#is a fundamentally useless and unhelpful thing to do

[altschmerzes]

every time a post/poll goes around about being aspec and fandom shipping enjoyment/engagement/whatever im like. NOW can we stop acting like being an aromantic person who enjoys shipping is some kind of Weird Outlier Situation? can we stop acting like this is an Unpopular Opinion or even Persecuted Outcast Take rather than idk, the default standard, just like everywhere else? idk romance repulsed aromantics Yes Including Fiction aren’t the default or even a significant majority and it really drives me nuts when people act like aros who enjoy shipping are somehow Not exactly that.

[voidandradiance]

ianitee worldbuilding: untranslatable concepts

if there is a language and culture, there are cultural concepts that do not necessarily translate well. here is the running list of those that i use regularly.

𝙹ᔑℸ ̣⍑ (oath): a vow which can not be recanted; a thing which can never be broken; indestructible, irreversible

ᔑꖎꖎ|| (ally): a person with whom you share the fundamental understanding that they are like you; someone who stands at your side and in your corner due to aligned ideals and experiences

⎓∷╎ᒷリ↸ (friend): one whom you would avenge; a close personal tie whom you are obligated to help and protect

ᓭ𝙹⚍ꖎᓭ∴𝙹∷リ (soulsworn): considered an ultimate demonstration of loyalty, a close relationship of platonic, familial, or romantic nature which has been sealed with an oath

ʖꖎ𝙹𝙹↸ʖ𝙹リ↸ (bloodbond): a close personal relationship which has been sealed by an act of protection or vengeance

ꖎ𝙹ᓭℸ ̣ (lost): to be in a place where the light and the goddess cannot reach; may refer to death, imprisonment, or separation from fellow ianitees and the goddess herself for extended periods of time

ᓭᒷᒷꖌ╎リ⊣ (wandering or seeking): the process of searching for a thing which itself is the act of searching; similar to a pilgrimage, a physical journey with the goal of becoming closer to the goddess by divine or scholarly means; to seek a greater understanding of the goddess through gaining a greater understanding of yourself

ℸ ̣∷⚍ᓭℸ ̣ (trust): a willingness between two people to follow one another into any situation; an ianitee's blind faith

⚍ᓭᒷꖎᒷᓭᓭ (useless or unhelpful): someone who is not just unhelpful in a situation, but who is actively making things worse through their inaction and refusal to actually even the scales

⍊ᒷリ⊣ᒷᔑリᓵᒷ (vengeance): a name for an aspect of the goddess (often used for s1 Ianite/by Jordan)

⋮⚍↸ᒷ⊣ᒲᒷリℸ ̣ (judgement): a name for an aspect of the goddess (often used for s2 Ianite/by Spark)

[runthepockets]

abt your men being proverbially shit on post: i mean i agree sorta, bioessentialism is unhelpful and hurtful, and rn you see a lot of shit from cis women abt how men cant help but be bad people etc. and that kinda shit is not helpful at all. but i agree w the person who replied to that post too. i mean i wouldnt make a joke like "i hate men" to a dude's face bc it's unhelpful in the same way i wouldn't say i hate white people to a random white person's face, but like. yknow? i dont know specifically what example you're thinking of but i would pretty confidently say there IS a difference between how women talk abt men and how men talk abt women. i agree that it's unhelpful for them and YOURSELF to genuinely earnestly think men are genetically unable to be better bc it just. isn't true. but i would definitely say misogyny and "i hate men" are different. again though idk what example you're using here, but just like... when i walk around as a woman, and even when i walk around as a man, i see like every third guy talkin crazy shit on how Fundamentally Different women are from men and women are This horrible thing and women are That horrible thing and women Can't Help But Be Crazy and when i talk to women all i get are "well he's a man. he's stupid." and usually that doesn't read as bioessentialism, it reads as tiredness from dealing with misogyny all the time. so i agree to an extent, bioessentialism is an issue, and all the "feminine energy astrology balanced by male aggressiveness and men can't help but be stupid people because their brains are wired differently" are contributing to a worsening of some kind, but also i don't know that i'm seeing more manhate than i am misogyny, still to this day, and i am able to opporate socially as both a man and a woman so i see both sides pretty frequently. i feel like you have a specific example you're thinking of that i don't know, because all i can think of are the times i've personally seen men freak out and do shitty stuff because they know a woman who doesn't feel safe around men that they are close to, and both are really horrible about communication, which is a two part thing and a lot more complicated than just random negativity

I don't think I said manhate is more common than misogyny, and I'm sorry if I did because that's not really what I was going for. The point of that post was more to point out the hypocrisy of taking low blows at men while women doing the same thing gets crickets and tumbleweeds. Maybe you haven't experienced this, but I certainly have as a man. Just as there's things I can do that are easier for me to get away with as a dude, there are things chicks can get away with easier than I ever could.

I don't really think the way different genders talk about each other is that different, pre transition I heard women talk crazy shit about dudes, about how we can't control our sex drives and how we're useless if we don't make enough money, and tbh I don't really see how "he can't help being dumb and useless, he's a man" is any less of a meanspirited generalization than "she can't help being oversensitive and hysterical, she's a woman." It's both generalizing stereotypes that are, on some level, hurtful to the demographic they're being hurled at. There's plenty of men who have greivances with abusive and shitty women and we (RE: LEFTIST SPACES) don't let them speak poorly of women, so why is it ok in these same spaces to let women say whatever just cus of their trauma? It's like you say, respect is a two way street. I'm not listening to anyone who makes blind assumptions about me because of my gender and presentation.

I'm going to parrot my friend's reply as well: I don't think a lot of this is "just venting", I don't think making generalizations and saying cruel things about 50% of the population exists in a vaccuum. And even if it did, I still think I'm allowed to say "hey, it hurts my feelings when you say I'm dumb and useless", because at the end of the day you can't deny feelings.

I'm glad you don't say shitty things about men to their faces, but women have done those things to me so you can't speak for all of them. I've been called a moid and told I wouldn't get respect until I "stopped raping and killing women and children" even though I've never put my hands on a woman or child in any way that could be described as anything short of "platonic and consensual". I've been told that I'm not allowed to feel hurt and upset when women verbally abuse me because women are saints who can do no wrong, because they're lower on the social pecking order than me, because other men are nasty and cruel so I have to suck it up and take one for the team. I think people only think this stuff is "harmless venting" because they don't actually realize how biased their perceptions of men and masculinity are. I've had many trans men who can testify to my experiences word for word going as far back as the 70s in the very queer and feminist spaces that I've been bitching about for the past 3 years. So while I don't think institutional misandry is real, or anything, while I don't think women are at fault for being annoyed with how shitty we can be, I do definitely think prejudice is real and I think it's dished out rather unfairly and uncritically.

[star-anise]

Thinking about this post (about Labyrinth and teenage girls and dark sexual fantasy) and sexual maturity and like...

Maturity, for human beings to mature, is the unfolding of genetic potential over time and experience. Our brains are born half-baked and have to be shaped by our environment. For example, I was born with the capacity to learn Cantonese; but as nobody ever spoke Cantonese to me, that capacity went unrealized, so if I want to learn it now, I have to struggle to bring those capabilities to fruition. 

This comes up in my work in mental health, with regards to emotional maturity. Emotional maturity, in large part, is the ability to perceive and understand your own emotional needs; to be able to tell which are valid and important and which are unhelpful or disproportionate; to have a variety of skills, habits, and abilities which will address those needs; and to be able to tell which ways of coping are appropriate for which situation. We teach classes, entire curriculums, on getting in touch with your emotions and mastering your responses to them.

We don’t talk about “sexual maturity” in nearly the same way. “Sexual maturity” gets talked about like... “Congrats, 10-year-old girl! You’ve got your period, which means you’re now a woman capable of bearing a child! You’re sexually mature!” which is SO fucked up.

Proposing “sexual maturity” in a way parallel to “emotional maturity” kind of shakes me to my bones. I can’t imagine going into all the institutions that shaped me when I grew up and saying, “You are neglecting an important part of the development of the children you serve. For them to become healthy and mature adults, they need to be able to understand their sexual needs and desires, or lack thereof; understand how to judge whether a sexual experience is desirable and healthy, or unhealthy or aversive; to be able to recognize lack of desire or attraction, and be able to set boundaries, reject unwanted intimacy, and refuse unwanted sex; to learn a variety of skills, habits, and abilities (like using fantasy, self-stimulation, artistic expression, role-play, or genuine sexual encounter) with which to meet their needs in healthy ways; to care about the autonomy, feelings, and needs of other people with whom they interact; and to be able to tell which ways of meeting their needs are appropriate given the situation and person they are with.”

Or, well, I can imagine. I can imagine getting thrown out of every school, church, community league, and Girl Guide troop I tried it in. “You want us to teach these children WHAT?” Because suggesting that children be taught about something is tantamount to suggesting they be abused, dragged into a foreign world into which they might hopefully never wander otherwise.

I’ve been digging deep into sex and society lately and am so struck, over and over, with how much my culture of origin (Anglo-European, North American, Christian) absolutely valorizes sexual immaturity. In a world where sex is “dirty”, complete ignorance of sex--both in general, and your own sexuality in particular--is seen as “pure”, as “innocent”. As desirable. The very knowledge of your own sexual desires degrades you as a person.

I guess it’s because I am a Christian, I know a lot of current or former Christians, who feel very betrayed by purity culture’s fundamental promise of a beautiful romantic life: You don’t have to become sexually mature to have all your needs met. They will be met for you. What you have to do to earn this future is to stay pure and don’t understand, express, or explore your sexuality in any way.

This means that we were promised that if we never thought about sex, never thought about what we wanted or needed a day in our lives, one day someone would come along who would know for us and make sure all our needs were met. And the more we tried to understand or meet those needs ourselves, the more we polluted ourselves and ruined our chances of obtaining that beautiful future partnership.

I grew up trying to ignore the bitter stories of former Christians who discovered sex and found it really great and left their faith. But what I found--and what a lot of the people I’ve talked to lately found--was that instead, we discovered our faith, our chastity, wasn’t getting us what we’d been promised; instead it made us dry, desiccated, unhappy, unfulfilled, lonely, and full of shame. We didn’t leave the Church for the arms of a willing lover; we left it for a lonely road to a world where we had to shift for ourselves, and we’d been specifically discouraged from ever learning any of the skills that would let us do that. We left it for Tinder profiles and a bunch of matches we didn’t even know what we’d do with, if we ever got them.

Especially for women, and for LGBTQ+ people--and especially for those of us who are both--this legacy of silence, shame, and neglect isn’t just a trauma in the past; it’s an active impediment to the present and future. We’re pressed in on all sides between dating tips to “Be confident! Just be yourself!”, positivity culture that says, “Love your body! Enjoy having sex!”, and purity police hunting down “deviant perverts” whenever we try to express how shameful and frightening sex can be, or try to imagine our way forward with it. Instead we just pick at each other and post memes about “useless lesbians” and don’t rock the boat by questioning how we got here or how we’re getting out.

The one thing I know about shame is that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you feel ashamed, and act like that shame is right, you become even more entrapped in a world of secrecy, silence, and judgment. It’s only when you admit it’s there but deny its legitimacy that you gain any ground.

So I’m talking about it. And I think the only real way forward is for us to... keep talking about it.

[lgbtpolitics]

I'm reading a book about how successful gender equality activism has been in different ways and this particular paragraph hugely resonated with me and I wanted to share it (hope this legible lol):

The reason this stood out to me is because I've thought about a lot but never really put into words like this. While the book is specifically about feminism this is not a feminism exclusive problem. And i was so glad the book mentions how both of these things are both necessary and harmful in their own ways, because I feel that this topic is one that creates tunnel vision for a lot of people I.e. they rail so hard against one that they inadvertently endorse the other.

