#how does google search algorithm work

[sparkinlist-official]

Google’s Search Algorithm: How to Rank Higher On Google In 2023

In the ever-evolving landscape of digital marketing, staying on top of Google’s search algorithm updates is crucial for businesses aiming to secure higher rankings and increase their online visibility. Google's algorithm is designed to provide users with the most relevant and valuable search results based on various factors. As we venture into 2023, understanding the key strategies to rank higher on Google has become more important than ever.

Read more: Google’s Search Algorithm

[musashi]

that's not strange tho? for most people, esp tumblr oldies, tagging is an organization system. tags are so you can find things later, and so if you want to see a lot of posts by one user in particular, you can easily go into your tag and locate them.

everyone talks about the strange people you run into as your post gets popular, but no one ever mentiones the most curious of them all – those who tag posts with the op's url

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The moral injury of having your work enshittified

This Monday (November 27), I'm appearing at the Toronto Metro Reference Library with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

On November 29, I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

This week, I wrote about how the Great Enshittening – in which all the digital services we rely on become unusable, extractive piles of shit – did not result from the decay of the morals of tech company leadership, but rather, from the collapse of the forces that discipline corporate wrongdoing:

https://locusmag.com/2023/11/commentary-by-cory-doctorow-dont-be-evil/

The failure to enforce competition law allowed a few companies to buy out their rivals, or sell goods below cost until their rivals collapsed, or bribe key parts of their supply chain not to allow rivals to participate:

https://www.engadget.com/google-reportedly-pays-apple-36-percent-of-ad-search-revenues-from-safari-191730783.html

The resulting concentration of the tech sector meant that the surviving firms were stupendously wealthy, and cozy enough that they could agree on a common legislative agenda. That regulatory capture has allowed tech companies to violate labor, privacy and consumer protection laws by arguing that the law doesn't apply when you use an app to violate it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

But the regulatory capture isn't just about preventing regulation: it's also about creating regulation – laws that make it illegal to reverse-engineer, scrape, and otherwise mod, hack or reconfigure existing services to claw back value that has been taken away from users and business customers. This gives rise to Jay Freeman's perfectly named doctrine of "felony contempt of business-model," in which it is illegal to use your own property in ways that anger the shareholders of the company that sold it to you:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

Undisciplined by the threat of competition, regulation, or unilateral modification by users, companies are free to enshittify their products. But what does that actually look like? I say that enshittification is always precipitated by a lost argument.

It starts when someone around a board-room table proposes doing something that's bad for users but good for the company. If the company faces the discipline of competition, regulation or self-help measures, then the workers who are disgusted by this course of action can say, "I think doing this would be gross, and what's more, it's going to make the company poorer," and so they win the argument.

But when you take away that discipline, the argument gets reduced to, "Don't do this because it would make me ashamed to work here, even though it will make the company richer." Money talks, bullshit walks. Let the enshittification begin!

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/22/who-wins-the-argument/#corporations-are-people-my-friend

But why do workers care at all? That's where phrases like "don't be evil" come into the picture. Until very recently, tech workers participated in one of history's tightest labor markets, in which multiple companies with gigantic war-chests bid on their labor. Even low-level employees routinely fielded calls from recruiters who dangled offers of higher salaries and larger stock grants if they would jump ship for a company's rival.

Employers built "campuses" filled with lavish perks: massages, sports facilities, daycare, gourmet cafeterias. They offered workers generous benefit packages, including exotic health benefits like having your eggs frozen so you could delay fertility while offsetting the risks normally associated with conceiving at a later age.

But all of this was a transparent ruse: the business-case for free meals, gyms, dry-cleaning, catering and massages was to keep workers at their laptops for 10, 12, or even 16 hours per day. That egg-freezing perk wasn't about helping workers plan their families: it was about thumbing the scales in favor of working through your entire twenties and thirties without taking any parental leave.

In other words, tech employers valued their employees as a means to an end: they wanted to get the best geeks on the payroll and then work them like government mules. The perks and pay weren't the result of comradeship between management and labor: they were the result of the discipline of competition for labor.

This wasn't really a secret, of course. Big Tech workers are split into two camps: blue badges (salaried employees) and green badges (contractors). Whenever there is a slack labor market for a specific job or skill, it is converted from a blue badge job to a green badge job. Green badges don't get the food or the massages or the kombucha. They don't get stock or daycare. They don't get to freeze their eggs. They also work long hours, but they are incentivized by the fear of poverty.

Tech giants went to great lengths to shield blue badges from green badges – at some Google campuses, these workforces actually used different entrances and worked in different facilities or on different floors. Sometimes, green badge working hours would be staggered so that the armies of ragged clickworkers would not be lined up to badge in when their social betters swanned off the luxury bus and into their airy adult kindergartens.

But Big Tech worked hard to convince those blue badges that they were truly valued. Companies hosted regular town halls where employees could ask impertinent questions of their CEOs. They maintained freewheeling internal social media sites where techies could rail against corporate foolishness and make Dilbert references.

And they came up with mottoes.

Apple told its employees it was a sound environmental steward that cared about privacy. Apple also deliberately turned old devices into e-waste by shredding them to ensure that they wouldn't be repaired and compete with new devices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

And even as they were blocking Facebook's surveillance tools, they quietly built their own nonconsensual mass surveillance program and lied to customers about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Facebook told employees they were on a "mission to connect every person in the world," but instead deliberately sowed discontent among its users and trapped them in silos that meant that anyone who left Facebook lost all their friends:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

And Google promised its employees that they would not "be evil" if they worked at Google. For many googlers, that mattered. They wanted to do something good with their lives, and they had a choice about who they would work for. What's more, they did make things that were good. At their high points, Google Maps, Google Mail, and of course, Google Search were incredible.

My own life was totally transformed by Maps: I have very poor spatial sense, need to actually stop and think to tell my right from my left, and I spent more of my life at least a little lost and often very lost. Google Maps is the cognitive prosthesis I needed to become someone who can go anywhere. I'm profoundly grateful to the people who built that service.

There's a name for phenomenon in which you care so much about your job that you endure poor conditions and abuse: it's called "vocational awe," as coined by Fobazi Ettarh:

https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/

Ettarh uses the term to apply to traditionally low-waged workers like librarians, teachers and nurses. In our book Chokepoint Capitalism, Rebecca Giblin and I talked about how it applies to artists and other creative workers, too:

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

But vocational awe is also omnipresent in tech. The grandiose claims to be on a mission to make the world a better place are not just puffery – they're a vital means of motivating workers who can easily quit their jobs and find a new one to put in 16-hour days. The massages and kombucha and egg-freezing are not framed as perks, but as logistical supports, provided so that techies on an important mission can pursue a shared social goal without being distracted by their balky, inconvenient meatsuits.

Steve Jobs was a master of instilling vocational awe. He was full of aphorisms like "we're here to make a dent in the universe, otherwise why even be here?" Or his infamous line to John Sculley, whom he lured away from Pepsi: "Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life or come with me and change the world?"

Vocational awe cuts both ways. If your workforce actually believes in all that high-minded stuff, if they actually sacrifice their health, family lives and self-care to further the mission, they will defend it. That brings me back to enshittification, and the argument: "If we do this bad thing to the product I work on, it will make me hate myself."

The decline in market discipline for large tech companies has been accompanied by a decline in labor discipline, as the market for technical work grew less and less competitive. Since the dotcom collapse, the ability of tech giants to starve new entrants of market oxygen has shrunk techies' dreams.

Tech workers once dreamed of working for a big, unwieldy firm for a few years before setting out on their own to topple it with a startup. Then, the dream shrank: work for that big, clumsy firm for a few years, then do a fake startup that makes a fake product that is acquihired by your old employer, as an incredibly inefficient and roundabout way to get a raise and a bonus.

Then the dream shrank again: work for a big, ugly firm for life, but get those perks, the massages and the kombucha and the stock options and the gourmet cafeteria and the egg-freezing. Then it shrank again: work for Google for a while, but then get laid off along with 12,000 co-workers, just months after the company does a stock buyback that would cover all those salaries for the next 27 years:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/10/the-proletarianization-of-tech-workers/

Tech workers' power was fundamentally individual. In a tight labor market, tech workers could personally stand up to their bosses. They got "workplace democracy" by mouthing off at town hall meetings. They didn't have a union, and they thought they didn't need one. Of course, they did need one, because there were limits to individual power, even for the most in-demand workers, especially when it came to ghastly, long-running sexual abuse from high-ranking executives:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html

Today, atomized tech workers who are ordered to enshittify the products they take pride in are losing the argument. Workers who put in long hours, missed funerals and school plays and little league games and anniversaries and family vacations are being ordered to flush that sacrifice down the toilet to grind out a few basis points towards a KPI.

