Thread by @darth_na

.
::: Oh goody, another mass observational study :::

(And no, it's not via @MarkPreston1969 - he was just the first person I saw sharing it :D)

So ... read the Quick Summary (9 points) ...
... then come tell me what your immediate reaction/thoughts are :D

#SEO

https://twitter.com/MarkPreston1969/status/1410256904325062661

>>>

Read it yet?

If no, go back to 1 and go read it

If yes, either start commenting, or proceed to 3 and read on
:D

backlinko.com/evergreen-cont…

Okay, I didn't even get to the list of 9 summarised points before I started itching.

It looks like the definition of "evergreen content" is based on it's ranking/traffic consistency,
not it's relevance/topical durability.
(Not the same things).

>>>

So ... 9 summary pointers ...

First ones that jump out ...

3) heavily shared on Reddit = often good ...
4) high engagement on Twitter = often bad ...
5) 2020/21 in title = often good ...

... you what?

>>>

Evergreen content is content that proves to be "timeless" or "non-seasonal" etc. - it matches interest/intent and generates traffic fairly consistently over a duration.

You know ... a bit like ... well ... *gasp* those trees that stay green all year...
🤦

>>>

So ... yes, chances are, there is a correlation between shares/links on platforms like Reddit ... as those aren't really rapid/trend-based platforms.

And yes ... I can see stuff on Twitter being a low representation, as that sort of platform is fast/trend based.

>>>

Titles with 2020 and 2021?
How the hell do you have "evergreen content" that is made in 2021?
We are barely touching July!
But, yes ... I can see how there would likely be sustained interest/traffic for subjects that have moderate change rates etc.

>>>

But the biggest issue with 3/4/5 is ...
... how people are going to read/interpret them.

By now, we should all be aware that a fair % of "readers" don't actually read, (and a % of them don't appear to "think" much either!).

>>>

They are going to look, and go ...
Oh, Twitter bad, Reddit good!
Must stick year in title!

>>>

But my favourite is (9).

"...
9. Industries with relatively low amounts of evergreen articles include SEO, business, and fashion
..."

Fashion?
As in, something that rapidly changes ... flashy news ... and is notorious for being ............ seasonal?

Tell me it ain't so!
🤦

Now, the rest of the article just "explains" those points
(honestly, I cannot emphasise the sarcasm enough)

But there were a few niggles in there...

Podcast is a medium/format. It is comparable to image and text, not "how to" or "review".

>>>

Another one that makes me twitchy is the lack of explanation/math regarding things like Podcasts being evergreen, or the use of Titles.

Are we normalising the quantities so we can compare (as there's fewer pods than pages).
Same for titles (more pages now use year than 2005)
>>>

So ... all in all ... nothing particularly new, insightful, thought provoking etc.,
and I'm not surprised.

Simply yet another mega-piece for attention and glory, rather than furtherance :(