Interestingly, I think that in regards to lgbt related discourse people are so ardently against assimilation they are leaning HARD into essentialism, assimilation seems to have almost become a dirty word in lgbt spaces, an accusation that can be levelled at someone for pretty much anything. I do think this is causing big problems because it is almost impossible to do anything that does not have an assimilationist element - we do live in the world, after all. More and more I feel that people are leaning into essentialism, carving out an idea of what lgbt people should be that somehow has to conflict with cis het people almost by nature.

Feminism, I think, does have a balance but its a bad one. This is why, in my opinion, feminism and womens rights are hugely put on the backbench in leftist politics. People seem to hate essentialist and assimilationist feminism with equal vigor - leading to a situation where women feel they cannot win. An attempt to focus specifically on women's rights, build womens groups, womens classes etc is deemed essentialist, and therefore exclusionary and about stereotypes whereas women gaining ground in politics, business and study is deemed too assimilationist, wherein women are simply replacing/joining men as oppressors and therefore this is a useless concept that changes nothing about society.

Neither of these points is fundamentally untrue, thats what I liked about this paragraph; the acknowledgement that there are definite issues behind both essentialist and assimilationist stances. The thing is though, that this view where one or both is Everything Evil is inherently unhelpful as elements of both of these things will always be needed in activist politics, and the balance between the two is extremely important.

The book is called "The New Politics of Gender Equality" by Judith Squires if anyones interested. Im only a chapter in so far, so I can't say for definite its good but it seems very interesting so far.

[gundhams-pandemonium]

Okay, Yasuhiro Hagakure hc/anaylsis/rant:

[PS: I belive in UDG we get more insight of his past and his Mom, however I've not played and I wish to remain as spoiler free as possible]

Starting off that I have the opinion he 100% deserved to be a survivor. Yes, others deserved development But that can be said for almost every single person in the DR game. Also, he did deserve development too. Anyhow-

I'm stating something controversial here; Hiro was smart, particularly a smart buisness/slight con man. You may be thinking I'm joking, but I'm not. I'm very serious

One of his most famous lines is his "I'm accurate [about his predictions] 30%, 100% of the time" This line is seen as silly since us as players will read this, reread this, and see how ridiculous it sounds. However, this statement gets peoples attention But also if saying it quickly/trying to grab someone attention they might not even catch the meaning. Which is big why I said "Business/slight con man" Because that's an opening line that when first heard doesnt sound too bad.

This will cause people to be intrigued by his prediction skill even if it is only ""slightly above average""*. And he says it in such a convoluted way is not to be dumb, but to be smart. 30% 100% of the time are two percentages that when put together will sound reasonable yet intriguing enough to give him a chance.

*""above average"" because Hiro CAN predict the future. He has actual visions [he has one in the Future Arc] so he's not fully a lucky con man.

He even roped Makoto in a few predictions*, Giving him a little bit here and there. Which from a buisness standpoint makes sense, Once you start talking you can really draw someone into what your saying.

*the reason we dont see this as him being smart in these situations is because were in a killing game his actions of trying to get us to pay for his lighthearted predictions seems frivolous. It seems that even in being friendly that he doesnt turn off his buisness mode. Which knowing that he's lived in poverty/always had to worry about money makes sense; and again, is a S m a r t thing.

Also, Hiro has no trouble talking to people, and comes across as nom threatening which really helps when trying to sell services. If someone thinks your creepy/aggressive/etc they want support your buisness, however Hiro comes across as an average, chill, dude. Someone you might see at your local cafe, or a neighbor. Many people point to his non threatening, chill attitude as dumbness even though with his line of work it makes sense he has it. If he was in another "normal" profession he'd probably be beat at being a salesman.

On to how him being useless in class trials shouldn't undermine his intelligence. A big one: These Are Murder Cases. These are your average lil mysterious of "Oopzie Woopzie someone broke the Coffee pot" There is a dead person. Not only that but if they point the finger at the wrong person then they all die. So if you fundamentally dont know what to say/dont have much to contribute then not doing so again is a smart course of action. And he still offers up suggestions, he still tries. Which brings me to a few other points

He is very very clearly disturbed by the dead bodies, and understandably so. Even when they were strangers, when he witnessed "Junko's death" and realized that this wasnt an elaborate prank* he panicked. If I rember correctly he either stayed in the gym, and panicked in the corner unable to do more then pray that he'd be safe Or he was in the doors right outside the gym. He was scared, and that doesn't make him less intelligent. His reactions were very normal, especially since despite being in a buisness/trying to get money/etc he tries to be a good person. It makes sense, if he stayed away from the bodies, that he wouldn't be able to add any new information. It takes a lot to investigate a corpse and, again, he shouldn't be looked down on for it.

*some people argue that he's stupid because he didn't realize after Sayaka's death. However, it's not to far fetched to say he hadn't seen Sayaka's body and therefore didnt belive she'd died/believed this was still part of the welcoming ceremony. Could argue naive and optimistic, But being suddenly put in a killing game is a very farfetched thing into he first place.

I'd end there, But I know people dont just think he's dumb because he doesn't contribute too much to the trials. Otherwise another character would be accused way more. That character even helps lead us to the icing on the cake of "why people think Hiro's stupid".

The character in question; Kyotaka Ishumaru. Most of what he says in the trial is either obvious or unhelpful. Does this make Taka less smart? Of course not! But there are several differnt kind of smarts, and neither Taka nor Hiro have "trial smarts".

This brings me to my final point: While Hiro is not book smart either that still doesn't mean he isnt smart. I get so frustrated when people use smart only to mean book smart, especially since I can go on with how much school systems screw over students/neordivergent people/people with less money/etc But I won't for the sake that would be a long non Danganronpa related several paragraph rant.

In short: Yasuhiro is smart in his buisness/and the techniques he uses. He may not strictly be book smart, nor in trial, yet he is not a "complete moron" and "didn't deserve to survive" [Idk how many times I've seen that last point...]

(Thank you for reading this, and please reblog if you found it interesting!)

[fantastic-nonsense]

I've gotta be honest, your vehemence regarding indoor/outdoor cats is honestly baffling. Like, what makes your [technically invasive] cat more entitled to space then the animals outdoors? And like, the argument that "indoor cats" is a "newer" concept and therefore worthy of dismissing is also baffling. Like, seat belts in cars are a "newer" concept. Smoking being bad for you is a "newer" concept. Something being "newer" doesn't make it incorrect?

I read the article you linked - the article you cited says that while unowned cats kill more animals then owned cats, owned cats still kill between 403 million and 1.24 billion animals / year. Furthermore the study says on owned cats “simple solutions to reduce mortality caused by pets, such as limiting or preventing outdoor access, should be pursued.” and “This mortality is of particular concern within the context of steadily increasing populations of owned cats.”

On top of that, it’s a bit disingenuous to link the pet obesity page when it doesn’t actually say when you’re claiming. Yes, pet’s are getting more obese, but when it comes to exercise, the paper only goes into dogs and exercise - it says nothing about cats. It only talks about feeding when it comes to cats. And the paper doesn’t talk at all about “psychological health, mental stimulation, better socialization skills with other animals, and fewer behavioral problems”. Did you read the papers?

Well one, showing up in my inbox on anon with a three-part response instead of just…you know…responding to my reblog is kind of baffling in and of itself. I also fail to see how my response was “vehement” just because I was pointing out that the OP’s entire post was based on a false premise and then explaining why said premise was false; this is the first time I have ever talked ‘cat discourse’ besides a couple of snarky comments here and there. It’s incredible that a post that basically boils down to “feral cats and outside cats are not the same thing, letting your cat outside is not evil, don’t treat cats like dogs, and here are some steps you can take to actually help with the problem” is considered a “vehement” argument. If anything, your response is far more vehement than anything I said in my original reblog. But I’ll indulge you anyway, because I have nothing else better to do with my life tonight. I’ll even section it off to make my response easier to read.

—

Let me put it this way: a cat is a pet, just like a dog or a hamster or a snake. If you are not prepared to care for them the way they need to be cared for, you shouldn’t have one. Cats, being a different species from dogs, have different needs and function differently from dogs. Therefore, it is entirely illogical to treat them like they are just small dogs. Doing something like clipping a leash on a cat and trying to take them for a walk is a ridiculous concept for the vast majority of people who have ever actually owned or interacted with cats. It’s a trendy Instagram fad that is completely useless and ultimately harmful in practice. Either keep your cat inside and care for it appropriately, let them outside for limited amounts of time, or take them to a cat-friendly outside environment on a regular basis. Stop acting like they’re just small dogs who need to be walked.

—

On the concept of indoor cats: a cat is not a seatbelt. It’s not a cigarette. They are sentient, fully functional animals with their own brain and desires; their care does not function independently from that fact. It is also of a species that has survived and adapted and evolved to live largely outdoors in harmony with humans. Humans quite literally domesticated cats to be convenient pest catchers. This is not up for debate; it is a biological fact of their existence. 

You are right that something being newer doesn’t make it incorrect. However, please consider:

I never said that keeping a cat inside was inherently incorrect. I only said that insisting all cats regardless of circumstance be kept inside is incorrect.

When people try to argue that cats are “not outside pets” based on a fundamentally ridiculous conception of how cats and humans have operated since the domestication of cats 10,000 years ago, it is imperative to point out that misconception. Pointing out that “inside cats” were not a thing until around 70 years ago is not saying that keeping your cat inside is BAD; it is saying that “inside cats” are the historical aberration in the human-cat relationship and that keeping your cat inside was functionally impossible until the advent of modern technology. Thus, trying to argue that cats are “not outside pets” is an inherently ridiculous statement to make.

Cats (much like dogs, actually) entered into a mutually beneficial relationship with humans based on food: humans kept cats around because they kept pest animals like rodents out of their food and homes, and cats received food and care by being around humans. Yes, our relationship with them has changed just as our relationship with dogs has changed, but there are still plenty of people who still keep cats (and dogs, for that matter) for their original, intended purposes: pest control, hunting, and protection, with the incredible side benefit of companionship. Projecting your hurt feelings about abandoned, feral cats onto owned cats who are doing their job by being outside is unproductive and ultimately unhelpful. 

—

Cats are not actually invasive. The natural habitat of domestic cats is anywhere humans are, and particularly in agricultural areas. Ferals are in many jurisdictions legally classified as a “pest species” because of how they function, as feral cats are effectively wild animals. Ferals are considered an invasive species and are a problem specifically because human irresponsibility has allowed their populations to grow out of control and caused them to flourish in areas where they shouldn’t be. The problem of feral cats is our fault, because we as humans have failed to properly care for our environment; they are directly the result of un-neutered strays/abandoned cats having kittens. There would be no feral cats without the abandonment of domestic cats into the wild by humans, and feral cat colonies exist only where there is a human-supplied food source. 

We know that feral cats are the actual problem. There have been hundreds of articles written about how feral cats are the problem (see some here!). Australia is actively trying to grapple with its feral cat problem and specifically cites feral cats as the main issue at hand, to the point where they are trying to kill 2 million feral cats by 2020. Some states in the US allow hunters to kill feral cats. But feral cats =/= owned outdoor cats. Why people like the OP are trying to conflate owned, cared-for, outside and indoor-outdoor cats with ferals is beyond me; they’re completely separate issues. That was the point of my original response. 

—

Now, onto the rest of your response:

In terms of cat obesity, I freely admit that was actually a stylistic error on my part; I wasn’t clear that I was talking about how cat obesity in general has been steadily rising in recent years and how it can in some ways be linked to the rise of urbanization and the rise of the ‘indoor cat.’ I would, however, note that complaining about how the article “only talks about cats in relation to food an isn’t really fair” doesn’t take into account that it’s basically the only thing to talk about in relation to indoor cats, since they don’t get much exercise, comparatively speaking.