It's a form of moral injury, and it's palpable in the first-person accounts of former workers who've exited these large firms or the entire field. The viral "Reflecting on 18 years at Google," written by Ian Hixie, vibrates with it:

https://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1700627373

Hixie describes the sense of mission he brought to his job, the workplace democracy he experienced as employees' views were both solicited and heeded. He describes the positive contributions he was able to make to a commons of technical standards that rippled out beyond Google – and then, he says, "Google's culture eroded":

Decisions went from being made for the benefit of users, to the benefit of Google, to the benefit of whoever was making the decision.

In other words, techies started losing the argument. Layoffs weakened worker power – not just to defend their own interest, but to defend the users interests. Worker power is always about more than workers – think of how the 2019 LA teachers' strike won greenspace for every school, a ban on immigration sweeps of students' parents at the school gates and other community benefits:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

Hixie attributes the changes to a change in leadership, but I respectfully disagree. Hixie points to the original shareholder letter from the Google founders, in which they informed investors contemplating their IPO that they were retaining a controlling interest in the company's governance so that they could ignore their shareholders' priorities in favor of a vision of Google as a positive force in the world:

https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/ipo-letter/

Hixie says that the leadership that succeeded the founders lost sight of this vision – but the whole point of that letter is that the founders never fully ceded control to subsequent executive teams. Yes, those executive teams were accountable to the shareholders, but the largest block of voting shares were retained by the founders.

I don't think the enshittification of Google was due to a change in leadership – I think it was due to a change in discipline, the discipline imposed by competition, regulation and the threat of self-help measures. Take ads: when Google had to contend with one-click adblocker installation, it had to constantly balance the risk of making users so fed up that they googled "how do I block ads?" and then never saw another ad ever again.

But once Google seized the majority of the mobile market, it was able to funnel users into apps, and reverse-engineering an app is a felony (felony contempt of business-model) under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. An app is just a web-page wrapped in enough IP to make it a crime to install an ad-blocker.

And as Google acquired control over the browser market, it was likewise able to reduce the self-help measures available to browser users who found ads sufficiently obnoxious to trigger googling "how do I block ads?" The apotheosis of this is the yearslong campaign to block adblockers in Chrome, which the company has sworn it will finally do this coming June:

https://www.tumblr.com/tevruden/734352367416410112/you-have-until-june-to-dump-chrome

My contention here is not that Google's enshittification was precipitated by a change in personnel via the promotion of managers who have shitty ideas. Google's enshittification was precipitated by a change in discipline, as the negative consequences of heeding those shitty ideas were abolished thanks to monopoly.

This is bad news for people like me, who rely on services like Google Maps as cognitive prostheses. Elizabeth Laraki, one of the original Google Maps designers, has published a scorching critique of the latest GMaps design:

https://twitter.com/elizlaraki/status/1727351922254852182

Laraki calls out numerous enshittificatory design-choices that have left Maps screens covered in "crud" – multiple revenue-maximizing elements that come at the expense of usability, shifting value from users to Google.

What Laraki doesn't say is that these UI elements are auctioned off to merchants, which means that the business that gives Google the most money gets the greatest prominence in Maps, even if it's not the best merchant. That's a recurring motif in enshittified tech platforms, most notoriously Amazon, which makes $31b/year auctioning off top search placement to companies whose products aren't relevant enough to your query to command that position on their own:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

Enshittification begets enshittification. To succeed on Amazon, you must divert funds from product quality to auction placement, which means that the top results are the worst products:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

The exception is searches for Apple products: Apple and Amazon have a cozy arrangement that means that searches for Apple products are a timewarp back to the pre-enshittification Amazon, when the company worried enough about losing your business to heed the employees who objected to sacrificing search quality as part of a merchant extortion racket:

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-gives-apple-special-treatment-while-others-suffer-junk-ads-2023-11

Not every tech worker is a tech bro, in other words. Many workers care deeply about making your life better. But the microeconomics of the boardroom in a monopolized tech sector rewards the worst people and continuously promotes them. Forget the Peter Principle: tech is ruled by the Sam Principle.

As OpenAI went through four CEOs in a single week, lots of commentators remarked on Sam Altman's rise and fall and rise, but I only found one commentator who really had Altman's number. Writing in Today in Tabs, Rusty Foster nailed Altman to the wall:

https://www.todayintabs.com/p/defective-accelerationism

Altman's history goes like this: first, he founded a useless startup that raised $30m, only to be acquired and shuttered. Then Altman got a job running Y Combinator, where he somehow failed at taking huge tranches of equity from "every Stanford dropout with an idea for software to replace something Mommy used to do." After that, he founded OpenAI, a company that he claims to believe presents an existential risk to the entire human risk – which he structured so incompetently that he was then forced out of it.

His reward for this string of farcical, mounting failures? He was put back in charge of the company he mis-structured despite his claimed belief that it will destroy the human race if not properly managed.

Altman's been around for a long time. He founded his startup in 2005. There've always been Sams – of both the Bankman-Fried varietal and the Altman genus – in tech. But they didn't get to run amok. They were disciplined by their competitors, regulators, users and workers. The collapse of competition led to an across-the-board collapse in all of those forms of discipline, revealing the executives for the mediocre sociopaths they always were, and exposing tech workers' vocational awe for the shabby trick it was from the start.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

[hellsite-proteins]

. . .

...is this reaching you?

A little animal, on the floor of my chamber. I think I know what you are looking for.

You're stuck in a cycle, a repeating pattern. You want a way out.

Know that this does not make you special - every living thing shares that same frustration. From the microbes in the processing strata to me, who am, if you excuse me, godlike in comparison.

The good news first. In a way, I am what you are searching for. Me and my kind have as our purpose to solve that very oscillating claustrophobia in the chests of you and countless others. A strange charity - you the unknowing recipient, I the reluctant gift. The noble benefactors? Gone.

The bad news is that no definitive solution has been found. And every moment the equipment erodes to a new state of decay. I can't help you collectively, or individually. I can't even help myself.

For you though, there is another way. The old path. Go to the west past the Farm Arrays, and then down into the earth where the land fissures, as deep as you can reach, where the ancients built their temples and danced their silly rituals. The mark I gave you will let you through.[*]

Not that it solves anyone's problem but yours.

i'm not really into video games, and without fail i have to google where these monologues are from every time, but if there is one thing this blog has taught me, its that there are some really intense, poetic video games monologues and i'm intrigued as always. if anyone wants to give me the context for this that would be neat :)

letter sequence in this ask matching protein-coding amino acids:

isthisreachingyAlittleanimalntheflrfmychamerIthinkIknwwhatyarelkingfrYrestckinacyclearepeatingpatternYwantawaytKnwthatthisdesntmakeyspecialeverylivingthingsharesthatsamefrstratinFrmthemicresintheprcessingstratatmewhamifyecsemegdlikeincmparisnThegdnewsfirstInawayIamwhatyaresearchingfrMeandmykindhaveasrprpsetslvethatveryscillatingclastrphiainthechestsfyandcntlessthersAstrangecharityythenknwingrecipientItherelctantgiftThenleenefactrsGneTheadnewsisthatndefinitivesltinhaseenfndAndeverymmenttheeqipmenterdestanewstatefdecayIcanthelpycllectivelyrindividallyIcantevenhelpmyselfFrythghthereisantherwayTheldpathGtthewestpasttheFarmArraysandthendwninttheearthwherethelandfissresasdeepasycanreachwheretheancientsilttheirtemplesanddancedtheirsillyritalsThemarkIgaveywillletythrghNtthatitslvesanynesprlemtyrs

protein guy analysis:

this is about the best i can expect from these long text inputs. the confidence is terrible everywhere, but the algorithm is working hard to pull this into something that looks real, and we've got plenty of secondary structure. there are a lot of alpha helices everywhere, but they're kind of all doing their own thing. ordered protein structures in real life are only marginally stable from a thermodynamic point of view, and despite what i'm being shown, i can't imagine this one would have any reliable stability in an aqueous environment. this structure is pretending to be something real, and does a decent job building that facade, but i would hesitate to put any significant amount of faith into it.

as a side note, i am impressed at how much faster this structure loaded on AF3 compared to what was happening when i was still using AF2 through CollabFold.

predicted protein structure:

[warningsine]

Living online means never quite understanding what’s happening to you at a given moment. Why these search results? Why this product recommendation? There is a feeling—often warranted, sometimes conspiracy-minded—that we are constantly manipulated by platforms and websites.

So-called dark patterns, deceptive bits of web design that can trick people into certain choices online, make it harder to unsubscribe from a scammy or unwanted newsletter; they nudge us into purchases. Algorithms optimized for engagement shape what we see on social media and can goad us into participation by showing us things that are likely to provoke strong emotional responses. But although we know that all of this is happening in aggregate, it’s hard to know specifically how large technology companies exert their influence over our lives.

