



  1. for some reason i get tons of hits for “homer simpson vagina tattoo”


  2. I know I don’t post a ton of comments, but I read all the posts in a feed reader. I prefer to get it all rather than clicking out, I like the asides, they’re part of your blog personality which is what keeps people reading… all my opinion though, feel free to completely and totally disregard πŸ˜‰

  3. I am not the person to ask about random asides. My posts are sometimes comprised soley of parentheticals.

    I prefer to see an entire post, rather than having to click to read something “after the jump.” But then, I’m pretty lazy.

  4. I think the read more links are slightly annoying, but I’d still read ya if you continued using them. πŸ˜‰ And I dig the parentheses. Gabe is weird. Parentheses are good.

  5. You can call me, 'Sir' says:

    The ‘more’ thing is unnecessary, I think. Mostly, it just depresses me, as I get to the end of your post and then end up thinking to myself, “Oh, God, there’s more?!”

  6. De in D.C. says:

    I use a reader, so it’s slightly annoying to open the post in a new browser window to read the whole thing. But I’d be doing that anyway if I wanted to comment, so it’s not *that* annoying.

    I like the parantheses more than the footnotes. Why scroll down to read your train of thought? That just screws up MY train of thought! LOL. Besides, most of the time they’re pretty hilarious.

    And that is so depressing about the search contest, lol. I’ve been looking forward to an update for weeks. I don’t think the bold would do anything though, but I did try searching for my own search term and didn’t find your blog anywhere on the first 8 pages of results, so I dunno. Maybe throw them into random paragraphs, a la Mad Libs?

  7. I’m with LHM. I’m lazy too.

  8. I used to break up my posts, but then I realized it was more work for the reader. Plus I usually want to know how long something is before I launch into it. Some blogs that hold my attention I don’t mind a longer read, but honestly there are a lot of people out there with potty training woes that I don’t need to read. Love your style.

  9. I’m lazy, too, but the good thing about the jump is that I’m already on the comment page, so there is that.

  10. I love it that we’re all so damn lazy that we don’t want to move our mouse and click “more.” That said, I’m totally that lazy.

    I wrote about Diet Coke awhile back and get a fair number of hits looking for “cheap Diet Coke.” Who out there is bargain hunting for soda on the internet?

  11. Seeing as how your blog already takes forever to load on my dial up connection – I’m kind of sad to now have to click more and wait again for the page to load. I don’t know that I’ll stop reading the whole post, but it’s a possibility sometimes.

  12. Hey, maybe if you linked them to yourself, google would pick them up? Can’t hurt

    I think having to click it is disrupting. just let it flow.

  13. Down with asterisks, up with parenthesis! I’d stage a protest if I weren’t eating grapes.

  14. You make me giggle, so I’ll read it – even if I do have to click on a link…

  15. i always use asterisks, but sometimes i get rambly and i go back and read a post a few days later and find out that i have gone up to, like, six asterisks…but, you know, they don’t match up because i don’t proofread…and, really? i’m surprised that anyone reads my blog at all.

    also, i see nothing wrong with using asterisks AND parenthetical asides.
    that, friends, is the glory of self-publishing.

  16. lazy? I was counting the click on “more” as cardio.

  17. Currently, the Google Pervs have named me an EXPERT on Mike Rowe’s nakedness. I’m trying hard to see what Mike thinks about that.

    I get Queen of Farts a lot.

    Every day I get hits from those pervs looking for skid mark panties.

    Just today…real life crack wh*re videos. Um, yeah.

  18. I prefer without the read more. But I still clicked it anyway didn’t I… so I guess it doesn’t make that much difference!
    I cannot believe you haven’t got any hits from any of our suggestions!

  19. I’m not a fan of the “more”, but I can’t criticize because I use it myself in my RSS feed. If I don’t, all my content gets stolen for use on sites designed to garner adSense revenue.

    Also, I *like* the parenthetical asides. It’s how people talk. :-)

  20. no click more, please. I thought for sure more people would be curious about Mitt Romney and hookers. damn.

Comment Via Facebook


Powered by Facebook Comments