Part of the reason indoor cats have such statistically high weight rates in relation to indoor-outdoor and outside cats is because they are not getting the same levels of exercise that cats who are allowed to go outdoors get; scratching posts and cat playgrounds can only go so far. A sedentary lifestyle for a predator species when not carefully controlled results in obesity. This shouldn’t be news to people.

The other concerns you mentioned are things often brought up in discussions of indoor vs. outdoor cats; I didn’t feel the need to link them because I (incorrectly) assumed that this was common knowledge among people who liked talking cat discourse. My mistake, apparently.

Finally, I’m well aware of what I posted. I never once stated that outside cats don’t kill animals; you’re welcome to go back to my original post and check if you like. What I said was “owned cats are not nearly as significant of a threat to wildlife as some people believe, at least compared to ferals and strays.” If you actually look at the numbers in the study I linked, they back this sentiment up: feral cats are responsible for 69% of bird deaths and 89% of small mammal deaths in the United States every year. There’s simply no comparison to be made at this point; it’s incredibly obvious which population is the actual problem.

If you want more statistics, here’s another one: via one study, feral cats kill about 316 million Australian birds per year while pet cats kill an additional 61 million annually. That’s uh….what? Maybe 15% being killed by outdoor cats, while ferals take out the other 85%? The researchers freely admit which one is the problem: “This footage shows domestic cat owners that there is a big difference between domestic and feral cats.“

It’s also telling that almost every news story that actually focuses on the problem (this PBS story, for example) is actually talking about strays, ferals, and other un-owned cats. Basically all conversations around this topic in the actual activist and conservation spheres are essentially centering around un-owned cats that people feed. There is basically zero focus or effort put into discussing what most people think of as “outside cats”: cats that are owned, collared, and cared for by humans that happen to spend the majority of their day outside and their nights in the garage or basement. Strays and ferals are the real problem, and it’s the problem people are discussing.

Anyway, I hope that incredibly long response satisfied you and your decision to come dump in my inbox on anon tonight. Have a good night, and next time please feel free to actually respond to me via reblog.

[kralovnaonline]

But I Have Heard Meditation Means Emptying the Mind of Thoughts!

Does mediation really mean emptying the mind of the thoughts? Many people have this idea that meditation is all about emptying the mind. Meaning not having thoughts or completely stopping the thoughts. People believe meditation means the clearing of the mind, so that it doesn’t have any thoughts. There is some truth to this notion that as your meditation evolves, you approach the state of an empty mind. You will eventually be able to stop the thoughts. Not completely but up to a great extent you will be able to prevent the thoughts. You will cut the number of thoughts you may normally have. In essence, something like the emptying of the mind does happen with very long term meditation practice. But if you are just beginning your meditation practice, it does not help you to approach the practice from the perspective that you have to completely empty your mind. It does not help, embarking on meditation thinking that you have to really try and force and empty your mind using sheer willpower. It especially hurts to try doing this from the beginning of the practice. You should really not have this emptying approach. Because if you were to try that, you will soon find yourself extremely frustrated. Because it just doesn’t work. Our minds are so much used to having thoughts or thinking. If you just attempt to suppress thoughts, it is not going to work. Suppressing the thoughts is not the best method to reduce them. I did say that in the long run we are going to decrease the number of thoughts that we have. But if you begin your practice with the goal of not having thoughts, you will inevitably try to suppress the thoughts and it will not work. It is not the best method to achieve the meditation goal. This in a way necessitates the guidance of an expert meditation teacher. During the initial phases of the practice you want to take help from someone who has professional experience. Or at least a long meditation experience. Someone, who knows the in and out of the meditation and has been meditating for many years. A person has to have a personal intensive daily practice of at least 5 years, before he or she would qualify to be a teacher. This is required in order to really begin to understand the skill. In short, it is imperative that you pick a good teacher. Why it is hazardous to have this mindset of meditation as emptying of the mind? At least in the beginning of the practice? It is hazardous because it will interfere with your practice and may cause you to get frustrated and stop the practice. If that is the case, what should one do? One should completely drop the idea of emptying of the mind. It may sound counterintuitive. But just completely drop the idea. Because any hint of this idea, even the minutest amount of striving to suppress the thoughts will just backfire and come in your way of the practice and hinder you. You should really approach the practice of meditation from the perspective of improving the concentration. Do not think of emptying the mind and getting rid of the thoughts, but think of improving your attention and your concentration. Let’s explore why this matters and why the suggestion. In essence, with meditation our long term goal is to empty the mind of unhelpful thoughts. Not get rid of all the thoughts. We have to have certain thoughts, we cannot live without thoughts. We have to plan for the future, we have to remember and analyze what happened in the past. At least up to a certain extent. This may sound confusing. You may have learned that the mediation is all about being in the present, not living in the past and not living in the future. You may ask now, where does the necessity of planning and remembering come from? In fact it is the goal of meditation that we are in the present moment and as much as we can, we don’t dream or think about the past or the future. We want to experience the present moment completely. We want to increase the experiences, where we are completely immersed in the present moment. This truly is the hallmark of meditation, the fundamental basis of the meditation practice. We humans easily lend ourselves to idealistic thinking. We easily jump over to visualizing the extreme situations. To get by our daily routines of our lives, it is essential that we remember some of the past experiences. We have to remember the lessons of the past and not repeat our mistakes. We want to minimize the pain by doing this. We want to minimize the pain to us and pain to the people around us. Hence there are things to remember. The emphasis on the present moment doesn’t imply complete stopping of the thoughts. You can’t do that. You still need to think. When you are aware of your thinking about the past, even the thinking about the past becomes, being in the present moment. It may now make sense to you that emptying the mind of thoughts is same as being in the present moment. But the suggestion to drop the idea of emptying the thoughts may seem counterintuitive at first. But in reality it is not counterintuitive at all, when you think about it. Whenever you begin your practice, you will have all these questions. You should have all the questions. Think through all of them and you should be asking questions to your teacher. And in the spirit of asking questions, we are discussing the topic. We want to drop the thoughts, but which ones? Not all of them. We want to drop discursive thoughts. If you try to observe yourself carefully, you would realize that you have so many thoughts all the time. Most of them are pretty much useless. They actually exacerbate the difficult situation that you may have. Most of your thoughts really don’t help you. Although it is extremely hard to quantify, I would venture to guess that only 10 to 20% of your thoughts are helpful thoughts. These thoughts actually make sense. They help you improve your well-being and the well-being of people around you. But majority of thoughts are either neutral or they hurt you. The idea behind meditation is to exactly drop those thoughts and not all thoughts. Just drop the discursive thoughts. Nothing about human behavior is black and white. It is all shades of gray. Everything about human behavior falls within a range or spectrum. One should not have the illusion or naive idea that one is supposed to drop all the thoughts. It doesn’t take much common sense to realize this. The whole idea of dropping thoughts really arises from this goal of dropping discursive thoughts. Now this becomes a difficult question. How do I drop just the useless thoughts? The thoughts that don’t help me. It turns out, if you want to do that, there is no easy way to suppress them through pure will. You can become aware of your thoughts from time to time. But it is extremely difficult to be completely aware of all your thoughts and pick and choose which ones to carry on and which ones to drop. Ironically when you begin to practice meditation you start to develop this skill of being able to selectively pick and choose thoughts. You start developing the skill that you don’t intend to! That is why people get into the loop here. If you are not supposed to empty the mind and the practice of meditation itself is supposed to lead to emptying of mind over time then how is it possible? It is like a chicken and the egg problem. But it really doesn’t have to be. As long as you approach the whole idea of meditation as improving attention and concentration, it just makes sense and becomes easy to follow and put into practice. It may not be that difficult to understand that one of the ways, to not have that many wandering thoughts, is to be completely focused on the task at hand. Let’s say you are cooking and cutting vegetables. If you can be completely focused on this activity, you will have the pure experience of cutting vegetables. Which may be delightful in itself, at least for some of us. But we usually don’t have this experience. If you are completely focused on the activity, you can have the raw experience. Usually it is clouded in the veils of the thoughts. If you can keep up the focus, you minimize the chances of your having thoughts that are not relevant at least for the short amount of time. When you fully engage in the activity of chopping vegetables, the engagement can help you not have all different types of thoughts. Basically you pick an activity and you divert your thinking capacity to the experience of just that activity. This in itself will help you not have the wandering thoughts. And with regular and disciplined training, you will keep improving this skill. You will have more and more instances of experiences, where you are completely focused on the activity at hand. Completely immersed just in the experience of the activity at hand. And over the long run, you may be able to pretty much empty your mind of all the wandering thoughts!! Now you can see, how if start the meditation practice with the intention of improving attention or the concentration, rather than emptying the mind, it will lead to a smoother progression of our practice and achievement of the goal.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2vvnLGq via IFTTT

[bigskydreaming]

For many abuse survivors, merely recognizing or admitting to ourselves that we were abused can be a huge struggle in and of itself. And so, like anyone who’s struggled hard in any respect, we want coming out the other side of that struggle victorious to mean something, to be a visible victory, to actually change our lives.

And it does. If you’ve been abused and you reach a place where you can acknowledge that, that’s something. It may not be the solution to all your other struggles stemming from your abuse, but its a huge step towards recovery.

But its important to keep in mind what that acknowledgment means. Recognizing we were abused means recognizing that we were hurt. We were wounded. And whether our abuse was physical, mental, emotional, or all of the above....the wounds resulting from it are no different from any physical wound. Everyone heals at a different pace. Everyone heals in different ways. Two people can be cut in exactly the same place, and one will heal quicker than the other. One person can be cut deeper than another, but still heal with less of a scar. One person can break a bone and heal without any visible sign they were ever injured, but that bone aches when it rains. It’s always different. How quickly, how painlessly, how thoroughly you heal varies on the person, it varies depending on the nature or severity of the wound, it varies on how well you’re able or in a position to focus on your health in other aspects, your diet, your daily routine, your amount of stress, your support system.

There are only two things that are true for everyone recovering from any injury:

1) Just because you know that you’re hurt, just because you acknowledge your wound and even seek out treatment for it - it’ll heal as quickly as it heals. Telling yourself you should be healthier by now, you should be further along in your recovery accomplishes nothing but adding to your own stress and negative self image. You can’t power through the body’s necessary steps when repairing itself, speed up the process. Recovering from emotional trauma is no different. Recognizing you’ve been wounded and seeking care for that can have a huge impact in your recovery. It can be the difference between getting a cut stitched up professionally and healing in weeks instead of months with less of a scar to show for it, or letting a cut heal without medical treatment and taking longer and leaving a more visible sign of trauma. But proper care and treatment of your wound will still only do so much, it doesn’t mean you’ll come back home from your hospital visit as good as new in just a day, no matter how much you wish it. It still takes time, and yelling at your body for not getting better as fast as you think it should be able to won’t change that. You’ve been hurt. Let yourself be hurt. Let yourself heal. You’re not doing anything wrong by not being as far along as you’re telling yourself you should be by now.

2) The other truth universal with any injury is no matter what it is, how severe, how well or slowly it heals....as long as you recognize its presence, as long as you acknowledge how you’re affected by its presence, you WILL learn to live with it. To accommodate its presence in your life. To adjust to how it affects you or makes things different from how you were pre-injury, or even just before you realized you were hurt and in what way. And that’s what recovery really is. It’s not returning to your default factory settings, getting your cast off and being as good as new. It means adjusting to your injury and whatever state your body is in as it repairs itself, or adjusting to whatever new state you find yourself in if your body doesn’t entirely repair itself to what it once was. It’s saying you were injured, that happened, and now things are different. Regardless of how long it takes you to heal or even if you never heal entirely, if you can never do all the same things you once were able to do, or at least not in the same ways. 