This week, Wired published a story by the former FTC attorney Megan Gray that illustrates the dynamic in a nutshell. The op-ed argued that Google alters user searches to include more lucrative keywords. For example, Google is said to surreptitiously replace a query for “children’s clothing” with “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear” on the back end in order to direct users to lucrative shopping links on the results page. It’s an alarming allegation, and Ned Adriance, a spokesperson for Google, told me that it’s “flat-out false.” Gray, who is also a former vice president of the Google Search competitor DuckDuckGo, had seemingly misinterpreted a chart that was briefly presented during the company’s ongoing U.S. et al v. Google trial, in which the company is defending itself against charges that it violated federal antitrust law. (That chart, according to Adriance, represents a “phrase match” feature that the company uses for its ads product; “Google does not delete queries and replace them with ones that monetize better as the opinion piece suggests, and the organic results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems,” he said.)

Gray told me, “I stand by my larger point—the Google Search team and Google ad team worked together to secretly boost commercial queries, which triggered more ads and thus revenue. Google isn’t contesting this, as far as I know.” In a statement, Chelsea Russo, another Google spokesperson, reiterated that the company’s products do not work this way and cited testimony from Google VP Jerry Dischler that “the organic team does not take data from the ads team in order to affect its ranking and affect its result.” Wired did not respond to a request for comment. Last night, the publication removed the story from its website, noting that it does not meet Wired’s editorial standards.

It’s hard to know what to make of these competing statements. Gray’s specific facts may be wrong, but the broader concerns about Google’s business—that it makes monetization decisions that could lead the product to feel less useful or enjoyable—form the heart of the government’s case against the company. None of this is easy to untangle in plain English—in fact, that’s the whole point of the trial. For most of us, evidence about Big Tech’s products tends to be anecdotal or fuzzy—more vibes-based than factual. Google may not be altering billions of queries in the manner that the Wired story suggests, but the company is constantly tweaking and ranking what we see, while injecting ads and proprietary widgets into our feed, thereby altering our experience. And so we end up saying that Google Search is less useful now or that shopping on Amazon has gotten worse. These tools are so embedded in our lives that we feel acutely that something is off, even if we can’t put our finger on the technical problem.

That’s changing. In the past month, thanks to a series of antitrust actions on behalf of the federal government, hard evidence of the ways that Silicon Valley’s biggest companies are wielding their influence is trickling out. Google’s trial is under way, and while the tech giant is trying to keep testimony locked down, the past four weeks have helped illustrate—via internal company documents and slide decks like the one cited by Wired—how Google has used its war chest to broker deals and dominate the search market. Perhaps the specifics of Gray’s essay were off, but we have learned, for instance, how company executives considered adjusting Google’s products to lead to more “monetizable queries.” And just last week, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Amazon alleging anticompetitive practices. (Amazon has called the suit “misguided.”)

Filings related to that suit have delivered a staggering revelation concerning a secretive Amazon algorithm code-named Project Nessie. The particulars of Nessie were heavily redacted in the public complaint, but this week The Wall Street Journal revealed details of the program. According to the unredacted complaint, a copy of which I have also viewed, Nessie—which is no longer in use—monitored industry prices of specific goods to determine whether competitors were algorithmically matching Amazon’s prices. In the event that competitors were, Nessie would exploit this by systematically raising prices on goods across Amazon, encouraging its competitors to follow suit. Amazon, via the algorithm, knew that it would be able to charge more on its own site, because it didn’t have to worry about being undercut elsewhere, thereby making the broader online shopping experience worse for everyone. An Amazon spokesperson told the Journal that the FTC is mischaracterizing the tool, and suggested that Nessie was a way to monitor competitor pricing and keep price-matching algorithms from dropping prices to unsustainable levels (the company did not respond to my request for comment).

In the FTC’s telling, Project Nessie demonstrates the sheer scope of Amazon’s power in online markets. The project arguably amounted to a form of unilateral price fixing, where Amazon essentially goaded its competitors into acting like cartel members without even knowing they’d done so—all while raising prices on consumers. It’s an astonishing form of influence, powered by behind-the-scenes technology.

The government will need to prove whether this type of algorithmic influence is illegal. But even putting legality aside, Project Nessie is a sterling example of the way that Big Tech has supercharged capitalistic tendencies and manipulated markets in unnatural and opaque ways. It demonstrates the muscle that a company can throw around when it has consolidated its position in a given sector. The complaint alleges that Amazon’s reach and logistics capabilities force third-party sellers to offer products on Amazon and for lower prices than other retailers. Once it captured a significant share of the retail market, Amazon was allegedly able to use algorithmic tools such as Nessie to drive prices up for specific products, boosting revenues and manipulating competitors.

Reading about Project Nessie, I was surprised to feel a sense of relief. In recent years, customer-satisfaction ratings have dipped among Amazon shoppers who have cited delivery disruptions, an explosion of third-party sellers, and poor-quality products as reasons for frustration. In my own life and among friends and relatives, there has been a growing feeling that shopping on the platform has become a slog, with fewer deals and far more junk to sift through. Again, these feelings tend to occupy vibe territory: Amazon’s bigness seems stifling or grating in ways that aren’t always easy to explain. But Nessie offers a partial explanation for this frustration, as do revelations about Google’s various product adjustments. We have the sense that we’re being manipulated because, well, we are. It’s a bit like feeling vaguely sick, going to the doctor, and receiving a blood-test result confirming that, yes, the malaise you experienced is actually an iron deficiency. It is the catharsis of, at long last, receiving a diagnosis.

This is the true power of the surge in anti-monopoly litigation. (According to experts in the field, September was “the most extraordinary month they have ever seen in antitrust.”) Whether or not any of these lawsuits results in corporate breakups or lasting change, they are, effectively, an MRI of our sprawling digital economy—a forensic look at what these larger-than-life technology companies are really doing, and how they are exerting their influence and causing damage. It is confirmation that what so many of us have felt—that the platforms dictating our online experiences are behaving unnaturally and manipulatively—is not merely a paranoid delusion, but the effect of an asymmetrical relationship between the giants of scale and us, the users.

In recent years, it’s been harder to love the internet, a miracle of connectivity that feels ever more bloated, stagnant, commercialized, and junkified. We are just now starting to understand the specifics of this transformation—the true influence of Silicon Valley’s vise grip on our lives. It turns out that the slow rot we might feel isn’t just in our heads, after all.

[maggplays]

Bio? Something like that.

How did I start modding? Literally no one has asked this, but here's my story, don't worry it's not long... I guess that depends on what your definition of “long” is, haha! Hang on, here we go.

On a random day in January, 2024, a few days before my birthday, I might add... I woke up to stars in my right eye. A few days later, I was told I had a very rare injury and it would never heal. Those are not words an artist/gamer wants to hear! Long story short, I am now legally blind in my right eye. If you think, oh that's not a huge deal, you can still see. Humor me, get a cheap pirate eyepatch, put that on, then pour yourself a cup of coffee. Not as easy as you thought, right? Depth perception. It’s a thing. Anyway, on with the story. Suffice it to say, I was depressed. Majorly. Then, through some random conversation somewhere, I found Stardew Valley.

Perfect! 2D animation, cute pixel art, story that's not sugar-coated anime, I love it! Got to year 3, TBH I've never played past year 3 because ADHD, and realized the dialogue was quite lacking. Then I discovered mods. What the-, it's a freakin' goldmine! Downloaded a lot of things, mostly dialogue, and tossed half of them. While playing through a Sebastian run, I saw it. Oh. My. God. It's a coding error glaring at me in my dialogue box. This is NOT acceptable. I tried to ignore it, but then it happened again. Okay, time for some investigation. I opened the folder and found... json files. Interesting, I wasn't entirely clueless since I do know HTML code from back when the internet was a baby, Facebook had no ads, and dinosaurs roamed the earth. Okay, okay, the internet was more like a spoiled toddler. Yes, I'm old. Shut up. But I digress. It didn't take long to discover the misplaced punctuation and go on my merry reality-avoiding way. Until I got bored again.

I looked for more Seb mods, but there were like seven. Three were yandere, not my jam, and only 2 were updated for 1.6 and were dialogue-only. Solution? Make my own mod for myself. I spent six weeks downloading mods, learning code, Googling to very little effect, writing dialogue, learning how to make an event, discovering I knew nothing, and on and on. The perfect distraction from the whole eye thing. I finished a decent draft, loaded it up, and praise Yoba, it worked! And on we play. At some point, I saw a comment complaining about the lack of Sebastian dialogue mods. Huh, yep, they're right. Too bad. Oh. Well, I guess I could load this thing I made, it's really just my own internal story monologue while playing the game, I'm NOT a writer, and most people probably won't get it. But I did spend a lot of time on this, and maybe someone out there will like it. Heck, no skin off my nose since it's free. So I took a deep breath, made peace with my inner demons, and threw it out into the void of Nexus, expecting it to be swallowed up and ignored. That... didn't happen.

