Don’t believe me on how important SEO is for a Web site?

My most popular post today was not written this week. Or last. No, it’s a post from all the way back on Feb. 11.

Ironically, that post was about how “Newspapers need to learn SEO for headlines.” Yes, I would say it’s one of the strongest posts of this month, but that’s not enough to justify it being by far the most popular post on the JI today, especially since that post hasn’t gotten serious traffic in about a week. It’s safe to say that SEO has something to do with the post’s continued popularity (it has gotten traffic every day since its release).

It’s not enough to just produce good content on the Web. Without proper consideration being given to search engine traffic, a Web site will miss out on a lot of users and audience growth.

Some sites get a majority of their traffic from search engines. That’s the organic nature of the Web. Users pull content on the Web, unlike traditional mediums which push content to users.

Look at the headline for the post in question: “Newspapers need to learn SEO for headlines.” It’s not a cute headline by any stretch of the imagination. It’s very matter of fact, which works very well for SEO.

It has newspapers, learn, SEO and headlines in the headline. A headline filled with keywords will drive a lot more traffic. More traffic = more money.

Name one Web site that would benefit from that formula?

By now most of you have probably heard that Prince Harry has been secretly serving in Afghanistan.

The Drudge Report, not major media outlets like CNN or The New York Times was the first American outlet to break the story (there is some dispute about whether or not Drudge was the first in the world or not to report on this). This is a complex story, however.

British media outlets knew Prince Harry was in Afghanistan for months and agreed not to report on the issue. Now that the cat is out of the bag papers like The Guardian have decided to confirm that Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan since December.

Details of Harry’s deployment were blacked out, with all forms of British media signing up to a reporting embargo. Close friends and many senior generals were also not aware of the prince’s plans, in a bid to prevent the Taliban being inadvertently alerted.

In an interview with the press just before his Afghan deployment, the prince said: “I would never want to put someone else’s life in danger when they have to sit next to the bullet magnet.

To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about the arrangement. I respect the desire to not make Prince Harry’s unit a bigger target for the Taliban than it already was. I do think it’s inappropriate to try to protect Prince Harry more than a typical soldier would be, but it makes sense to try to limit the danger that his fellow soldiers are in. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of the media complying with government wishes to keep information from the public secret.

Perhaps the biggest question, however, is this: Did the Royal Family and the U.K. Press really believe that something like this could be kept secret in the Internet age? Are they that out of touch with how new media and the Internet work? Even if they could have realistically kept this a secret through traditional press, it seems highly unlikely that this wouldn’t eventually show up on the Internet.

Rule No. 1 about the Internet: The Internet always finds out.

The other big question is did the Main Stream Media in the U.S. know about Prince Harry’s deployment? Did they make the same agreement? Is that even an appropriate agreement for the U.S. media to make with a foreign government?

Or, perhaps worse, did the U.S. MSM get beat once again by a much nimbler new media foe? CNN.com is calling this “breaking news,” which leads me to believe if they had known about it sooner they would have broken it before Drudge.

Rule No. 2 about the Internet: Being nimble pays dividends.

Is the MSM media nimble enough to survive on the Internet?

Twitter is unlike any other social network I belong to.

It’s not about sharing photos with friends or writing on someone’s wall or about resumes or news. Twitter is a very organic social networking experience, where people microblog their thoughts and lives. Virtually every other social network I belong to revolves around connecting with people I’ve met — friends, family, business contacts.

Twitter is not about connecting with people. It’s about connecting with ideas. If you only follow my blog and not my Twitter feed, you’ll miss many of my thoughts and ideas.

Throughout the day I might have a thought worth sharing, but that doesn’t always mean it’s worth a full-fledged blog post or that I even want to take the time to write a blog post. Sometimes I just need to get something out in 140 characters or less.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Twitter is how I have never met any of my Twitter followers (or the people I follow) in real life. In stark contract, I have met the vast majority of my Facebook friends. In fact, I don’t publicize that I have been a longtime, avid Facebook user because I view Facebook as a way to keep in touch with my friends and family.

I don’t use Facebook for professional reasons, nor do I use it to meet new people. Twitter is the opposite. I use Twitter to share my thoughts with like-minded individuals, and I am always searching for new people to connect with.

Many of the people I follow and my followers are my intellectual friends. Twitter is a powerful idea, albeit 140 characters at a time. It’s character limit may seem constricting at first, but it is a great introduction to blogging and online community building.

If there was one social network journalism students could learn the most from it would be Twitter. In fact, many professional publications are now using Twitter to share news with readers. I follow Guardian Tech on Twitter.

I invite you all to Tweet with me: http://twitter.com/jiconoclast