Recovery isn’t about erasing injuries or making it so its like they never happened. It’s about treating an injury like an injury, rather than something that defines you. Making it a part of your whole, instead of your whole a part of it.

And just like injuries are different for everyone, even if they look the same on the surface, so too is recovery different for every one. Medication doesn’t work the same for everyone its recommended for. The treatment that works for one person might be useless for another. Sometimes you go through two, three, a dozen methods of trying to treat your injury before you find the one that works for you. Sometimes you just don’t have the resources that someone else does, can’t afford the same options recommended for your particular injury, and you have to make do with letting your injury heal at its own natural pace while still in a stressful environment, just trying to rest and rejuvenate in any way you can, in any spare moments you can find. And that sucks, and its not fair. 

But even just learning to live with your pain, learning to see it for what it is and find ways just in your head to put it away just long enough at a time for you to enjoy something with friends, scrabble together a good memory from a happy night out....never doubt that that’s another accomplishment in and of itself. It may not be the accelerated recovery you deserve, but it’s still recovery. It’s still you finding ways to be happy or moments of joy despite the pain you’re living with. And that is huge. Let that be as huge for you as your awareness of your pain. Remind yourself each moment you triumph over your pain, elevate something else in your consciousness so it eclipses your pain instead of the other way around...that IS a triumph. Let those triumphs add up.

And just know, if nothing I’m saying here resonates with you, if it doesn’t help at all, doesn’t add context for you or reframe your own awareness of your traumas or your pain....that’s okay too. That’s valid. That doesn’t mean you’re TOO broken or too injured or that you’re in some special category of survivor for whom its fundamentally impossible to ever feel happy again.

It just means that what I’m saying doesn’t work for you personally. It doesn’t mean that there’s nothing that will.

My own parents were abusive, neglectful, and a whole host of other things that fucked me up tremendously, both before I learned to recognize my childhood had been abusive, and after. My contact with them since I turned eighteen fifteen years ago and left home can with only a couple of exceptions be summed up as bi-annual two minute messages left on my voicemail somewhere in the vicinity of Christmas and my birthday. They screen my calls when I attempt to call them. Its been made abundantly clear they don’t need or want any more contact with me than that. And for years that drove me wild.

Even after I admitted to myself the many ways I’d been abused, even after I no longer wanted any real contact with them myself, it still fucked with my head in a big way, that they didn’t want anything to do with me. I obsessed about it. I raged at it. It defined me, my resentment at the injustice of it all, the fact that I was denied that healthy, caring, supportive family society upholds as the ideal, this myth of unconditional love I was led to believe every parent feels for their child.

And all of those feelings were valid. Still are. And when I expressed them to other people in my life, the most common response I got was ‘you need to forget about them. They don’t care about you so you don’t have to care about them. Move on.’

And while I believe most of those people were speaking with good intentions, saying what they thought was helpful, I found that to be extremely unhelpful. Especially when coming from people I thought of as having everything I wanted but never would, who talked excitedly about going home to visit their own families for the holidays. Just forget about my parents, was what people thought I should do in order to recover. Don’t think about them. Don’t care. But what did that even MEAN? They said it so easily, but how was that even supposed to work? Was there an off-switch somewhere that I was supposed to be able to find?

And so for years, my parents, my past, they were the pink elephant in the room. The more I tried NOT to think about them, the more I did. And the more frustrated I grew with the people around me who kept parroting the same ‘advice’ over and over, seemingly getting frustrated in turn that it just wasn’t that simple, that I couldn’t just ‘get over it’, the more I withdrew into myself, cutting myself from other people, other experiences. Until I had nothing really to think about BUT all my resentments and bitterness. My abuse, my pain, was constantly at the forefront of my brain. Time wasn’t healing all wounds. It hurt just as much whether one year passed or two.

I never really had an epiphany, or at least not until long after the fact, but what I can say now in hindsight, from a much better place looking back at it all....for me, my recovery only came when I started to realize....its all relative. How much space they take up in my mind, my emotions...its relative.

It’s like time. The way we experience it is entirely relative. Think about how when you were ten years old, a year seemed so much longer than a year does now. That’s because for a ten year old, one year is a tenth of their entire life experience. It’s a huge slice of the pie. By the time you’re twenty, the length of a year hasn’t changed. You’ve experienced the exact same amount of time between January 1st and December 31st whether you’re ten or twenty. But when you’re twenty years old, that same year is now only one twentieth of your entire life experience.

What I realized was, as long as I kept myself shut off from new experiences to protect myself from further pain, further abandonment or neglect, the more I was stuck with what I already had to live with. That pain wasn’t going anywhere. But because my interaction with my parents was static, because I wasn’t building any more memories with them, new experiences, adding on new hurts on top of the old....as much hurt as they caused me....it was what it was. It was what was already there.

And so I may not have been able to erase any of that, take away anything that was already there....but I COULD shrink it. By growing myself, my own experiences, instead of trying to diminish the impact they already had on my life. The more I opened myself up to new experiences, forged new connections with people, built new relationships, made new memories.....the more all the hurt and pain from my past with my parents became a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. 

It’s all still there. Those injuries weren’t erased, those wounds weren’t forgotten. I still feel every bit as resentful and bitter about my past as I ever did, when I think about it. I haven’t forgiven them because they don’t deserve my forgiveness, they did nothing to warrant it, never even thought to ask for it. But I didn’t need to forgive them, was the thing. I didn’t need to find a way to magically not feel bitter about the ways I was abused, resentful of the love I never got.

I just outgrew them. I made my life, my experiences, myself consist of so much more that the permanent fixture they and the pain they’d caused me stayed just as present as ever....but became so much smaller in comparison, dwarfed by everything else I surrounded myself with, occupied my day to day life with, an endless supply of things to distract myself with or take joy from.

It doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt to think about them or my past. It doesn’t mean I don’t have bad days. But now its that dull ache in your formerly broken bone when it rains. Its there sometimes, but then its gone again, and it doesn’t take up any more space until the next time it rains.

And saying that sounds every bit as frustratingly simple as all those people telling me to just forget about them, stop caring, move on. But the thing is, these things often are simple. But that doesn’t mean they’re EASY. There’s a world of difference between the two. If someone had laid this all out for me ten years ago, would I have found it any easier to incorporate into my life? Could I have followed it like a map? I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not. Things often look a lot simpler and cleaner when you’re not actively in pain. Even the simplest of explanations or logic can be hard to conceptualize when all your brainpower is focused on not screaming because of how much everything hurts.

I don’t know if any of that is something anyone else can use or incorporate into their own recovery. I don’t know what anyone else’s recovery will look like. I just know that there’s nothing your recovery SHOULD look like. And neither does anyone else. Just do your best not to compare your journey of recovery to anyone else’s. Take inspiration from others when and where you can. But don’t hold them up as a standard or a measuring stick to evaluate your own progress. Their life isn’t your life. Their hurts aren’t your hurts. Their journey isn’t yours, and yours isn’t there. You’re not trying to get to whatever destination they’ve reached, you’re just trying to reach a destination where everything doesn’t hurt all the time and you feel happy and strong and supported.

When you can, try not to be so hard on yourself or stress too much about not knowing where that destination is or exactly how to reach it or how much longer it’ll be til you get there. Just keep journeying til you find it. Whatever it ends up looking like, you’ll know it when you see it.

[jooliargh]

How I made a habit stick and lost 3kg

Content warning: weight loss; calorie counting.

If you find this article interesting and decide to use a similar method to lose weight, please get proper advice from a doctor or dietitian. I can talk about habit forming, but I'm not qualified to say what is safe or healthy for you to eat.

This isn’t really a weight loss blog, because what could be more boring or unnecessary than a weight loss blog from someone only a few kilos overweight? It’s a blog about how I built some better habits, and found a system for sticking to them that worked for me. But in the first couple of months of lockdown I was moving about less than usual and probably eating a bit more, and the effect of those things was gaining weight (specifically, my jeans were getting tight). So the habits I needed to build were to move about more and eat less.

(For what it’s worth, I find it helpful to think about weight gain and loss as effects of different eating habits rather than problems or goals in themselves since I read Gillian Riley’s excellent book about food addiction Eating Less.)

The Problem

In my job, sometimes when we start a piece of work we use a set of questions something like this:

What problem are we solving, for whom?

How do we know it’s a problem?

How will we know if we’ve solved it?

My answers were:

I’m eating too much and moving about too little, which is bad for my health, which is a problem for me. Also, I want my clothes to still fit.

My jeans are getting tight (even my ‘comfy’ jeans which I wear on days when the others are too tight)

When I’ve adopted better habits that lead to me comfortably being able to fit into my favourite jeans

At this point I needed some science, which meant thinking about calories and weight for a while. I reckoned my jeans used to fit pretty well when I was about 3kg lighter so to achieve that, the energy I used (from moving about) needed to exceed the energy I consumed (from food) by about 22,500 calories in total. Whether it took me a few weeks or a year to create that difference didn’t matter.

The Science Bit

Caveat: I got a D at GCSE Science.

When I talk about calorie deficit, I’m not talking about someone else’s idea of what I should or shouldn’t be eating or how much I should be moving. I’m talking about physics: what goes in needs to be less than what comes out.

Side note: Did you know that when we lose weight, it leaves our body via our lungs? Yes, there’s wee and poo and sweat and stuff, but fundamentally when we ‘burn’ energy we turn oxygen into carbon dioxide. The air we breathe out is very slightly heavier than the air we breathe in, and that’s where the weight goes. I only found that out a few years ago and it’s still one of my favourite facts.

So for me, a 47-year-old woman, 5′3″ tall, weighing 69kg and working at a desk all day, on average*, I’d be burning about 1600 calories a day. (That number is different for everyone. And it makes me wonder where the 2000 calorie target for women on food packaging comes from, because I’m fairly average size for a woman.)

If I go for a 2 mile leisurely stroll, I’ll burn about 150 calories. (Click the link to work out your numbers because they’re probably different to mine.) So if that same day I get 1400 calories from food and drink, I’ll create about a 350 calorie deficit.

The System

I made up a card with 75 empty circles on it. Each circle represented a 300 calorie deficit. (75 x 300 = 22,500, my target from earlier.) When I’d filled in all the circles, I should be 3kg lighter.

To add some accountability, I decided to use different colours for different days of the week. That way I’d want to fill in circles most days, and it might help me spot patterns. You can see from the key at the top of the card, Monday is red, Tuesday is orange, and so on. So if on Monday I ate 1600 calories and used 1900, I could colour in one red circle. If on Tuesday I ate 1200 calories and used 1800, I’d colour in two orange circles. As you can see here, I started with a 600 calorie deficit on a Thursday. (I actually started this experiment on a Wednesday, but ended up eating about the same amount of energy as I used, so didn’t get to colour in any circles that day.)

If I ate 300 calories more than I used on any given day, I’d have to add an empty circle to the bottom of the card. (If you zoom in you might be able to see some very feint circles I printed out for this purpose.)

I've tried numerous ways to be better in control of my eating or exercise over the years and I’ve learnt a few things about what works for me and what doesn’t. This felt like it had a good chance of succeeding because:

I like having data, and I like data to be visible. Graphs, charts, etc. are all good.

I like to see progress. The bathroom scales are a bad measure day-to-day for me because on a traditional diet, what I gain or lose in hormonal and other random fluctuations can be more than I’d target to lose in a week. Colouring in circles should be a good measure because, even though my goal is better habits and not weight loss per se, as long as I don’t cheat, regardless of what the scales say on any specific day, every 300 calories of energy I use that I don’t replace with food will result in me being one step closer to my jeans fitting.

Things which rely on all-or-nothing thinking don’t motivate me very much. e.g. the Seinfeld Method where you have to avoid ‘breaking the chain’. I need to be able to have off-days and to be able to get back on track the next day. If I feel like I’ve failed at the whole task because of one slip-up, I’ll inevitably slip up and won’t continue.