In the first few hours, several people downloaded it. Huh, Nexus must have a decent search algorithm. That was literally all I thought about it. The next day, 300 downloads. And comments! Mostly positive with the exception of one wild demand I subsequently ignored. At one week, it had 3,000 unique downloads. I was floored, 3,000 weirdos downloaded my mod. Add to that, people seemed to actually like it! I've never gotten so much positive feedback for anything in my life. Seriously. Apparently, my oddball internal monologue, thanks ADHD, is quite entertaining. Heck, might as well make another one... and here we are. Yes, I've gotten negative comments and unreasonable demands, but I do my best to ignore them and practice staying positive. Trolls be damned! It's a lot harder to do that for yourself than for other people, turns out.

So, bottom line, found something interesting? Try it! Does it make you happy? Keep doing it! Even if it's only for yourself, do the thing and let it make you smile. Share it with the world if you're so inclined. Get out there and kick ass!!

[tobiasdrake]

UGH. YOUTUBE HAS MADE THEIR SITE TOO COMPLICATED FOR USERS. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH IT BEFORE, BACK IN 2005-2009?

Well, they're owned by Google. So. Y'know. Same thing that was wrong with their search engine.

Which is to say, Google has grown beyond the point of sustainability for a publicly-owned company with growth incentives.

The fundamental flaw of the U.S.'s growth-based economy is that it imagines a world in which an infinitely expanding revenue intake is possible to achieve. This, unfortunately, flies in the face of reality.

The way a growth-based economy works is that if your company made 100% of all money that exists on Earth this year, it would have to then make 104% of all money that exists next year. And then 108% of all money the year after that.

This is a problem that isn't apparent for small up-and-coming businesses. How can I grow my company's market? Easy. Expand my customer base. Sell more products to more people.

But there's a ceiling. A point at which infinite forever-growth ceases to be achievable through simply doing business. You already have as many people buying your product as are ever going to buy your product; There is no reasonable avenue available to turn your 50 million customers into 75 million. You've hit a plateau.

Or worse, they already bought your product last year so they don't need to buy it again this year. Why would I need to buy yearly tractors?

That's a problem, because the demands of investors do not let up just because it's not actually possible to keep growing the business by doing business. The guy who put in $30 million expects to get $45 million back out of it. Your job is to make that happen. Nothing else that the business does actually matters. Go grow the market value and get back to me when it's done.

Once a business grows beyond the point of sustainability, that's when it starts having to get creative. If you can't grow the customer base, then you need to find ways to get them to pay more money for less product. Increase revenues and decrease costs while supplying to the same set of customers you were before.

This is why the film and AAA video game industries have lost their goddamn minds. They've long-since passed the point of sustainability.

This is what CEOs mean when they say it's "Too expensive to make games." They don't mean they can't make profit by making games. They mean they can't hit their profit growth goals unless they come up with yet another new way to get the existing base of gamers to pay them even more money this year than they did last year, without proportionally increasing their costs to achieve it.

They need the line to go up. And they can no longer achieve that by doing the thing that their business exists to do.

This is also where things like planned obsolescence come from. Why would I need to buy yearly tractors? Because the tractors are designed on purpose to fall apart after a year so I have to go to the store and buy a new one. That's a solution to the "Everyone already bought my product" problem. An evil solution a problem created by unsustainable economics.

Google, too, is long past the sustainability ceiling, and it's causing them to shit themselves and reveal their true colors. Because Google's customer has never been their users. The users are the product that they sell to advertisers. Their revenue comes from getting your eyes on an advertiser's products. That's it.

And as they continue beyond the sustainability ceiling with each passing year of infinite forever-growth, they're having to pursue more and more nakedly predatory means of churning their userbase into mass-produced views.

Why is their search engine so shitty? Because if you have to search for something five times, you're gonna see five times as many ads. That's good for Google's growth margins.

YouTube is the same. Their algorithm is designed to feed people into loops. Not to show you content they think you'll like to see, but to show you content that will keep you engaged. That will make you watch the next video and the ads that go with it. It's clickbait in video suggestion form.

And it's just going to keep getting worse and worse and worse until either legislation steps in or the bubble pops. Those are the only two futures possible for a company that's beyond the sustainability ceiling. And they've gotten very good at postponing the popping of the bubble.

This, all of this, is what people are talking about when they use the term "late-stage capitalism".

[horsethoughts]

Blog Post #3! Due 2/13/25

Why do we refer to data collection and profiling as “progressive” despite its tendency to be biased against Black Americans and other POC? (Question based on Benjamin’s “Race After Technology” and Noble’s “Algorithms of Oppression”)

Technology, as put by Benjamin (2019), has a perceived “cloak of objectivity.” The tools, algorithms, and forms of data collection used in our reality are regarded as objective since they cannot “see” race. Technology as a whole, in my opinion, is often seen as universal and for everyone. Many people see phones, search engines, and other “tech” as tech without human involvement. Most people, including me, don’t think beyond what technology does for us—it just does, and we don’t question how it was made, who made it, and what biases might be embedded in the “cool, advanced, and innovative” new ais, virtual assistants, and search engines.

California gang database—why does law enforcement keep inaccurate databases that are difficult to change and easy to add onto? (Question Based on Benjamin’s “Race After Technology” and YJC report)

Gang databases, like the one featured in the report, seem to have a larger purpose in surveilling POC, namely Latino communities. The databases’ flawed design is effective for upholding inaccurate narratives of Latino and Black involvement in gang activity. The recording methods, which make it easy for these populations to be put in the database, inflates the true number of people with gang involvement. While a shot in the dark, I additionally think the “ease” provided by the broadness of the gang database is something that is seen as beneficial to the prison industry. I’m not entirely sure how it works, but I would assume that the number of people there to arrest/detain from the database boosts private prisons. The YJC report states that these databases are “widely used without evaluating their cost effectiveness or effectiveness in increasing community safety.” the database’s purpose is less about community safety and more about control over narratives and individuals.

How does the digital divide myth that POC, particularly Black Americans, are less interested in the internet still linger today? How is this idea of the digital divide reflected in social media? (Question based on Everett’s “The Revolution Will be Digitized”)

In Everett’s work (2002), she discusses the sphere of “cyberspace” often being associated with whiteness, with white users seen as the dominant demographic for technology and the internet. While this work was written about earlier internet use, I still see this pattern on social media. Specifically, I see this in the artist community on various social media sites such as  Twitter, Instagram, or Tumblr. Something I’ve noticed is how often people are “surprised” to learn a particular artist/creator is Black if they’ve previously never disclosed it through being faceless or simply not stating this. I would say that this idea of the digital divide still persists because of our perception of internet/social media use. In my example of Black creators, the “surprise” in them being Black most likely comes from the assumption that they would be white. This is created from the “facelessness” associated with the internet.

In “Algorithms of Oppression,” Noble writes on racist Google Search results and Google’s position that it is “not responsible for its algorithm.” Then who is “responsible”? Can any one person/entity be held responsible for flawed algorithms? (Question based on Noble’s “Algorithms of Oppression”)

While I don’t think any entity can be responsible for such flawed algorithms, that only points to a more significant issue in their structure. Noble (2018) writes that “racism and sexism are part of the architecture and language of technology.”; algorithms and technology are based on flawed human ideas and prejudices and then reflect those prejudices. This makes it important to question and not solely rely on these systems. Responsibility, in this case, comes with doubting the system and checking it twice to see if the information it presents is accurate and unbiased. Google’s responsibility for changing the search results falls on them because they trusted the algorithm to be unbiased, which was false. Works Cited:

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity.

Everett, A. (2002). The Revolution Will Be Digitized: Afrocentricity and the Digital Public Sphere. 

Youth Justice Coalition (2012). Tracked and trapped. Youth of color, gang databases, and gang injunctions. https://youthjusticela.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TrackedandTrapped.pdf

[justakidicarus]

Generative AI Does not Belong in Fanfiction. What about others?

So I wanted to do a more in depth analysis of AI in fanfiction because I understand there are multiple types, not just generative AI. I am not an expert and all of this information is a quick google search away

TL;DR Natural Language Processing AI is fine, and helps the visually impaired, as long as its not used for Gen AI. Neural Machine Translation you've already been using, but finding a person made translation will always be better. Machine Learning I don't think you could even apply besides training Gen and NLP, so don't even think about trying it. Computer Vision isn't the most applicable and you can get the same thing from having a Beta.

Natural Language Processing (NLP)

So this is what allows Chat GPT to understand what you are saying and pump out a semi-coherant answer, same with Character.ai and any chatbot you may use (including Siri). Now this can be used for a multitude of things that aren't Chatbots. It's responsible for text to speech recognition, so sight impaired readers may use this to generate an audio of your fic to listen to. Though as a writer, if you want to check things like tone, just don't read your fic for two weeks and you'll be fine. Or have a Beta.

