7 years, 1 month ago
From time to time it pays to take a look at the keywords used to bring visits to a site (when those visits are neither direct nor referrals). I use Google Analytics for this task, among other things. The search word strings yesterday were typical of a Milblog site.
- “Spartan body armor.” A Google search on the words “Spartan 2 tactical vest” yields TCJ just below Tactical Applications Group, the company that produces the Spartan body armor system, because of our body armor coverage. “SAPI plates” is also a frequent search word string (you may not become famous by being a Milblogger, but at least you get tired, the hours are long and the words sound important).
- “Jaish al-Mahdi army.” This makes sense, since a Google search puts TCJ third for our article The Rise of the JAM.
- “Are soldiers allowed to buy their own equipment?” This is understandable as well, since page two of Google results lists Gear and Equipment Problems for the Marines. Of course, this reader would have left disappointed and perhaps perplexed, since the answer is an unqualified maybe but probably not with qualifications, caveats, and stipulations enough to drive the sensible person mad, as if a lawyer wrote the rules … Hmmmm … a new theory hatches!
- Variations on “rules of engagement,” “rules of engagement in Iraq,” “rules of engagement causing casualties,” “rules of engagement a hindrance,” “cjcsi 3121.01b,” etc., for our rules of engagement coverage. Of course, these hits also bring in the person who is attempting to find engagement cards for their loved ones.
- “Ansar al Sunna,” for our equivalent category. I might remark on how forgiving search engines are, since the dual spellings (Sunna vs. Sunnah) are irrelevant.
And so the list goes. It becomes an interesting little exercise. But once in a while I stumble on a word string that grabs my attention so thoroughly that I cannot stop thinking about it until I unravel the mystery (I have not yet).
“Why shouldn’t we lie to NCOs?” Now, take note of the fact that this isn’t formed thusly: “Why we shouldn’t lie to NCOs.” No, it reads just “[w]hy shouldn’t we …” This is particularly problematic, since we don’t know the rank of the individual searching on this word string. Perhaps the chap had one too many pints of beer before searching on these words (did I give the country away?). Or perhaps not. Perhaps he is UA and needs an excuse for coming back late for formation. Or perhaps rather than an enlisted man, he is an officer and wants to talk himself into lying to his subordinates. Or perhaps he is an NCO searching for a reason for his subordinates not to be dishonest with him (Based on what I know of NCOs, this theory makes the least sense. An NCO would not search for a reason for his subordinates to respect him – he would simply demand it.).
Until this chap tells us why he wants to lie to an NCO, we cannot help him with his problem. And just to set the record straight, at TCJ we do not support lying to NCOs.