I like stationery and have a lot of Sharpies.

If I had to draw in extra circles because I’d eaten more than I’d used in a given day, it would be a rough, hand-drawn circle and would stick out like a sore thumb from the neat printed circles. I like neatness, so I probably wouldn’t want to do that. (Please don’t look too closely at my colouring in.)

Measuring

Most fitness trackers will try give you some sort of estimate of how many calories you’re burning each day. I have a Garmin Vivosmart 4 which measures heart rate, so it should be fairly accurate. But most Fitbits and similar devices will do it, and if you don’t have one of those, MyFitnessPal and various other apps will give you an estimate which should be close enough to get you started. I’ve also included links to my own estimates from Wolfram Alpha in The Science Bit above, which are very close to what I get from my tracker.

Without a tracker, background activity level (walking around, physical effort involved in housework or childcare or whatever) you’d have to estimate based on whether you’ve had a ‘sedentary’ day, light activity, etc. Being anything other than as honest as you can gains you nothing. As for specific activities (going for a walk), there are tons of places online you can get estimates for walking, running, swimming etc. Any estimate which doesn’t take account of your approximate weight is close to useless, so bear that in mind. There’s no real need to weigh yourself frequently or accurately, but you do need a rough idea of what you weigh to know how many calories you’d burn by, say, walking two miles.

As for energy coming in, I kept a food diary using MyFitnessPal. The free plan does everything I needed for this exercise. Pre-packaged food comes with a calorie count, but especially in lockdown, where I was making more stuff from cupboard ingredients, I was using the meal and recipe functions and having to weigh things. It’s a hassle, but only a minor one.

What Happened? Did It Work?

Yes! Here I am, eight weeks later, sitting comfortably in jeans that haven’t fit me for a few years. I realise 3kg in eight weeks is hardly headline-grabbing stuff, but the point is it worked for me, where all the headline-grabbing weight loss plans just don’t.

Confession: for all I try not to think in terms of weight loss, I do weigh myself most days and I do collect data. Above is the chart from my Wifi bathroom scales, because of course I have Wifi bathroom scales.)

But more importantly, I’ve changed my habits:

I’m being more mindful in my food choices. Do I want a snack after lunch, or do I want to colour in another circle? If I’m genuinely hungry I haven’t been depriving myself, but a couple of times I’ve planned to eat something and then... just decided I wasn’t bothered.

In the first weeks of lockdown I’d developed a bit of a biscuit habit. But within the first few days of this experiment, I’d find myself in the kitchen, thinking about taking a chocolate chip cookie, and deciding not to because I didn’t want to sacrifice a circle for the day.

I’ve been walking absolutely loads. A long walk on a Sunday means I can have croissants and jam and an oat mocha for breakfast and still eat a decent sized dinner. And now a walk has become part of my weekend routine, I miss it if it doesn’t happen.

I’ve been getting up at 7am to walk 4km before I start work each day. I listen to podcasts when I walk so if I skip days then I feel like I’m missing out on my podcast time.

Chocolate raisins are my weakness. There have been a couple of times I’ve gone for a 40 minute walk just so I could ‘earn’ some chocolate raisins. This probably isn’t entirely healthy in terms of my eating addiction, but still healthier than just eating the raisins and not going for the walk.

I think what I’m saying is it’s taught me to make better choices. This is also a big theme in Eating Less - that putting all our focus on weight is unhelpful because anything I do today takes a long time to pay back in terms of a noticeable improvement in my weight. But hour by hour I can make better choices about what food I eat and how much I move about. This system lets me see the effects of those choices the same day. The circles don’t lie - if I create a 300 calorie deficit 75 times I will be about 3kg lighter, however long that takes. I’m holding myself much more accountable for those choices than I would be if I didn’t see the outcome for a few weeks.

Not Just For Calorie Counting

I’m telling you about my calorie deficit journey because that’s the change I needed to make and that’s why I built the system. But you could easily use the same system for any consistent change you want to create. These are the things that I think would apply to building any new habit:

It gave me near-instant feedback on the results of my choices.

It provided visible evidence of progress toward a goal, where progress might not otherwise be discernible immediately.

It doesn’t fix a timescale. It didn’t matter to me how many weeks I took to fill in the circles. Of course I wanted to get there sooner rather than later, but if I had a bad day or a bad week, there was no reason for it to derail me.

I wasn’t showing the card to anyone else, so I was accountable only to myself. There was no point in cheating or lying to myself because it wouldn’t gain me anything.

I found colouring in the circles surprisingly motivating. I’ve always been sceptical of ‘star chart’ type trackers because of the public element. But even though nobody else saw it, I was still disappointed on the days I couldn’t colour in a circle.

Other uses I can think of, off the top of my head:

Being more active: one circle for every two miles walked - if you change nothing else in your life this will make a difference

Decluttering: one circle for every shelf, cupboard or drawer cleared out

Study schedule: one circle for every half hour of study

Guitar practice: one circle for 20 minutes practice

You get the idea. If you try this, let me know how it works out for you.

[mickycass]

On Premises, or Why Post-Modernism in Language is Useless

Words have meanings.

Discussions about prescriptivism, gatekeeping, and other such aside, it is still true that words convey information about concepts, things, animals, people, and so forth.

As a result, a necessary step is to accept the premise that for good or for ill, the words we use on a daily basis have to mean something which doesn’t change from one moment to the next. (In the long term, words can change meaning and that’s the evolution of culture and language, but if I say “the sky is blue” - and the color ‘blue’ is generally accepted as having a certain range of wavelengths - I can’t arbitrarily redefine ‘blue’ in the next sentence to mean a different set of wavelengths.)

Therefore, as a corollary, since this is a blog which discusses gender, I have to start with the premise that biology has meaning. If humans are a species of mammal, and mammals which are closely related to humans exhibit similar traits such as chromosome-related sexual dimorphism, then the definition “XX = woman/female”, “XY = man/male” is uncontroversial, since with XX and XY come a host of primary and secondary sexual characteristics that we readily use to identify dogs, cats, monkeys, et cetera, as male or female. So it shouldn’t be a surprise we do the same thing for human beings.

(This blogger is fully cognizant of the exceptions to the rule, and wishes to state that the sexual binary is a good enough approximation to cover ~99% of cases that it has usefulness in everyday life)

As one example of how this biology does have meaning is the very crucial aspect of medically noted differences in the heart attack symptoms felt by cis-men versus cis-women. This has direct implications for trans-men and trans-women, and this is why letting doctors and EMTs know one’s original biological sex is a good idea.

So to touch on post-modern use of language here, in recent years there has been an insistence that the terms “trans men are men” and “trans women are women” have complete meaning within themselves and need refer to nothing else.

But this is ultimately unhelpful and absurd in the extreme.

The biological categories of “man” and “woman” have cultural and historical impacts and effects. By themselves, “man” and “woman” are simply markers for what we now know to be expressions of chromosomal arrangements. (This blogger notes that the terms used here refer to cis-people, or biologically assigned sex in the case of trans-people, but of course the complicating factor of how they present to the public is there as well.)

But they are not simply these terms alone, for societies worldwide have a tendency to create structures which disadvantage women, be they currently so or who were born as such. So if societies even now still carry an inherent bias against women, then uncritically stating “trans women are women” ignores the fact that the personal life history of a trans woman includes a time period where, while presenting as a boy (or as an adult, a man), the privilege accorded a male went to them. As such, in presenting as a woman (or to consider the reverse case of trans man) it’s not a simple matter of saying, “I now conform to the prevailing social notion of what a woman looks like; please consider me as such in all respects.”

As such, the historical oppression of women and the continuation of at least some forms of such oppression today, mean that while presumably made in good faith, the concept of erasure of biologically fundamental categories of humans leads to the problem similar to that of stating “I don’t see color”. It’s a good faith anti-racist statement, true, but it ignores vast historical antecedents that instead require acknowledgement that color exists. It would be like saying “black people are people”. A true statement, but unhelpful.

Words mean things - and they always will.

Therefore, similarly we must first acknowledge that the biological categories XX and XY mean far more than two simple chromosomal arrangements that give rise to primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Only from that point can we then usefully discuss the natural overlap between what LGBTQIA+ people are fighting for and what radical feminists are fighting for.

[tenderfoot-philosopher]

Anger does not help when you are trying to do morally good things

I´ve been told that I´m an idealist, which is probably true, and I always seek for the most “moral” behaviour when it comes to problems of all sorts. I just want peace, justice, love, and harmony. Nevertheless, I often don´t follow my own rules because my temper takes over and I become angry at others. And that happens often. Anger is practically the opposite of what my ideal is. Showing anger doesn´t solve problems and doesn´t make other people question their opinions. Yet I just don´t have the patience to always be nice when people say stuff that I fundamentally don´t agree with, and that´s an enormous amount of stuff. And when I feel angry, I don´t doubt my emotions because in my bubble of morals I´m on the right side. From an outside perspective, I know I´m not in reality on the “right” side because nobody can ever be and if someone could, it wouldn´t be me. But I know that what I believe in could solve many issues which is why I still follow my principles. So, I persist and justify my anger. One of the principles that I want to follow, in an ideal state of mind, is pacifism. Pacifism means not using violence in any sort of way. When you look deeply into it, people behave violently daily: Wasting, swearing, competition, and anger. And violence ultimately does harm, as Gandhi said:

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

The most I´ve learned about how to apply Gandhi´s philosophy was from a book that was written by one of his grandchildren, Arun Gandhi, Legacy of Love. It´s about how Gandhi taught him how to transform the bad into the good, having self-control over his anger. The book opened my eyes to what I´m doing wrong. While feeling anger is natural and can´t be banned, showing my anger to others doesn´t create peace. My dilemma is that I often don´t know how to point at issues peacefully. I´m scared that if I don´t get angry, wouldn´t do anything really and my disagreement would slowly fade into the background. After all, I believe that anger is always better than nothing. There are two quotes from Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate said that guide me:

“Indifference [��] is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony. One does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative.” (The Perils of Indifference)

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” (Night)

I don´t want to be one of those that stand there and do nothing. Surely what Elie Wiesel was talking about was a much more massive problem that what I deal with daily, because he was talking about the holocaust. Yet the principle remains the same. I don´t want to be placed on the same moral level as those who closed their eyes when horrible things were happening. So according to Wiesel being angry is better than indifference when it results in something good. Take the suffragettes, for example. I don´t think women would have been allowed to vote for a long time if they hadn´t been so angry. Their violence was directed at objects. And they got what they wanted eventually. Nobody judges them for fighting for women´s rights. If I follow that philosophy, anger isn´t always unhelpful. But is my anger creative? I´d never dream of destroying window fronts or setting cars on fire to get what I want. I´d never scream insult at a police officer. That´s just not my style. My anger only results in what I say. Which brings me to right speech, one of the moral disciplines of the eightfold path in Buddhism. Right speech doesn´t only mean to say things that are correct. Many people believe that hateful words aren´t as bad as violent action (like me). But violent words, thoughts, and actions arise together and support each other. What I say is only criticism and judgement that I express in a loud voice and with sarcastic comments, while shaking my head and rolling my eyes. I don´t tell lies, I don´t use abusive language or gossip, but the way that I speak still creates disharmony and most definitely doesn´t reduce anger or resolve tensions. So, I can´t even justify my anger by saying it is creative. It seems to me that my anger is completely useless. On top of that, it´s negative and disingenuous. And I´ve observed that most people´s anger is like mine, even when they are in reality trying to fight for something good. We just don´t realize it. I´ve met only a few people in my life that weren´t controlled by their emotions like that when it came to things that deeply mattered to them. But they are the kind of people that influenced the way I think and act the most. So, we can at least try to become more like them. And maybe we´ll finally be able to change something.