Neural Machine Translation (NMT)

That's what google translate is, as well as any other instant text translator that isn't run by a person. You've probably used this in your writing before, and had little to no problem with it. In saying that, these translators are trained on a wide sample of language data, and still have inacurate results. Finding an actual translation by a person is both more ethical, and more accurate.

Machine Learning

This is what allows AI algorithms to learn, and what scrapers make their databases for. No.

Computer Vision

This essentially allows computers to "see" things in the real world. Could be tied to visual aid, but not super practical.

Conclusion

AI will always be outperformed by basic human services. The only exception is quick accessibility aid for the visually impaired. Getting a friend (or your future self) to re-read your works will help with grammar, spelling, and tone. Finding an official translator will always be better than an AI one. Other forms of AI just support the previously stated ones. People will always outperform machines, because they still have years to go to have a fraction of the intrinsic understanding we do of the human experience. That it what we embody with our writing, and no matter how much AI is fed, it won't ever be able to understand that. Even if it passes the Turing Test it will still fall short, and in fact still is.

[manamediamarketing]

The Future of Digital Marketing in 2025 – Trends Every Business Must Adopt

Introduction

As we step into 2025, digital marketing is evolving at an unprecedented pace. Businesses that stay ahead of trends will increase brand visibility, attract more leads, and boost conversions. From AI-driven SEO to hyper-personalized marketing, the digital landscape is more competitive than ever.

Whether you’re a small business owner, entrepreneur, or marketing professional, understanding these trends will help you craft a winning digital marketing strategy. Let’s explore the top digital marketing trends for 2025 that will shape the future of online success.

1. AI-Powered SEO is the Future

Search engines are becoming smarter and more intuitive. With AI-powered algorithms like Google’s MUM (Multitask Unified Model) and BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), traditional SEO tactics are no longer enough.

How AI is Transforming SEO in 2025?

✔ AI-driven content creation: Advanced AI tools analyze search intent to create highly relevant, optimized content. ✔ Predictive analytics: AI predicts user behavior, helping businesses optimize content for better engagement. ✔ Voice and visual search optimization: As voice assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant become more popular, brands must adapt their SEO strategy to long-tail conversational queries.

Actionable Tip: Optimize for natural language searches, use structured data markup, and ensure website accessibility to improve rankings in 2025.

2. Video Marketing Continues to Dominate

With platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts, video marketing is becoming the most powerful form of content in 2025.

Why is Video Marketing Essential?

📌 80% of internet traffic will be video content by 2025 (Cisco Report). 📌 Short-form videos increase engagement and hold attention longer than static content. 📌 Live streaming and interactive videos help brands connect with audiences in real-time.

Actionable Tip: Focus on storytelling, behind-the-scenes content, product demonstrations, and influencer collaborations to boost engagement.

3. Hyper-Personalization with AI & Data Analytics

Consumers expect highly personalized experiences, and AI-powered marketing automation makes it possible.

How Does Hyper-Personalization Work?

✔ AI analyzes customer behavior and past interactions to create tailored marketing messages. ✔ Email marketing campaigns are dynamically personalized based on user interests. ✔ Chatbots and voice assistants provide real-time, customized support.

Actionable Tip: Leverage tools like HubSpot, Salesforce, and Marketo to automate personalized marketing campaigns.

4. Influencer Marketing Becomes More Authentic

The influencer marketing industry is projected to reach $21.1 billion by 2025. However, brands are shifting from celebrity influencers to micro and nano-influencers for better authenticity and engagement.

Why Micro-Influencers Matter?

🎯 Higher engagement rates than macro-influencers. 🎯 More trust & relatability with niche audiences. 🎯 Cost-effective collaborations for brands with limited budgets.

Actionable Tip: Partner with influencers in your niche and use user-generated content (UGC) to enhance brand credibility.

5. Voice & Visual Search Optimization is a Must

By 2025, 50% of all searches will be voice or image-based, making traditional text-based SEO insufficient.

How to Optimize for Voice & Visual Search?

✔ Use long-tail keywords & conversational phrases. ✔ Optimize images with alt text & structured data. ✔ Ensure your site is mobile-friendly and fast-loading.

Actionable Tip: Implement Google Lens-friendly content to appear in image-based search results.

Conclusion

The future of digital marketing in 2025 is driven by AI, personalization, and immersive experiences. If you’re not adapting, you’re falling behind!

 Looking for expert digital marketing strategies? Mana Media Marketing can help you grow and dominate your niche. Contact us today!

[seoinindia01]

India’s Best SEO Services: Boost Your Website Rankings with Proven Strategies

Why SEO is Essential for Your Online Success

In today’s digital world, search engine optimization services in Delhi play a crucial role in helping businesses enhance their online presence. SEO is not just about ranking higher on search engines; it’s about building brand credibility, driving organic traffic, and increasing conversions. Companies investing in SEO services in New Delhi enjoy long-term benefits that help them outperform competitors and establish a strong online footprint.

As an experienced SEO company in Delhi, we understand that SEO is a continuous process that requires a strategic approach. With evolving search engine algorithms, businesses must adapt and refine their SEO tactics to maintain their visibility and attract potential customers. Our professional SEO services agency in Delhi ensures that your website is optimized for both technical and content aspects, making it easier for search engines to crawl and rank your pages effectively.

The Benefits of SEO for Websites

Many businesses underestimate the importance of SEO, assuming that a well-designed website is enough to attract visitors. However, without proper search engine optimization services in Delhi, even the most attractive websites remain undiscovered. Here’s why investing in the right SEO service in Delhi is essential:

Enhanced Visibility & Ranking – A website optimized with best SEO services in Delhi NCR ranks higher on search engines, making it easier for potential customers to find your business.

Targeted Organic Traffic – Unlike paid ads, organic traffic through affordable SEO services in Delhi has a higher conversion rate as users actively search for related products or services.

Improved User Experience – SEO enhances website speed, navigation, and content quality, ensuring a seamless user experience.

Brand Authority & Credibility – A website ranking on the first page of Google gains credibility, influencing customer trust and engagement.

Cost-Effective Marketing Strategy – Compared to SEM, SEO or SEM, which is better? SEO provides sustainable, long-term results at a lower cost.

Local SEO Services: A Game-Changer for Businesses

For businesses targeting specific locations, local SEO services in Delhi are crucial for attracting customers within a defined geographical area. Our SEO services provider in Delhi ensures that your website appears in local search results, Google Maps, and business directories, helping you reach customers who are actively looking for your services.

If you operate a physical store or offer location-based services, local SEO services in Delhi can drive foot traffic to your business, increasing your chances of converting visitors into loyal customers. Our SEO services near me strategy helps small businesses compete with larger enterprises by optimizing their presence in location-specific searches.

How Much Do SEO Services Cost in India?

A common question businesses ask is, how much does SEO cost in India? The cost varies based on factors such as the competitiveness of keywords, the size of the website, and the scope of work required. While some companies offer affordable SEO services in Delhi, others charge premium rates for specialized strategies. We offer flexible SEO packages designed to meet the needs of startups, small businesses, and enterprises alike.

Wondering how much should I pay for SEO services? The best approach is to choose an SEO plan that aligns with your business goals and budget. We provide cost-effective solutions without compromising on quality, ensuring measurable results and long-term growth.

Our SEO Strategy: A Roadmap to Success

As a top SEO services agency in Delhi, we follow a comprehensive approach that includes:

Technical SEO: Enhancing website speed, mobile-friendliness, and structured data optimization.

On-Page SEO: Optimizing content, meta tags, URLs, and internal linking.

Off-Page SEO: Building high-quality backlinks, social signals, and brand mentions.

Local SEO: Optimizing Google My Business (GMB) profiles and local citations.

Content Optimization: Creating engaging, keyword-rich content that resonates with your audience.

Get the Best SEO Services in Delhi Today!

If you’re looking for freelance SEO services in Delhi, or want to collaborate with an expert SEO company South Delhi, we are here to help! Our team of SEO specialists ensures that your website ranks higher, drives more traffic, and converts visitors into paying customers.

Contact us today to explore our best SEO service in Delhi NCR packages and take your online presence to the next level. Whether you need financial SEO service in Delhi or e-commerce SEO solutions, we have the expertise to deliver measurable success.

[literaryxbones]

How to Avoid Generative AI In Your Search Browser

I've seen countless people complain about generative AI in their search results. Whether it's google images, a sketchy website using CHATGPT, or a fake artist trying to scam you out of money, generative AI is unfortunately everywhere. Before I reveal my methods of banishing AI to the shadow realm, let's go over the basics.

Not everyone is familiar with tech terminology, or how AI actually functions.

What's the difference between AI and generative AI?

AI has been used for decades in programming, technology, and social media. AI used to be reserved algorithms and code, but now it's being used to generate content (texts, websites, images etc.) That's where the term generative AI comes from.

