Part 2 of what is likely to be an intermittent series, appearing when I’m lazy enough and my logs provide material. Yes, it is time for search engine queries that brought people here, answered by Nearly Legal.

And this time round, my earlier advice has been heeded. People have got specific in their searches, very specific. Although, in an illustration of dialectics, specificity seems as doomed to failure as generality.

For instance “sally field naked” is about as specific as you get, and bespeaks a less than idle interest. I almost feel sorry to have not satisfied it. But perhaps this blog could become the top google hit for sally field naked. If I mention a naked sally field a few more times, with a link to a page about sally field naked (not really), perhaps I could triple my throughput of people searching for Sally Field with fewer clothes than might be expected. And that can only be a good thing.

“taking legal action against a kitchen firm” seems detailed, (although how the hell did it come here? I haven’t mentioned a kitchen at all. I’ve been very, very careful not to), but lacks the key phrase. Which firm, godammit? We all want to know.

“criticisms to the way equity was used in douglas v hello”. Specific, yes, but let down by grammar. Like HELLO, that’s, like, ‘of the way’. And, dear law student, for that is whom I presume you are (or more worryingly, were), try ‘commentary on equity’ etc.. However, I must confess to having merely suggested that there was a problem in the use of equity in Douglas v Hello, then running away from detailing it, so I accept any spleen vented in my direction by my semi-literate but admirably delimited visitor.

“claiming job seekers is a fuckin joke”. Both specific and accurate, but less a search than a scream thrown into the digital ether.

Then we lose specificity, if not necessarily accuracy:

“bastard solicitors”. Could be, could well be, but this a funny way to seek a recomendation. Or perhaps not, on reflection.

“legal landlord secrets”. I think I swing the other way, sorry.

“age discrimination handy hints”. Erm, are people over 30? Yes? then sack them. That’ll do it.

“legal resources charging profit”. Yeehah! But, if you have to ask Google, you are mostly likely doomed in your enterprise, or likely to be sued.

I’d have to confess to being quite pleased to have a law blog that gets hits on such terms as “sherrie levine appropriation art from duchamp” and “craig-martin s style of art work”, but hell, for the latter, why not just search ‘craig-martin’ and see? (and apostrophise, dammit).

And then, my favourite, where considerations of specificity pale in the face of the possibilities…

“confessional cloaks in uk”. Umm and indeed Eh?