[wicked-messenger-tarot]

The Radiant Sun Redux

Introduction

Maybe I wouldn’t have realized the need for an extensive, plotted rewrite of the book and definitions accompanying the Oracle of the Radiant Sun if, in fact, my moon was not in Leo, and if I had not drawn the card representing the Moon in Leo on New Year’s Eve.

Here’s the card that made the decision for me, about whether or not to go forward:

Because even though I had already toyed with the idea, THIS card’s write-up was so egregious, and reminded me so much of those useless newspaper horoscopes that turned me off to astrology for decades, and highlighted such an extreme cultural difference between America and England, (and by the by affronted me and my Leo Moon personally), that something obviously had to be done.

So I am starting with this card even though I’ll be doing the rest of the deck in the order the authors gave them.  This card, APPRECIATION, is the begining for me, and so apt, in all regards.

Things I Appreciate about The Book

The idea of merging Horary Astrology and the form of an oracle on cards was, on the surface, pretty ingenious, and also incredibly complex.  The entire concept necessitated a lot of work, study, knowledge, and decision-making in two fairly incompatible directions, and despite the extreme drawbacks of the book, this shows-- Smith and Astrop put a lot of work into this.

John Astrop was an extremely experienced astrologer who designed some of the first computer programs for astrologers.  He was the author of over a hundred books on the subject of astrology, including a whole series for parents to help them understand their wee baby Scorpios or what have you.  So this guy was no slouch.  My beef with him and his book has nothing to do with my sense of his expertise or seriousness.  This wasn’t someone who threw something together carelessly. 

Another thing I like about the book is how well organized it is. 

And that’s pretty much it.

What I Do Not Appreciate

The idea just doesn’t work.  Merging two entirely disparate systems seems like a good idea at first but it becomes, pretty rapidly, an attempt to merge one set of things that are tangible with arbitrarily assigned meaning (astrology) and another set of tangible things with arbitrarily assigned meaning (cards), but the party of the first part is, you know, an actual thing that is happening regardless of what you think it means.  The moment you are born, the sky looks a certain way, period.  The moment you ask a specific question the stars and planets are in specific places, period.  That’s what horary astrology is-- the moment the question is “born” is the moment the stars are consulted, which is pretty neat and the basis for most ancient astrologers’ jobs with royal courts.

And what the sky looks like when you ask your question will have, most likely, ZERO to do with which cards you pull from this oracle deck.  The two things are operating on a totally different wavelength.  There’s nothing wrong with either of those wavelengths, but there is also nothing whatsoever connected between those two things.

That said, it’s not that there’s zero connection symbolically between astrology and, say, Tarot.  Tarot cards have a lot of interconnections to astrology.  There’s no reason these cards can’t be utilized in that fashion, perhaps even more directly.  The germ of the idea isn’t terrible, but the way the book attempts to carry it through is kind of a disaster.

The main thing I do not appreciate is the fact a PERSONAL HOROSCOPE makes no sense to include on a card that anyone can pull out of the deck.  There is no good context in which this will work, hence my comparison to cheesey newspaper sun sign horoscopes that are largely useless.

Example:  APPRECIATION

At the top of the page it reads:  APPRECIATION.  Moon in Leo.  [Shows the astrological symbols.]  MOON-Security.  LEO-Creative Self-Expression.

Take a good look at that card.  Here’s the description in the book:  “...a rich and elegant lady performs on a lute.  Her audience is a swift symbolizing spring and new creation.  Below is a cornucopia bursting with fruit symbolizing man and woman, Sun and Moon.”

And now the book definitions:  “PERSONAL.  The emotions of somewhat prima-donna-ish Moon/Leo characters require affection, appreciation, and lots of good opportunities for over-dramatic expression.  This card indicates a need to be center stage as regards feelings, because for Leos big is beautiful, and they can be as emotionally generous as they are bullying.  Emotionally, Moon/Leo people are great romantics.  Feelings are important to them and must be apreciated and respected if Moon lions are to maintain their usual warm optimism.  Children can be an important part of their life and, whether they have any of their own or not, people with th is planet/sign combination are fond of the company of young-thinking people.  This basically emotionally optimistic person has a tendency to over-impulsive actions where loved ones are concerned.  He or she often has a good natural feeling for art and can benefit from developing latent talents in this area.”

Okay, it’s New Year’s Eve, a traditional time to consult an oracle.  Usually I use Tarot but this year I got funsy and used this deck.  One of the three cards I pulled was APPRECIATION.  A word that has a definition, and a word that, when it appears on a card, by itself with specific images, gives you a very particular feeling, idea, advice even?  You know, the main reason people consult an oracle on the New Year, combined with wanting to know what might lie ahead?

And instead you get a whole slew of ideas about... Moon Leos.  Say you are a Moon Leo, you’re nothing like any of that, and you are aware that your entire chart is in play so that’s probably why, but how is any of that helpful?  That’s a lot of real estate taken up on a page to make a bunch of general commentary on someone with their Moon in Leo, and emphasis on “general” and “commentary” because

None of that commentary is implied by the card, either in terms of image, the word it is illustrating, or even the notation at the top of the page about the astrological symbols and their meanings.  But say you are NOT a Moon Leo-- what does any of that have to do with you?  Was this entire process of consulting your oracle deck a waste of your time?  Sure seems like.

He goes on:  “When this card appears in a reading, it can indicate a powerful need for recognition in some aspect of life.  There may be a feeling that those around are not responding appreciatively enough, provoking an unhelpful over-the-top response”  Imma stop him for a sec, how on earth is anyone going to get that from this card?  From the image?  From the word APPRECIATION?  In context with many cards in a traditional Tarot type reading maybe the first sentence, okay, but the rest of it?  And in a single-card draw?

He continues:  “The card can also indicate emotional dependency on a partner or close friends.  Positively, if the card does not refer to the questioner, it can portray someone popular, generous, and much admired by others.”  So if this card is drawn by you for you, you’re a mess, but if you want to know about someone else, they’re awesome, and also if neither of you has a Moon in Leo it still somehow applies to you for reasons, or it doesn’t and you need to find a card that does.  Got it.

And last:  “EVENTS:  A lavish occasion;  theatrical event, children’s performance; pride in an achievement;  short-lived fame, excessively dramatic behavior;  family party or gathering.”  Three of these things are not events, by any stretch of the imagination.

(Sigh.)

This is what makes any book accompanying any deck, what’s the word, BAD.  It is a bad book if it doesn’t mesh with the cards.

One of the constants throughout this book is how resolutely negative each of his definitions are compared to the images on the cards.  Some of this negativity is really excessive, especially for a deck that doesn’t use reversals (I do, so we’ll get into that a bit.)

Also many of his definitions don’t fit the card at hand but will fit another card that actually means the thing he ascribes to another card.  For example, OPTIMISM is for no apparent reason also about “extreme and immovable fundamentalism”, and yet this deck literally has a card called EXTREMISM.  You’ll note the repeated references to “drama” and “over the top” and such with APPRECIATION-- yet there is literally, in this deck, a card called DRAMA.

Books on oracles and Tarot often step into the role of a professional reader to ostensibly help the amateur who is trying a deck of cards for the first time to have a successful reading, and that’s fine.  But it’s often unclear when an author’s opinions are just that, opinions, and not a hard and fast definition.  It would be more useful to add an example of the card in a reading so the person excitedly trying out their first or second or thirtieth new deck will clearly see there are myriad ways of interpreting the card, and this deck would have benefitted from this.  Then the author, a man of experience and a wide knowledge base, could have put his opinions of Moon Leos or whatever in there without ruining what is probably a perfectly good and perhaps brilliant divination tool.

So let’s fix this.

My Rewrite

When this card appears upright in a reading, it can indicate a powerful need for recognition in some aspect of life and that it is time to pursue this.  It can mean that the querant is appreciated more than they realize, or are unaware of how much they should appreciate about themselves and their circumstances.  It is time to be thankful and show your gratitude for this.  If the card does not refer to the querant, it can portray someone popular, generous, and much admired by others, or someone the querant should appreciate more.

When this card appears reversed, it can indicate emotional dependency on others to show appreciation for the querant-- for example, if this card appears reversed in a reading with cards indicating jealousy, insecurity, and drama, the meaning might be that the querant needs to take a step back and remember they cannot find in others what they cannot find in themselves. This card might indicate a need to be center stage, and there may be a feeling that those around are not responding appreciatively enough.  Acknowledge these feelings.

PERSONAL.  Moon/Leo characters require affection, appreciation, and lots of good opportunities for self expression.   Moon/Leo people are great romantics. Feelings are important to them and must be apreciated.  He or she often has a good natural feeling for art and can benefit from developing latent talents in this area.

EVENTS:  A lavish occasion;  theatrical event, children’s performance; pride in an achievement;  family party or gathering;  awards ceremony;  promotion or congratulations

See how I moved and shortened “Personal” so those who might have a Moon in Leo (and know about it) can see a general newspaper-horoscope definition and find something useful in the context of the card?  I’m a big fan of usefulness in a reading.  It does nothing to tell someone a bunch of general opinions about something they can’t change-- it’s perfectly fine to tell someone the consensus opinion, sans judgement, and let them see if it fits them.  (No, this definition still largely doesn’t fit me, but that’s okay, because in the context of my overall chart I can see where the parts that do fall into place.)

Conclusion

So that’s where I’ll be going with this over the course of the year.  As I go I’ll be writing each of my rewrites out and putting them in the book, possibly even gluing over the pages, so I can consult it when I need to.

Because above all, I deeply appreciate the feel of this deck, the images, the energy of the ideas behind it, and the couple who put it together as what was probably an exciting labor of love.  That energy wasn’t destroyed by my objections to the follow-through that is the book, and that alone is a testament to how worthwhile this deck really is.

Thank you for reading.

[seomiamiseo]

Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday

Posted by randfish

Many of us rely on the search volume numbers Google AdWords provides, but those numbers ought to be consumed with a hearty helping of skepticism. Broad and unusable volume ranges, misalignment with other Google tools, and conflating similar yet intrinsically distinct keywords — these are just a few of the serious issues that make relying on AdWords search volume data alone so dangerous. In this edition of Whiteboard Friday, we discuss those issues in depth and offer a few alternatives for more accurate volume data.

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Howdy, Moz fans. Welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week we're going to chat about Google AdWords' keyword data and why it is absolutely insane as an SEO or as a content marketer or a content creator to rely on this. Look, as a paid search person, you don't have a whole lot of choice, right? Google and Facebook combine to form the duopoly of advertising on the internet. But as an organic marketer, as a content marketer or as someone doing SEO, you need to do something fundamentally different than what paid search folks are doing. Paid search folks are basically trying to figure out when will Google show my ad for a keyword that might create the right kind of demand that will drive visitors to my site who will then convert? But as an SEO, you're often driving traffic so that you can do all sorts of other things. The same with content marketers. You're driving traffic for multitudes of reasons that aren't directly or necessarily directly connected to a conversion, at least certainly not right in that visit. So there are lots reasons why you might want to target different types of keywords and why AdWords data will steer you wrong.

1. AdWords' "range" is so broad, it's nearly useless

First up, AdWords shows you this volume range, and they show you this competition score. Many SEOs I know, even really smart folks just I think haven't processed that AdWords could be misleading them in this facet.

So let's talk about what happened here. I searched for types of lighting and lighting design, and Google AdWords came back with some suggestions. This is in the keyword planner section of the tool. So "types of lighting," "lighting design", and "lighting consultant," we'll stick with those three keywords for a little bit.