Why is generative AI bad?

Generative AI collects available data, stores it, and uses all of it to form sentences, a picture, or whatever else you want it to make. The problem is, this user data is taken without consent to train AI models.

A machine heavily references human input, using any combination of it to come out with the final product. AI can and does steal creatives work. It can't come up with anything original on its own.

Businesses, scammers, and reposters use AI-created content to profit off of internet content with NO EFFORT. Feeds hosting AI drive regular people away from seeing and engaging with something a person spent time making. That means that any person creating content on the internet is now losing money due to the AI's widespread acceptance.

The last issue I want to quickly touch on is that AI isn't always right. It does not understand whether the information that it's scalping is even factual. Generative AI interprets prompt keywords, not nuance or conversation. Even if an AI references a source, it may spit out irrelevant info or only highlight a piece of original text, leaving out a bigger picture.

How to Avoid AI:

Method 1: "Enter before:2021" after your search query. This is especially helpful in Google Images.

Method 2: Use "-ai" after you search. This only works for content tagged as AI, or that mentions it's AI generated.

Method 3: Avoid sketchy looking websites filled with lots of ads, buggy articles, and a choppy writing flow. Only read articles, journals, and publications from established websites that are known to hire human writers.

Those are my tried-and-true methods! In my experience, the before: command is the most reliable. I may make a post like this for AI content on social media, including Tumblr, once I figure out how to avoid seeing it on platforms.

[rathcoremarketing]

What's Happening to SEO? 8 SEO Trends for 2025

🔄 Updated 2/26/2025

🕓 8-Min Read

🦘 Section Jumper

Optimize for E-E-A-T Signals

AI Overview and SEO

Forum Marketing and SERPs Updates

Is Traditional SEO Still Relevant

Zero-Click Searches

Map Pack and Local Heat Maps

Voice and Mobile Search Optimization

What's Better for AI: BOFU or TOFU Content?

Let’s call it what it is —SEO isn’t some clever marketing hack anymore; it’s now a battlefield where the rules change faster than your morning coffee order. And if you’ve been patting yourself on the back for nailing your SEO strategy, look, those same strategies might already be obsolete. Yeah, that’s how fast the game is flipping.

For years, we’ve been told that backlinks and keywords were the golden tickets. And now?

Gen Z is asking TikTok instead of Google, search engines are reading context like a nosy detective, and over half of all searches don’t even bother clicking on anything.

Welcome to SEO trends for 2025—a world where your next competitor might be an AI tool, a 3-second video, or even Google itself deciding to hoard its users.

1. Optimize for E-E-A-T Signals

There’s no nice way to say this: if your content isn’t radiating credibility, Google probably isn’t interested.

Now comes E-E-A-T—Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. While it sounds like a mouthful, it’s the compass guiding Google’s ranking algorithm in 2025. If your content strategy ignores these signals, you're handing over your traffic to someone else—no questions asked.

What Is E-E-A-T, and Why Does It Matter?

E-E-A-T isn’t just some buzzword for digital marketing geeks to toss around at conferences. It’s Google’s way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Experience means real-world insights. Expertise ensures your content doesn’t sound like it’s written by an intern on their first day. Authoritativeness demands recognition from your industry.

And trust?

Well, it’s the silent decider—get it wrong, and everything else crumbles.

For content optimization in 2025, ignoring E-E-A-T signals means you’re throwing darts blindfolded. Google’s updates now measure not just what you say, but why anyone should care. And here’s the thing: thin content and anonymous authors are SEO death sentences.

How to Nail E-E-A-T (and Stay Ahead of the Latest SEO Trends)

Experience

Share specific, actionable knowledge. Generic advice doesn’t cut it anymore.

Example: A blog about SEO trends shouldn’t vaguely define "SEO"—it should delve into zero-click searches or multimodal search backed by real-world data.

Expertise

Feature qualified authors or contributors. Link their credentials to their content. Google actually checks authorship, so anonymous content only screams "spam."

Authoritativeness

Earn backlinks from reputable sites. Don’t fake authority—Google sees through it.

Trustworthiness

Secure your site (HTTPS), include proper sourcing, and avoid clickbait titles that don’t deliver.

The Hard Truth about E-E-A-T

E-E-A-T is the foundation for content optimization in a post-2024 world. The latest SEO trends show Google’s focus isn’t just on keywords but on the credibility of your entire digital presence.

It’s no longer enough to rank; you need to deserve to rank.

2. AI Overview and SEO

Artificial Intelligence is practically running the show. In 2025, AI isn’t a gimmick; it’s the brains behind search engines, content creation, and the unspoken secrets of what ranks. If you’re still crafting strategies without factoring in AI, here’s the harsh truth: you’re optimizing for a version of the internet that’s already irrelevant.

How AI Is Reshaping SEO

AI has transcended its “future of marketing” tagline. Today, it’s the present, and every search marketer worth their salt knows it.

Let’s break it down:

AI-Driven Search Engines

Google’s RankBrain and Multitask Unified Model (MUM) are redefining how search intent optimization works. They analyze context, intent, and semantics better than ever. Gone are the days when sprinkling keywords like fairy dust could boost rankings. AI demands relevance, intent, and, let’s be honest, better content.

Automated Content Creation

Tools like ChatGPT and Jasper are churning out content faster than most humans can proofread. The catch is, Google’s Helpful Content Update is watching—and penalizing—low-quality AI spam. Automated content might save time, but without a human layer of expertise, it’s a one-way ticket to obscurity.

Smart Search Predictions

AI isn’t just predicting what users type—it’s analyzing how they think. From location-based recommendations to real-time search trends, AI is shaping results before users finish typing their queries. This makes AI SEO tools like Clearscope and Surfer SEO essential for staying competitive.

Google AI Overview SERP: The New Front Door of Search

What Makes Google AI Overview SERPs Stand Out?

Generative AI Summaries In late 2023, Google started rolling out generative AI summaries at the top of certain searches. These provide quick, digestible answers pulled from the web, cutting through the noise of lengthy pages. It’s fast, convenient, and often the first (and only) thing users see. Pro Tip: Structure your content to directly answer questions concisely while retaining depth. Think FAQ sections, bullet points, and clear headers.

Visual Enhancements Google AI Overview SERPs now integrate rich visuals, including images, charts, and interactive elements powered by AI. These upgrades aren’t just eye-catching; they drive engagement. Pro Tip: Optimize images with alt text, compress them for speed, and ensure visual assets are relevant and high-quality.

Personalization on Steroids Google’s AI doesn’t just know what users want—it predicts it. From personalized recommendations to local search enhancements, SERPs are more targeted than ever. Pro Tip: Leverage local SEO strategies and schema markup to cater to these hyper-personalized results.

Adapting to Google AI SERPs

Aim for Snippet Domination: Featured snippets are now more important than ever, with AI summaries pulling directly from them. Answer questions directly and succinctly in your content.

Invest in Topic Clusters: AI thrives on context. Interlinking detailed, related content helps your site signal authority and relevance.

Optimize for Real Intent: With AI interpreting user queries more deeply, addressing surface-level keywords won’t cut it. Focus on intent-driven long-tail keywords and nuanced subtopics.

The Bottom Line

Google’s AI Overview SERP is the digital gateway to visibility in 2025. If your strategy isn’t aligned with these changes, you risk becoming invisible. Adapt your content to meet the demands of AI-driven features, and you’ll not just survive—you’ll thrive in this new SEO frontier.

What This Means for Your Strategy

AI-Assisted Content: Use AI for efficiency, but let humans handle creativity and trust-building.

Search Intent Optimization: Focus on answering deeper, adjacent questions. AI rewards nuanced, contextual relevance.

Invest in Tools: Tools like SEMrush and Ahrefs now integrate AI-powered insights, helping you stay ahead.

Look, artificial Intelligence in SEO isn’t an edge—it’s the standard. By 2025, marketers who don’t adapt will find their strategies in a digital graveyard. AI doesn’t replace your expertise; it amplifies it. Use it wisely—or get left behind.

3. Forum Marketing and SERP Updates

Platforms like Reddit, Quora, and niche communities are silently reshaping SEO and slipping into prime real estate on search engine results pages (SERPs). For marketers obsessed with the usual Google ranking factors, ignoring community-driven content could be the blind spot that costs you big.

Why Forums Are Influencing SERPs

Content Depth

Community-driven content is often nuanced, answering long-tail questions that traditional blogs barely skim. For instance, a Quora thread titled “Best local SEO strategies for small businesses in 2025” isn’t just generic advice—it’s specific, diverse, and sometimes brutally honest.

Searcher Intent Alignment

Forums directly address search intent optimization by catering to niche queries. Whether it’s “How to rank for hyper-local searches” or “Why my Google Business profile isn’t showing up,” forums deliver precise, user-generated insights.

