That headline might not make web folks who preach search engine optimization (SEO), happy. Why, because SEO techniques require us to use enticing “key words” for the uber-active (somewhat lecherous) web surfing audience notorious for large spurts of impulse clicks.

Good key words include, “St. Louis”, “Cardinals” the names of sexy actresses like “Mary Louise Parker” and words like “ass” (”butt” has a lower esteem).

“Naked” and “nude” are also good key words, but that’s not entirely true in this case.

OK, so all this came about because Esquire wrote a tongue-in-cheek ode to Parker’s photo spread for it’s “Women We Love” feature. But a contrary feature in Slate explains: “They may love these women, but it appears they love the Web traffic more.”

Why? Well, despite the fact that the article describes Parker’s images like this: “your long platinum neck, your deep Guinness eyes staring out from the photos, your movie-star nose.” The article has the click-enticing SEO web address: http://www.esquire.com/women/women-we-love/mary-louise-parker-naked-0809#img. Did you catch the “naked”?

And Slate reports that the article is identified in searches engines as “Mary Louise Parker Naked Photos - Mary Louise Parker Ass - Esquire.” I checked. It’s true.

By the way, Slate titled it’s post, “Mary Louise Parker Ass,” too. But I’m sure they did it as a joke, right?

This humble blog once topped every other blog at this newspaper (this is not something that happens often… or… um… ever), because I posted nearly nude pics of Jennifer Aniston. She was wearing a $150 Brooks Brothers’ tie in GQ. But I didn’t capitalize on the full potential of the post because I gave it the headline, “Jennifer Aniston loosens her tie and her image.” That’s too tame for search engines.

It’s an interesting dilemma. Can you show sexy photos of these actresses without exploiting them? Can they be exploited if they make a gazillion times more money than the folks taking or posting the pictures?

Clearly everyone’s a little complicit in the scheme. There’s even a link to Parker reading bedtime stories from a big cushy bed alongside a stuffed teddy animal. I’m it’s just a normal evening activity for her. She’s poised strategically behind a big book and looks to be nearly nude reading from “Alice in Wonderland.” Com’on, give me a soft porn break.

So if I post a picture of Mary Louise in her butt baring apron am I part of the problem or merely a blogger trying to give the people what they want. But what people?

So by knee-jerk reaction, I’ve decided that I’m not going to post the photo and attempt to repeat my Jennifer Aniston blog traffic glory.

But I’m not judging, you can indulge your curiousity or not at the Esquire or Slate site by any of the links above. I admit it, I looked.