I can see here that, all right, average monthly searches, well, these volume ranges are really unhelpful. 10k to 100k, that's just way too giant. Even 1k to 10k, way too big of a range. And competition, low, low, low. So this is only true for the quantity of advertisers. That's really the only thing that you're seeing here. If there are many, many people bidding on these keywords in AdWords, these will be high.

But as an example, for "types of light," there's virtually no one bidding, but for "lighting consultant," there are quite a few people bidding. So I don't understand why these are both low competition. There's not enough granularity here, or Google is just not showing me accurate data. It's very confusing.

By the way, "types of light," though it has no PPC ads right now in Google's results, this is incredibly difficult to rank for in the SEO results. I think I looked at the keyword difficulty score. It's in the 60s, maybe even low 70s, because there's a bunch of powerful sites. There's a featured snippet up top. The domains that are ranking are doing really well. So it's going to be very hard to rank for this, and yet competition low, it's just not telling you the right thing. That's not telling you the right story, and so you're getting misled on both competition and monthly searches.

2. AdWords doesn't line up to reality, or even Google Trends!

Worse, number two, AdWords doesn't line up to reality with itself. I'll show you what I mean.

So let's go over to Google Trends. Great tool, by the way. I'm going to talk about that in a second. But I plugged in "lighting design," "lighting consultant," and "types of lighting." I get the nice chart that shows me seasonality. But over on the left, it also shows average keyword volume compared to each other — 86 for "lighting design," 2 for "lighting consultant," and 12 for "types of lighting." Now, you tell me how it is that this can be 43 times as big as this one and this can be 6 times as big as that one, and yet these are all correct.

The math only works in some very, very tiny amounts of circumstances, like, okay, maybe if this is 1,000 and this is 12,000, which technically puts it in the 10k, and this is 86,000 — well, no wait, that doesn't quite work — 43,000, okay, now we made it work. But you change this to 2,000 or 3,000, the numbers don't add up. Worse, it gets worse, of course it does. When AdWords gets more specific with the performance data, things just get so crazy weird that nothing lines up.

So what I did is I created ad groups, because in AdWords in order to get more granular monthly search data, you have to actually create ad groups and then go review those. This is in the review section of my ad group creation. I created ad groups with only a single keyword so that I could get the most accurate volume data I could, and then I maximized out my bid until I wasn't getting any more impressions by bidding any higher.

Well, whether that truly accounts for all searches or not, hard to say. But here's the impression count — 2,500 a day, 330 a day, 4 a day. So 4 a day times 30, gosh, that sounds like 120 to me. That doesn't sound like it's in the 1,000 to 10,000 range. I don't think this could possibly be right. It just doesn't make any sense.

What's happening? Oh, actually, this is "types of lighting." Google clearly knows that there are way more searches for this. There's a ton more searches for this. Why is the impression so low? The impressions are so low because Google will rarely ever show an ad for that keyword, which is why when we were talking, above here, about competition, I didn't see an ad for that keyword. So again, extremely misleading.

If you're taking data from AdWords and you're trying to apply it to your SEO campaigns, your organic campaigns, your content marketing campaigns, you are being misled and led astray. If you see numbers like this that are coming straight from AdWords, "Oh, we looked at the AdWords impression," know that these can be dead f'ing wrong, totally misleading, and throw your campaigns off.

You might choose not to invest in content around types of lighting, when in fact that could be an incredibly wonderful lead source. It could be the exact right keyword for you. It is getting way more search volume. We can see it right here. We can see it in Google Trends, which is showing us some real data, and we can back that up with our own clickstream data that we get here at Moz.

3. AdWords conflates and combines keywords that don't share search intent or volume

Number three, another problem, Google conflates keywords. So when I do searches and I start adding keywords to a list, unless I'm very careful and I type them in manually and I'm only using the exact ones, Google will take all three of these, "types of lights," "types of light" (singular light), and "types of lighting" and conflate them all, which is insane. It is maddening.

Why is it maddening? Because "types of light," in my opinion, is a physics-related search. You can see many of the results, they'll be from Energy.gov or whatever, and they'll show you the different types of wavelengths and light ranges on the visible spectrum. "Types of lights" will show you what? It will show you types of lights that you could put in your home or office. "Types of lighting" will show you lighting design stuff, the things that a lighting consultant might be interested in. So three different, very different, types of results with three different search intents all conflated in AdWords, killing me.

4. AdWords will hide relevant keyword suggestions if they don't believe there's a strong commercial intent

Number four, not only this, a lot of times when you do searches inside AdWords, they will hide the suggestions that you want the most. So when I performed my searches for "lighting design," Google never showed me — I couldn't find it anywhere in the search results, even with the export of a thousand keywords — "types of lights" or "types of lighting."

Why? I think it's the same reason down here, because Google doesn't believe that those are commercial intent search queries. Well, AdWords doesn't believe they're commercial intent search queries. So they don't want to show them to AdWords customers because then they might bid on them, and Google will (a) rarely show those, and (b) they'll get a poor return on that spend. What happens to advertisers? They don't blame themselves for choosing faulty keywords. They blame Google for giving them bad traffic, and so Google knocks these out.

So if you are doing SEO or you're doing content marketing and you're trying to find these targets, AdWords is a terrible suggestion engine as well. As a result, my advice is going to be rely on different tools.

Instead:

There are a few that I've got here. I'm obviously a big fan of Moz's Keyword Explorer, having been one of the designers of that product. Ahrefs came out with a near clone product that's actually very, very good. SEMrush is also a quality product. I like their suggestions a little bit more, although they do use AdWords keyword data. So the volume data might be misleading again there. I'd be cautious about using that.

Google Trends, I actually really like Google Trends. I'm not sure why Google is choosing to give out such accurate data here, but from what we've seen, it looks really comparatively good. Challenge being if you do these searches in Google Trends, make sure you select the right type, the search term, not the list or the topic. Topics and lists inside Google Trends will aggregate, just like this will, a bunch of different keywords into one thing.

Then if you want to get truly, truly accurate, you can go ahead and run a sample AdWords campaign, the challenge with that being if Google chooses not to show your ad, you won't know how many impressions you potentially missed out on, and that can be frustrating too.

So AdWords today, using PPC as an SEO tool, a content marketing tool is a little bit of a black box. I would really recommend against it. As long as you know what you're doing and you want to find some inspiration there, fine. But otherwise, I'd rely on some of these other tools. Some of them are free, some of them are paid. All of them are better than AdWords.

All right, everyone. Look forward to your comments and we'll see you again next week for another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2mkWCRn

[writingguide003-blog]

Three Writing Rules to Disregard

New Post has been published on https://writingguideto.com/trending/three-writing-rules-to-disregard/

Three Writing Rules to Disregard

I have nothing against rules. They’re indispensable when playing Monopoly or gin rummy, and their observance can go a long way toward improving a ride on the subway. The rule of law? Big fan.

The English language, though, is not so easily ruled and regulated. It developed without codification, sucking up new constructions and vocabulary every time some foreigner set foot on the British Isles—­to say nothing of the mischief we Americans have wreaked on it these last few centuries—­and continues to evolve anarchically. It has, to my great dismay, no enforceable laws, much less someone to enforce the laws it doesn’t have.

Certain prose rules are essentially inarguable—­that a sentence’s subject and its verb should agree in number, for instance. Or that in a “not only x but y” construction, the x and the y must be parallel elements. Why? I suppose because they’re firmly entrenched, because no one cares to argue with them, and because they aid us in using our words to their preeminent purpose: to communicate clearly with our readers. Let’s call these reasons the Four C’s, shall we? Convention. Consensus. Clarity. Comprehension.

Also simply because, I swear to you, a well-­constructed sentence sounds better. Literally sounds better. One of the best ways to determine whether your prose is well ­constructed is to read it aloud. A sentence that can’t be readily voiced is a sentence that likely needs to be rewritten.

A good sentence, I find myself saying frequently, is one that the reader can follow from beginning to end, no matter how long it is, without having to double back in confusion because the writer misused or omitted a key piece of punctuation, chose a vague or misleading pronoun, or in some other way engaged in inadvertent misdirection. (If you want to puzzle your reader, that’s your own business.)

As much as I like a good rule, I’m an enthusiastic subscriber to the notion of “rules are meant to be broken”—­once you’ve learned them, I hasten to add.

But let’s, right now, attend to a few of what I think of as the Great Nonrules of the English Language. You’ve encountered all of these; likely you were taught them in school. I’d like you to free yourself of them. They’re not helping you; all they’re doing is clogging your brain and inciting you to look self-­consciously over your own shoulder as you write, which is as psychically painful as it is physically impossible. And once you’ve done that, once you’ve gotten rid of them, hopefully you can put your attention on vastly more important things. 

Why are they nonrules? So far as I’m concerned, because they’re largely unhelpful, pointlessly constricting, feckless, and useless. Also because they’re generally of dubious origin: devised out of thin air, then passed on till they’ve gained respectable solidity and, ultimately, have ossified. Language experts far more expert than I have, over the years, done their best to debunk them, yet these made-­up strictures refuse to go away and have proven more durable than Keith Richards and Mick Jagger. Put together. Part of the problem, I must add, is that some of them were made up by ostensible and presumably well-­meaning language experts in the first place, so getting rid of them can be a bit like trying to get a dog to stop chasing its own tail.

I’ll dispatch these reasonably succinctly, with the hope that you’ll trust that I’ve done my homework and will be happy to see them go. I’m mindful of Gertrude Stein’s characterization of Ezra Pound as “a village explainer, excellent if you were a village, but if you were not, not,” and no one wants to be that guy. Also, if you persist in insisting that these nonrules are real and valid and to be hewed to, all the expert citations in the world won’t, I know through experience, change your mind one tiny little bit.

An admission: Quite a lot of what I do as a copy editor is to help writers avoid being carped at, fairly or—­and this is the part that hurts—­unfairly, by People Who Think They Know Better and Write Aggrieved Emails to Publishing Houses. Thus I tend to be a bit conservative about flouting rules that may be a bit dubious in their origin but, observed, ain’t hurting nobody. And though the nonrules below are particularly arrant nonsense, I warn you that, in breaking them, you’ll have a certain percentage of the reading and online-­commenting populace up your fundament to tell you you’re subliterate. Go ahead and break them anyway. It’s fun, and I’ll back you up.

1. Never Begin a Sentence with “And” or “But.”

No, do begin a sentence with “And” or “But,” if it strikes your fancy to do so. Great writers do it all the time. As do even not necessarily great writers, like the person who has, so far in this essay, done it a few times and intends to do it a lot more.

But soft, as they used to say, here comes a caveat:

An “And” or a “But” (or a “For” or an “Or” or a “However” or a “Because,” to cite four other sentence starters one is often warned against) is not always the strongest beginning for a sentence, and making a relentless habit of using any of them palls quickly. You may find that you don’t need that “And” at all. You may find that your “And” or “But” sentence might easily attach to its predecessor sentence with either a comma or a semicolon. Take a good look, and give it a good think.

Let’s test an example or two.

Francie, of course, became an outsider shunned by all because of her stench. But she had become accustomed to being lonely.

Francie, of course, became an outsider shunned by all because of her stench, but she had become accustomed to being lonely.

Which do you think Betty Smith, the author of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, chose? The former, as it happens. Had I been Smith’s copy editor, I might well have suggested the second, to make one coherent, connected thought out of two unnecessarily separated ones. Perhaps she’d have agreed, or perhaps she’d have preferred the text as she’d written it, hearing it in her head as a solemn knell. Authors do often prefer their text the way they’ve written it.

Here’s another, in two flavors:

In the hospital he should be safe, for Major Callendar would protect him, but the Major had not come, and now things were worse than ever.

In the hospital he should be safe, for Major Callendar would protect him. But the Major had not come, and now things were worse than ever.

