The World Wide Web, like Christians making a point or FOXNews talking heads fashioning a rebuttal, has no semantic qualities, no context-specific meaning.
For those searching the web, it can range from frustrating to hilarious. Frustrating in that “Eats [,] Shoots [,] and Leaves” kind of way. Hilarious because, no matter what, the human mind needs to forge meaning out of any randomness. It’s the cognitive version of my matrilineal side’s compulsive cleaning genes (which I lack).
The watchdog sites that I use to gather metrics from this blog (for no other reason that Linda Kauffman’s “all data is good; good data is better” philosophy) can show you data from all sorts of angles. An interesting one shows which search words “guided” a user to my humble site.
- “miss daisy” riding porn
- chris pontius dick
- riding a bicycle hurts anal leakage
- coo coo for cocoa cocks
- overweight medical dummy
- omnivores secret handshake
- good moral story about biscuit in the airport
- j.k. rowling breasts
- dubya sidious
- 3d wolf fog moon
- prevention of jowels
- mei bdsm
- all men are created equal except jon stewart
- “redwood city” blowjob
- masturbating the war god
- anodizing aluminum jiminy
- “root hog or die” meaning
Another metric is the summary. Sort of opposite in meaning would be those search phrases which are used both multiple times and also reliably lead a googler or yahooer or asker. It’s one thing to take wild stabs at esoteric porn sites, but quite another when so many people go looking for the same—sometimes very weird-ass—things:
Click on this shorter list to see more:
I love the intarwebs.