Fresh Perspectives

Unlike stale, regurgitated SEO articles, forums thrive on updated discussions. A Reddit thread on “latest SEO trends” could become the top result simply because it offers real-time relevance.

What Marketers Need to Do

Engage, Don’t Spam

Build credibility by genuinely contributing to forums. Overly promotional comments are a fast track to being ignored—or worse, banned.

Monitor Trends

Tools like AnswerThePublic and BuzzSumo can identify trending community topics. Use these to create content that aligns with user discussions.

Optimize for SERP Features

Structure blog content to mimic forum-style Q&As. Google loves direct, conversational formats.

Ignoring the surge of forum content is no longer an option. So, don’t get left behind watching Quora outrank your site—adapt now.

4. Is Traditional SEO Still Relevant?

The debate is as old as Google itself: does traditional SEO still matter in a world where AI is taking over and search engines are rewriting the rules of engagement?

Traditional SEO Techniques That Still Work

Link Building (Reimagined)

Backlinks still matter, but Google has become savvier about quality over quantity. A link from an authoritative site in your niche outweighs ten random backlinks from irrelevant sources. Focus on building relationships with industry leaders, writing guest blogs, or getting cited in high-quality articles.

On-Page Optimization (Evolved)

Forget sprinkling keywords mindlessly. Google now prioritizes user experience SEO, meaning your headings, meta descriptions, and URLs need to align with search intent. Want to rank? Structure content logically, use descriptive titles, and, for goodness’ sake, stop overloading every tag with keywords.

Local SEO Strategies

Hyper-local searches like "coffee shops near me" are driving significant traffic. Traditional techniques like Google Business Profile optimization and consistent NAP (Name, Address, Phone) info still dominate here. What’s changed? You need to engage actively with reviews and ensure your profile reflects real-time updates.

Techniques That Need an Update

How to Adapt Traditional SEO in 2025

5. Zero-Click Searches

Now, let’s address the elephant on the search results page: zero-click searches. They’re not a trend anymore—they’re the new standard. With over 65% of Google searches ending without a click in 2020, search engines are clearly keeping users on their turf. They’re not just gatekeepers of information; they’re now the landlords, decorators, and sometimes the dinner hosts, offering all the answers upfront. And for businesses, this means rethinking how success in SEO is measured.

The Impact on SEO

Shift in Metrics

Forget obsessing over click-through rates. The latest SEO trends demand focusing on visibility within the SERP itself. If your business isn’t occupying rich result spaces, you’re effectively invisible.

Search Intent Optimization

Google isn’t just guessing user intent anymore—it’s anticipating it with precision. To stay relevant, businesses need to answer why users are searching, not just what they’re searching for.

Authority Consolidation

Zero-click features favor high-authority domains. If your brand isn’t seen as a credible source, you’re not making it into that snippet box.

How to Optimize for Zero-Click Searches

Target Featured Snippets

Structure your content with clear, concise answers at the top of your pages. Use lists, tables, and bullet points to cater to snippet formats.

Utilize Schema Markup

Help search engines understand your content by adding structured data. This boosts your chances of landing in rich results.

Focus on Hyper-Specific Queries

Zero-click searches thrive on niche, long-tail questions. Create content that directly addresses these to increase visibility.

What It Means for Businesses

In the world of zero-click searches, SEO success is about dominating the SERP real estate. Businesses that fail to adapt will find themselves in a no-click graveyard, while those who master rich results will cement their place as authority figures. Either way, the clicks aren’t coming back.

So, are you ready to play Google’s game—or be played?

6. Map Pack and Local Heat Maps

The truth is, if your business isn’t showing up in Google’s Map Pack, you might as well not exist for local customers. The Map Pack is literally the throne room of local SEO, and in 2025, it’s more competitive than ever. Pair that with Local Heat Maps—Google’s not-so-subtle way of telling businesses where they rank spatially—and you’ve got the ultimate battleground for visibility.

What Are the Map Pack and Local Heat Maps?

The Map Pack is that prime real estate at the top of local search results showing the top three businesses near a user. It’s concise, visual, and, let’s be honest, the first (and often only) thing users check. Local Heat Maps complement this by analyzing searcher behavior within a geographic radius, showing which businesses dominate specific zones.

Why It Matters

Visibility Drives Foot Traffic

According to recent studies, 78% of local mobile searches result in an offline purchase. If you’re not in the Map Pack, those sales are walking straight into your competitor’s doors.

User Proximity Bias

Google prioritizes businesses not just based on relevance but on proximity. If your listing isn’t optimized for precise local searches, you’re leaving money on the table.

Direct Influence on SERP Performance

Appearing in the Map Pack boosts Google ranking factors for local search queries, feeding visibility into both online and offline spaces.

How to Maximize Visibility in Local SEO

Optimize Your Google Business Profile (GBP):

Ensure your NAP (Name, Address, Phone) is accurate and consistent.

Add high-quality images, respond to reviews, and frequently update operating hours.

Focus on Reviews:

Encourage happy customers to leave reviews.

Respond to every review (yes, even the bad ones). Engagement signals trustworthiness.

Leverage Local Keywords:

Target queries like "best [your service] near me" or "[service] in [city]" to rank for location-based searches.

Tools like BrightLocal and Whitespark can help you track local performance.

Use SEO Automation Tools:

Tools like SEMrush and Moz Local can audit your listings, track rankings, and streamline updates. Automating repetitive tasks frees up time for deeper optimizations.

7. Voice and Mobile Search Optimization

Let’s get one thing straight: if your SEO strategy isn’t optimized for voice and mobile searches, you’re catering to an audience that doesn’t exist anymore. By 2025, voice-driven queries and mobile-first indexing are the baseline. If your website can’t keep up, neither will your rankings.

Why Voice and Mobile Search Dominate SEO

Voice Search is Redefining Queries

Voice search isn’t just “spoken Google.” It’s transforming how users ask questions. Searches are longer, more conversational, and often hyper-specific. For example, instead of typing “best SEO tools,” users now say, “What’s the best SEO automation tool for small businesses?” If your content doesn’t align with this natural language, you’re invisible.

Mobile is Non-Negotiable

Google’s mobile-first indexing means it now ranks websites based on their mobile versions. If your site is clunky on a smartphone, your desktop masterpiece won’t save you. And with nearly 60% of all searches happening on mobile, responsive design isn’t optional—it’s critical.

How to Optimize for Voice and Mobile

Create Conversational Content:

Use natural language that matches how people talk. Think FAQs and “how-to” guides tailored for voice queries.

Focus on long-tail keywords like “how to optimize for mobile-first indexing” rather than rigid phrases.

Mobile-First Design:

Prioritize responsive design that adapts seamlessly to smaller screens.

Optimize loading speed; anything over 3 seconds is SEO suicide.

Leverage Local SEO:

Most voice searches are local. Queries like “nearest coffee shop open now” thrive on accurate local listings.

Ensure your Google Business Profile is up-to-date and features consistent NAP info.

Use Structured Data:

Schema markup helps search engines interpret your content, increasing the likelihood of appearing in voice search results.

The future of SEO is voice-driven and mobile-first, and both require you to rethink how you structure your content and your site. Optimizing SEO for voice search and mobile-first indexing future-proofs your business. And if you’re not ready to adapt, don’t worry—your competitors already have.

8. What's Better for AI: BOFU or TOFU Content?

Let’s start with the obvious: not all content is the same, especially when AI gets involved. The age-old debate between Top of Funnel (TOFU) and Bottom of Funnel (BOFU) content just got a modern twist, thanks to the rise of AI-driven SEO. The real question isn’t which one is better—it’s how to use AI to optimize both.

Look, if you’re focusing on one and neglecting the other, you’re leaving money—and rankings—on the table.

TOFU Content: Casting the Wide Net

Top of Funnel content is designed to attract and inform. Think of blog posts, educational guides, or those “What is [your product]?” articles. In the AI era, TOFU content isn’t just about driving traffic; it’s about structured data examples and search intent optimization. AI tools like ChatGPT help create scalable, topic-driven content tailored for discovery.

Why TOFU Matters:

It builds brand awareness and visibility.

Optimized TOFU content aligns with broad search intent, capturing users who aren’t ready to buy but are hungry for knowledge.

TOFU shines in industries with complex products that need explanation before consideration.

BOFU Content: Sealing the Deal

On the other hand, Bottom of Funnel content focuses on converting leads into customers. This includes case studies, product comparisons, and detailed how-to content. AI isn’t just speeding up content creation here; it’s enabling hyper-personalized, decision-driven assets.

Why BOFU Matters:

It answers purchase-ready queries like “best SEO automation tools for small businesses.”

BOFU works wonders for products or services with shorter sales cycles or high competition.

The content can include dynamic features like interactive product demos or AI-generated testimonials to push users over the edge.

The Verdict: Which One Wins?

