Actually, I shouldn't write any text at all because (a) it will skew the test results and (b) any sort of context might result in fewer page views and unique visits.

I've been watching the numbers on the various Geneva Patch stories provided courteously by the Patch home office (which I believe is located in a #2 mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch since noon today) for more than a year now, and I'm still trying to figure out what stories resonate—which are successful and unsuccessful, and why.

There have been more than a few articles—some of them pretty good stories—that have just tanked. And on those occasions I have said to myself and aloud to my Patch compatriots, "I could post a picture of my big toe and it would get more UVs (unique visitors) than that story."

So that's what I'm doing here. I'm publishing a picture of a big toe.

(I should say for the record that it's not mine, but publishing a picture of my big toe would be like publishing a picture of Medusa's head. We're not trying to turn UVs to stone ... Hmmm. OK, we'll try that another time.)

My hope is that nothing happens. No one clicks on the story, and it vanishes into the Internet ether with a dismal UV number on my next status report. But I also hope to learn a little more—at least, anecdotally—about SEO (search engine optimization) and the Internet.

My fear, of course, is that it does better than other stories, particularly ones that required enterprise, time, expertise or goodwill. (Or, heaven help me, if it goes viral.) Because if that happens, it might lead one to the conclusion that I could publish nothing but pictures of big Geneva toes, one after the other, 24-7, and Geneva Patch's UV numbers—which are outstanding, by the way—would actually improve.

I'm going to major feature the article for comparison's sake but publish it at a time when very few UVs are likely to be UV-ing and in a time slot that won't make the daily newsletter.

We'll see what happens from here.