Is Content King on the 'Net?

After surfing around lately, I’m beginning to wonder if folks who write don’t get that what they write will be read by others. It’s as if the basic ideas in their heads never gets past their own “take” on something. Even worse, the writer has attempted to “build” an article that’s “keyword optimized” in a way that smacks of pandering. It’s one thing to try to get a keyword-rich article published – quite another to try to stuff your keywords into the reader’s gullet.
    I’m all for monetizing your writing. That’s what I’m about. I’m also willing to write about something without worrying if it’s going to make me a dime. I write because I write. I think, therefore I think (apologies to Descartes). I think.
    If what you write embodies a willingness to achieve something resembling “good”, then you’ve done the job properly. Never mind “excellent”, that’s in the eye of the beholder. Doing a good job means you’ve taken what you know, crafted it with purpose and checked for errors in your grammar and spellinx.
    I’ve been a member of the Grammar and Spelling Police, but I’m retiring from that post. The raft of incomprehensible, misspelled and generally crappy stuff I’m seeing every day means I’d have to give up making good writing. Policing the Internet’s illiterati is a full-time job.

We could all be really wrong about everything we know - but that's not the way to bet!

Wasn't it Bernie Taupin who wrote (for Elton John) about Levon who called his kid Jesus, because he liked the name? Well, I like Richard Dawkins, because I like his brain. Check out this commentary on creationism, evolution violating the Second Law of Thermogoddamics and the age of the Earth being, roughly, 6,000 (six thousand) years.