On Sep 29, 2:39=A0pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:37:10 -0400, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in art=
icle
>
> <36f24302-d163-4d30-b6b3-5cf02d237...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 1:43=A0am, "jmsa...@aol.com" <jmsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> So here's a question for the group mind...a weird question that my
> >> agent asked me, when he noticed it, and I didn't have an answer, so I
> >> figured somebody here might.
>
> >> If you do a google search -- web or blog -- on my name, and sort date
> >> to the most recent, you hit a lot of B5 stuff, some comics stuff, and
> >> the like. =A0You see very little on Changeling.
>
> >> But if you do a search for Changeling for the same period, and sort
> >> date, even though my name is all through those entries, almost none of
> >> them showed up on the other Google search, even though Changeling and
> >> my name were in the same areas and thus should have been sorted
> >> equally.
>
> >> It's almost as if Google is weighted to search in some areas, and
> >> disregard others. =A0Kind of a weird internet typecasting.
>
> >> Whuzzup wit dat?
>
> > The key (it's no big secret) is that search engines assume that, if
> > someone is searching for "J. Michael Straczynski", they want to learn
> > about J. Michael Straczynski, not something else. Things that
> > reference B5, the comics, and so on, are often about you, and a lot of
> > them cross-reference each other. Things about "Changeling" generally
> > mention you only in passing, and relatively few other web pages that
> > reference you have links to them, which makes any modern search engine
> > assume (with considerable truth) that people who are interested in you
> > aren't much impressed with those pages, and that someone searching for
> > you won't be much impressed by them either.
>
> > You want to see more "Changeling" pages turn up on searches for you?
> > Encourage more of them to have interesting content about you. How do
> > you do that? Heck, I've already told you what to do on this very
> > thread. Get yourself on Leno and Letterman. Good for "Changeling",
> > good for you, good for the WGA. The film's got major industry buzz,
> > and the other major players aren't available, so get out there and
> > carpe that old diem (or rather noctem in this case) to tell the people
> > that you're the Somebody who Wrote That. While you're at it, do
> > interviews with bridge media -- old media with major Internet
> > presence, like the NY Times, and (when it's time) the BBC.
>
> > I /know/ you can do it, because I've /seen/ you do it. No matter how
> > uninteresting you may think you are, the fact is that you're as much
> > fun to watch in personal appearances as the late Isaac Asimov was.
> > (And your agent can damn well quote me on that.) <<
>
> I think JMS is undervaluing himself in this regard, as well. =A0Being an =
old
> hand at cons, he's more equipped than many Hollywood writers to take
> unexpected questions and instantly provide entertaining and informative
> answers to them. =A0No risk of dead air when interviewing JMS, that's for=
sure.
>
> Amy
> --
> "In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and ove=
r
> again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - Geor=
ge
> W. Bush, May 24, 2005- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Along these lines...there will be a Q&A after the Sunday screening of
Changeling at NYFF, and I'll be there to answer questions, as well as
attending the premiere the night before.
jms |
|
