Sometimes when you have a blog – even a sad, ugly blog that no one likes – every once in a while you will be tempted to look at your statistics.

Blog stats tell you how many people looked at your blog. If you have a blog engineered by the handsome, wholesome folk at WordPress, you get to read reports about search terms that led people to your blog.

It turns out, I have the coveted top-ranking for the search term  “Impudence of a dead cockroach.”

Because of internet privacy, there are always a lot of “unknown search terms.” It’s only the nasty terms that Google doesn’t screen.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 9.56.14 PM


boobs and nipple

Boobies AND nipple? Ah, I see we have a discerning gentleman, tired of just undressing Barbies all day.

Not to give too much away, but we bloggers have ways of beckoning you internet vagrants off the information super highway. By tagging certain words in my post, I can tell Google what my stuff is all about. If I ever write anything about boobs or celebrities, I emphasize that content, because I want those sweet, sweet, clickity-clicks.

For instance, I wrote a blog last year about paintings of St. Agatha, that one saint who had her breasts lopped off by Romans. Now I get a lot of views because I tagged “pious boobs.”

And for some reason, people regularly Google “pious boobs.”

Pious boob

Does that mean that someone clicked on my blog looking for one thing, and found another? Did that person stomp off, disappointed and slightly closer to murder than they were before?


Do I really think that I’m ever going to make money off of an advertiser, based on thousands of unique views?

No, not in a million years!

So why bother? Wouldn’t it be better if I just relied on friends to spread the word, so that I only had readers who actually wanted to be here?

It sure would!

I’m just thinking this through now.

To make up for my SEO practices, I’m going to try to provide useful information to the confused people who have ended up here.

Here are some of the top search terms that have led people to my blog, and my attempts to give the people what they want.

1. Pious boob

Back to the pious boobs.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 9.58.47 PM

Immediate failure. I can’t figure it out. When I searched the term, there was no unifying theme.

Other top results for “pious boob” include  a self-published article called “Teaching God’s Design for Breasts.” It states: “The womanʼs body has breasts for a physical reason: to feed babies; but also for a spiritual reason: to display our Makerʼs own nurturing nature.”

So think about THAT.

There’s also a parenting book called, Mom, Will This Chicken Give Me Man Boobs?

So think about THAT, TOO.

If you’re honestly on a quest for pious boobs, I’m sorry, but I still don’t think you can do better than St. Agatha.

Christ on a cracker, those boobs really took it in the ass.

(c) National Galleries of Scotland; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

2. “what is a teeter totter in a strip club.”

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 10.05.54 PM

I have a real answer.

Once, I saw a woman on a cobblestone street, wearing very high heels. She was what’s known as “white girl wasted,” and her massive fake eyelashes threw off her balance. My boyfriend and I stared at her, waiting for the situation to resolve itself.

“She’s doing a classic teeter totter,” Max said under his breath, his voice tense with anticipation.

A “teeter totter,” therefore, is when a woman is too drunk for her shoes. Don’t believe me?

Too bad. My definition has already been researched, approved, and published by the expert linguists at Urban Dictionary.

Screen Shot 2015-02-12 at 1.30.23 PM

I ran this development by the man who originated the phrase. He responded: “Nothing I say means anything.”

3. “Descriptions of babies.” 

We’ve all been there: I’m going to a party later, and I just know everyone will be describing babies. I want to be able to contribute.

Let me help.


When I searched, Google suggested 6 basic categories of baby:

  • Clip Art
  • Newborn
  • Black
  • Cute
  • Boy
  • Animals

Step 1. Decide roughly which of these categories applies.

Step 2. Watch it.

  • Do not use any terms that refer to the baby’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or probable future sexual orientation. If you can’t ask about it in a job interview for legal reasons, you can’t use it to describe a baby.
  • Don’t compare babies to stuff you want to eat, like ham, or cream puffs, or jelly beans. No matter how well-intentioned, their parents will file you under “Not without supervision.”
  • To wrap it up: Don’t call Asian babies “dumplings.” This violates all of the rules.
  • Even if they’re asking for it:

don't call it a dumpling

Step 3. Fat emphasis

Forget what I said earlier – it’s ok to call babies fat.

This is the only age at which it is completely appropriate to squeeze someone’s knees and say, “Look at these fat little knees!” Make sure to get this out of your system. One day you’ll be old and dead, and you’ll realize that you never got a chance to tell them how fucking fat their knees were.

Step 4: Bring it all home

This is the most copyright-free picture of a baby I could find, so we’ll use it to practice.


Skip the obvious yuk-yuks about how this baby looks like a tiny, drunk old man trying to figure out if Our Lady of Holding It Together (Barely) will notice if he lightly grazes them tunic puppies.

This is a great example, because it represents the most difficult kind of baby to describe.

The ugly baby.

You have several options here.

“He looks just like you” (subtle burn).

“Hey, he’s hiding something behind his back! He must be so smart to have weird secrets already.”

“What fat little knees!”

Now go and have a blast at that christening/ bris/ orphanage party.

4. “Is Fully Raw Kristina a FAKE BITCH?”

Most of my search engine views come from people looking for an answer to this question.

A few months ago, I wrote a comprehensive overview of the raw food movement’s most popular online personalities. I mentioned Fully Raw Kristina, along with a bunch of other YouTubers in the raw food community. It’s the most highly read entry on my blog.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 10.02.44 PM

Women, am I right?

I don’t think I definitely answered the question in the course of my blog, although I may have added fodder to the flames.

Let’s weigh the evidence.

  • Annoying laugh = guilty

If I teach you anything, let it be this: If you suspect, even for a moment, that someone might be a fake bitch, they definitely are.

5. “do witches enter into cockroaches.”

Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 1.36.54 PM

I can’t see why not.

If you want to avoid cockroaches, dead or otherwise, avoid Bristol Square Apartments. If you want to avoid a landlady who is also probably a witch, don’t move to Pflugerville.

6. “girls on phones.”

Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 1.34.03 PM

This one is tricky.

Cyber bullies, maybe?


This is the only copyright-free image I could find of a cyber bully.

Either that, or they are looking for “Chicks on Phones,” which is a Twitter account that refers you to the unspeakable tweets of up-and-coming female porn stars.

(Reader survey:  Pierced vaginas, yay or nay? Let everyone know what you think in the comment section!!!! :):):)

So once again, I don’t know what Mr. Girls on Phones wants exactly. Maybe he’s not sure himself, or maybe he doesn’t know many words, like this fellow:

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 9.48.51 PM

To him, and everyone else who stumbles across my blog on their way to their destination: I can’t tell what you’re looking for, but I hope you find it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s