This is E. M. Forster, in A Passage to India, and I suspect you’ll not be surprised to learn that version 2 is his. For one thing, version 1’s a bit long. More important, version 2, with that definitive period, more effectively conveys, I’d say, the sense of dashed expectations, the reversal of fortune.

These are the choices that writers make, and that copy editors observe, and this is how you build a book.

One thing to add: Writers who are not so adept at linking their sentences habitually toss in a “But” or a “However” to create the illusion that a second thought contradicts a first thought when it doesn’t do any such thing. It doesn’t work, and I’m on to you.

2. Never Split an Infinitive.

To cite the most famous split infinitive of our era—­and everyone cites this bit from the original Star Trek TV series, so zero points to me for originality—­“To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

There’s much more—­much more—­one could say on the subject, but I don’t want to write about the nineteenth-­century textual critic Henry Alford any more than you want to read about the nineteenth-­century textual critic Henry Alford, so let’s leave it at this: A split infinitive, as we generally understand the term, is a “to [verb]” construction with an adverb stuck in the middle of it. In the Star Trek example, then, an unsplit infinitive version would be “Boldly to go where no man has gone before” or “To go boldly where no man has gone before.” If either of those sounds better to you, be my guest. To me they sound as if they were translated from the Vulcan.

Otherwise, let’s skip right to Raymond Chandler. Again, as with the Star Trek phrase, everyone loves to cite Chandler on this subject, but it’s for a God damn [sic] good reason. Chandler sent this note to the editor of The Atlantic Monthly in response to the copyediting of an article he’d written:

By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-­down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split.

Over and out.

3. Never End a Sentence with a Preposition.

This is the rule that invariably (and wearily) leads to a rehash of the celebrated remark by Winston Churchill that Winston Churchill, in reality, neither said nor wrote:

“This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.”

Let me say this about this: Ending a sentence with a preposition (as, at, by, for, from, of, etc.) isn’t always such a hot idea, mostly because a sentence should, when it can, aim for a powerful finale and not simply dribble off like an old man’s unhappy micturition. A sentence that meanders its way to a prepositional finish is often, I find, weaker than it ought to or could be.

What did you do that for?

Why did you do that?

has some snap to it.

But to tie a sentence into a strangling knot to avoid a prepositional conclusion is unhelpful and unnatural, and it’s something no good writer should attempt and no eager reader should have to contend with.

If you follow me.

Benjamin Dreyer is vice president, executive managing editor, and copy chief of Random House. He began his publishing career as a freelance proofreader and copyeditor. In 1993, he became a production editor at Random House, overseeing books by writers including Michael Chabon, Edmund Morris, Suzan-Lori Parks, Michael Pollan, Peter Straub, and Calvin Trillin. He has copyedited books by authors including E. L. Doctorow, David Ebershoff, Frank Rich, and Elizabeth Strout, as well as Let Me Tell You, a volume of previously uncollected work by Shirley Jackson. A graduate of Northwestern University, he lives in New York City.

Excerpted with permission from the new book Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style, by Benjamin Dreyer. Published by Random House, a division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York. Copyright © 2019 by Benjamin Dreyer. All rights reserved.

Source

Three Writing Rules to Disregard

[tainghekhongdaycomvn]

Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday

Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday

Posted by randfish

Many of us rely on the search volume numbers Google AdWords provides, but those numbers ought to be consumed with a hearty helping of skepticism. Broad and unusable volume ranges, misalignment with other Google tools, and conflating similar yet intrinsically distinct keywords — these are just a few of the serious issues that make relying on AdWords search volume data alone so dangerous. In this edition of Whiteboard Friday, we discuss those issues in depth and offer a few alternatives for more accurate volume data.

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

<span id="selection-marker-1" class="redactor-selection-marker"></span>

Video Transcription

Howdy, Moz fans. Welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week we're going to chat about Google AdWords' keyword data and why it is absolutely insane as an SEO or as a content marketer or a content creator to rely on this. Look, as a paid search person, you don't have a whole lot of choice, right? Google and Facebook combine to form the duopoly of advertising on the internet. But as an organic marketer, as a content marketer or as someone doing SEO, you need to do something fundamentally different than what paid search folks are doing. Paid search folks are basically trying to figure out when will Google show my ad for a keyword that might create the right kind of demand that will drive visitors to my site who will then convert? But as an SEO, you're often driving traffic so that you can do all sorts of other things. The same with content marketers. You're driving traffic for multitudes of reasons that aren't directly or necessarily directly connected to a conversion, at least certainly not right in that visit. So there are lots reasons why you might want to target different types of keywords and why AdWords data will steer you wrong.

1. AdWords' "range" is so broad, it's nearly useless

First up, AdWords shows you this volume range, and they show you this competition score. Many SEOs I know, even really smart folks just I think haven't processed that AdWords could be misleading them in this facet.

So let's talk about what happened here. I searched for types of lighting and lighting design, and Google AdWords came back with some suggestions. This is in the keyword planner section of the tool. So "types of lighting," "lighting design", and "lighting consultant," we'll stick with those three keywords for a little bit.

I can see here that, all right, average monthly searches, well, these volume ranges are really unhelpful. 10k to 100k, that's just way too giant. Even 1k to 10k, way too big of a range. And competition, low, low, low. So this is only true for the quantity of advertisers. That's really the only thing that you're seeing here. If there are many, many people bidding on these keywords in AdWords, these will be high.

But as an example, for "types of light," there's virtually no one bidding, but for "lighting consultant," there are quite a few people bidding. So I don't understand why these are both low competition. There's not enough granularity here, or Google is just not showing me accurate data. It's very confusing.

By the way, "types of light," though it has no PPC ads right now in Google's results, this is incredibly difficult to rank for in the SEO results. I think I looked at the keyword difficulty score. It's in the 60s, maybe even low 70s, because there's a bunch of powerful sites. There's a featured snippet up top. The domains that are ranking are doing really well. So it's going to be very hard to rank for this, and yet competition low, it's just not telling you the right thing. That's not telling you the right story, and so you're getting misled on both competition and monthly searches.

2. AdWords doesn't line up to reality, or even Google Trends!

Worse, number two, AdWords doesn't line up to reality with itself. I'll show you what I mean.

So let's go over to Google Trends. Great tool, by the way. I'm going to talk about that in a second. But I plugged in "lighting design," "lighting consultant," and "types of lighting." I get the nice chart that shows me seasonality. But over on the left, it also shows average keyword volume compared to each other — 86 for "lighting design," 2 for "lighting consultant," and 12 for "types of lighting." Now, you tell me how it is that this can be 43 times as big as this one and this can be 6 times as big as that one, and yet these are all correct.

The math only works in some very, very tiny amounts of circumstances, like, okay, maybe if this is 1,000 and this is 12,000, which technically puts it in the 10k, and this is 86,000 — well, no wait, that doesn't quite work — 43,000, okay, now we made it work. But you change this to 2,000 or 3,000, the numbers don't add up. Worse, it gets worse, of course it does. When AdWords gets more specific with the performance data, things just get so crazy weird that nothing lines up.

So what I did is I created ad groups, because in AdWords in order to get more granular monthly search data, you have to actually create ad groups and then go review those. This is in the review section of my ad group creation. I created ad groups with only a single keyword so that I could get the most accurate volume data I could, and then I maximized out my bid until I wasn't getting any more impressions by bidding any higher.

Well, whether that truly accounts for all searches or not, hard to say. But here's the impression count — 2,500 a day, 330 a day, 4 a day. So 4 a day times 30, gosh, that sounds like 120 to me. That doesn't sound like it's in the 1,000 to 10,000 range. I don't think this could possibly be right. It just doesn't make any sense.

What's happening? Oh, actually, this is "types of lighting." Google clearly knows that there are way more searches for this. There's a ton more searches for this. Why is the impression so low? The impressions are so low because Google will rarely ever show an ad for that keyword, which is why when we were talking, above here, about competition, I didn't see an ad for that keyword. So again, extremely misleading.

If you're taking data from AdWords and you're trying to apply it to your SEO campaigns, your organic campaigns, your content marketing campaigns, you are being misled and led astray. If you see numbers like this that are coming straight from AdWords, "Oh, we looked at the AdWords impression," know that these can be dead f'ing wrong, totally misleading, and throw your campaigns off.

You might choose not to invest in content around types of lighting, when in fact that could be an incredibly wonderful lead source. It could be the exact right keyword for you. It is getting way more search volume. We can see it right here. We can see it in Google Trends, which is showing us some real data, and we can back that up with our own clickstream data that we get here at Moz.

3. AdWords conflates and combines keywords that don't share search intent or volume

Number three, another problem, Google conflates keywords. So when I do searches and I start adding keywords to a list, unless I'm very careful and I type them in manually and I'm only using the exact ones, Google will take all three of these, "types of lights," "types of light" (singular light), and "types of lighting" and conflate them all, which is insane. It is maddening.

Why is it maddening? Because "types of light," in my opinion, is a physics-related search. You can see many of the results, they'll be from Energy.gov or whatever, and they'll show you the different types of wavelengths and light ranges on the visible spectrum. "Types of lights" will show you what? It will show you types of lights that you could put in your home or office. "Types of lighting" will show you lighting design stuff, the things that a lighting consultant might be interested in. So three different, very different, types of results with three different search intents all conflated in AdWords, killing me.

4. AdWords will hide relevant keyword suggestions if they don't believe there's a strong commercial intent

Number four, not only this, a lot of times when you do searches inside AdWords, they will hide the suggestions that you want the most. So when I performed my searches for "lighting design," Google never showed me — I couldn't find it anywhere in the search results, even with the export of a thousand keywords — "types of lights" or "types of lighting."

Why? I think it's the same reason down here, because Google doesn't believe that those are commercial intent search queries. Well, AdWords doesn't believe they're commercial intent search queries. So they don't want to show them to AdWords customers because then they might bid on them, and Google will (a) rarely show those, and (b) they'll get a poor return on that spend. What happens to advertisers? They don't blame themselves for choosing faulty keywords. They blame Google for giving them bad traffic, and so Google knocks these out.

So if you are doing SEO or you're doing content marketing and you're trying to find these targets, AdWords is a terrible suggestion engine as well. As a result, my advice is going to be rely on different tools.

Instead:

There are a few that I've got here. I'm obviously a big fan of Moz's Keyword Explorer, having been one of the designers of that product. Ahrefs came out with a near clone product that's actually very, very good. SEMrush is also a quality product. I like their suggestions a little bit more, although they do use AdWords keyword data. So the volume data might be misleading again there. I'd be cautious about using that.

Google Trends, I actually really like Google Trends. I'm not sure why Google is choosing to give out such accurate data here, but from what we've seen, it looks really comparatively good. Challenge being if you do these searches in Google Trends, make sure you select the right type, the search term, not the list or the topic. Topics and lists inside Google Trends will aggregate, just like this will, a bunch of different keywords into one thing.

Then if you want to get truly, truly accurate, you can go ahead and run a sample AdWords campaign, the challenge with that being if Google chooses not to show your ad, you won't know how many impressions you potentially missed out on, and that can be frustrating too.

So AdWords today, using PPC as an SEO tool, a content marketing tool is a little bit of a black box. I would really recommend against it. As long as you know what you're doing and you want to find some inspiration there, fine. But otherwise, I'd rely on some of these other tools. Some of them are free, some of them are paid. All of them are better than AdWords.

All right, everyone. Look forward to your comments and we'll see you again next week for another edition of Whiteboard Friday. Take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

bạn xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mXjlRS Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ xem thêm tại: http://ift.tt/2mb4VST để biết thêm về địa chỉ bán tai nghe không dây giá rẻ Why Google AdWords' Keyword Volume Numbers Are Wildly Unreliable - Whiteboard Friday http://ift.tt/2FsPqLZ Bạn có thể xem thêm địa chỉ mua tai nghe không dây tại đây http://ift.tt/2mb4VST