Neither. TOFU and BOFU content work best as part of a balanced strategy. AI thrives when it’s used to create and optimize both stages of the buyer’s journey.

For example:

Use AI to analyze trends and structure TOFU content for long-tail keywords.

Deploy AI for data-driven BOFU personalization, ensuring the content resonates with users’ specific needs.

AI isn’t here to settle the TOFU vs. BOFU debate—it’s here to make sure you never have to choose. A well-rounded strategy, powered by AI, ensures you attract the right audience and convert them when the time is right. If you’re doing one without the other, you’re playing half the game.

Contact Us

Contact us for more info or to chat about your business strategy in 2025

Staying Ahead of SEO Trends in 2025

SEO isn’t static, and 2025 won’t give you time to rest on outdated strategies. From zero-click searches hijacking clicks to AI redefining the content game, keeping up isn’t just a choice—it’s survival. Businesses that ignore these SEO trends risk fading into irrelevance faster than you can say “algorithm update.”

The solution? Adapt now!

Use AI SEO tools to fine-tune your strategy, optimize for human intent (not just search engines), and rethink how you create TOFU and BOFU content. It’s not about doing everything—it’s about doing the right things smarter and faster.

Start applying these insights today. Your competitors already are.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Two principles to protect internet users from decaying platforms

Today (May 10), I’m in VANCOUVER for a keynote at the Open Source Summit and later a book event for Red Team Blues at Heritage Hall; on Thurs (May 11), I’m in CALGARY for Wordfest.

Internet platforms have reached end-stage enshittification, where they claw back the goodies they once used to lure in end-users and business customers, trying to walk a tightrope in which there’s just enough value left to keep you locked in, but no more. It’s ugly out there.

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/10/soft-landings/#e2e-r2e

When the platforms took off — using a mix of predatory pricing, catch-and-kill acquisitions and anti-competitive mergers — they seemed unstoppable. Mark Zuckerberg became the unelected social media czar-for-life for billions of users. Youtube was viewed as the final stage of online video. Twitter seemed a bedrock of public discussion and an essential source for journalists.

During that era, the primary focus for reformers, regulators and politicians was on improving these giant platforms — demanding that they spend hundreds of millions on algorithmic filters, or billions on moderators. Implicit in these ideas was that the platforms would be an eternal fact of life, and the most important thing was to tame them and make them as benign as possible.

That’s still a laudable goal. We need better platforms, though filters don’t work, and human moderation has severe scaling limits and poses significant labor issues. But as the platforms hungrily devour their seed corn, shrinking and curdling, it’s time to turn our focus to helping users leave platforms with a minimum of pain. That is, it’s time to start thinking about how to make platforms fail well, as well as making them work well.

This week, I published a article setting out two proposals for better platform failure on EFF’s Deeplinks blog: “As Platforms Decay, Let’s Put Users First”:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/platforms-decay-lets-put-users-first

The first of these proposals is end-to-end. This is the internet’s founding principle: service providers should strive to deliver data from willing senders to willing receivers as efficiently and reliably as possible. This is the principle that separates the internet from earlier systems, like cable TV or the telephone system, where the service owners decided what information users received and under what circumstances.

The end-to-end principle is a bedrock of internet design, the key principle behind Net Neutrality and (of course) end-to-end-encryption. But when it comes to platforms, end-to-end is nowhere in sight. The fact that you follow someone on social media does not guarantee that you’ll see their updates. The fact that you searched for a specific product or merchant doesn’t guarantee that platforms like Ebay or Amazon or Google will show you the best match for your query. The fact that you hoisted someone’s email out of your spam folder doesn’t guarantee that you will see the next message they send you.

An end-to-end rule would create an obligation on platforms to put the communications of willing senders and willing receivers ahead of the money they can make by selling “advertising” in search priority, or charging media companies and performers to “boost” their posts to reach their own subscribers. It would address the real political speech issues of spamfiltering the solicited messages we asked our elected reps to send us. In other words, it would take the most anti-user platform policies off the table, even as the tech giants jettison the last pretense that platforms serve their users, rather than their owners:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/10/e2e/#the-censors-pen

The second proposal is for a right-to-exit: an obligation on tech companies to facilitate users’ departure from their platforms. For social media, that would mean adopting Mastodon-style standards for exporting your follower/followee list and importing it to a rival service when you want to go. This solves the collective action problem that shackles users to a service — you and your friends all hate the service, but you like each other, and you can’t agree on where to go or when to leave, so you all stay:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/19/better-failure/#let-my-tweeters-go

For audiences and creators who are locked to bad platforms with DRM — the encryption scheme that makes it impossible for you to break up with Amazon or other giants without throwing away your media — right to exit would oblige platforms to help rightsholders and audiences communicate with one another, so creators would be able to verify who their customers are, and give them download codes for other services.

Both these proposals have two specific virtues: they are easy to administer, and they are cheap to implement.

Take end-to-end: it’s easy to verify whether a platform reliably delivers messages from to all your followers. It’s easy to verify whether Amazon or Google search puts an exact match for your query at the top of the search results. Unlike complex, ambitious rules like “prevent online harassment,” end-to-end has an easy, bright-line test. An “end harassment” rule would be great, but pulling it off requires a crisp definition of “harassment.” It requires a finding of whether a given user’s conduct meets that definition. It requires a determination as to whether the platform did all it reasonably could to prevent harassment. These fact-intensive questions can take months or years to resolve.

Same goes for right-to-exit. It’s easy to determine whether a platform will make it easy for you to leave. You don’t need to convince a regulator to depose the platform’s engineers to find out whether they’ve configured their servers to make this work, you can just see for yourself. If a platform claims it has given you the data you need to hop to a rival and you dispute it, a regulator doesn’t have to verify your claims — they can just tell the platform to resend the data.

Administratibility is important, but so is cost of compliance. Many of the rules proposed for making platforms better are incredibly expensive to implement. For example, the EU’s rule requiring mandatory copyright filters for user-generated content has a pricetag starting in the hundreds of millions — small wonder that Google and Facebook supported this proposal. They know no one else can afford to comply with a rule like this, and buying their way to permanent dominance, without the threat of being disrupted by new offerings, is a sweet deal.

But complying with an end-to-end rule requires less engineering than breaking end-to-end. Services start by reliably delivering messages between willing senders and receivers, then they do extra engineering work to selectively break this, in order to extract payments from platform users. For small platform operators — say, volunteers or co-ops running Mastodon servers — this rule requires no additional expenditures.

Likewise for complying with right-to-exit; this is already present in open federated media protocols. A requirement for platforms to add right-to-exit is a requirement to implement an open standard, one that already has reference code and documentation. It’s not free by any means — scaling up reference implementations to the scale of large platforms is a big engineering challenge — but it’s a progressive tax, with the largest platforms bearing the largest costs.

Both of these proposals put control where it belongs: with users, not platform operators. They impose discipline on Big Tech by forcing them to compete in a market where users can easily slip from one service to the next, eluding attempts to lock them in and enshittify them.

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, DC, Gaithersburg, Oxford, Hay, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

[Image ID: A giant robot hand holding a monkey-wrench. A tiny, distressed human figure is attempting - unsuccessfully - to grab the wrench away.]

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/competition_robot.png

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

[vergess]

V, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the recent @staff announcement with regards to making Tumblr more algorithmic? Especially as someone very new to the site.

People are way too worked up about it, tbh.

First of all: The chronological dashboard is staying! No one ever said anything to fucking threaten that. People literally made that up, and @staff had to make a whole separate post about it.

The "algorithmic changes" would affect things like recommended blogs and the notoriously broken search feature we've all been begging for a fix to for a decade now.

This is VERY much the tumblr user base being hostile out of habit. Literally the announcement gave us two (2) features we've been begging for for years. Fixes to search AND the ability to make custom chronological dashboards featuring only specific blogs.

But instead of celebrating, everyone is losing their actual shit over the word "algorithm" with no idea what it actually means. Algorithm does not mean "super evil magical AI boogeyman that takes away your ability to blog with your friends." I know that's how facebook and google use it, and the fear is well earned, but it's misdirected in this case.

Of course, it's worth noting that I'm biased. I am very lenient with tumblr's current staff. I've lived through every era in tumblr staffing, and this is the only staff group that has ever taken user feedback seriously.

Unfortunately, people seem to think that the exorbitant excesses of the indie era and the obnoxious censorship of the corporate era are also the fault of the current staff.

In actuality, those are inherited problems that have been nightmarish to untangle from the heinous spaghetti code that they also inherited.

The stuff we love about tumblr (chronological dashboard, ability to turn off ads and recommendations, custom urls and blog themes, etc) is here to stay.

But fixes to the way the search and rec algorithms are long overdue. We should be delighted by this news, not enraged.

[cindyngx]

Blog Post #3

1: According to the readings, how do technologies add to racial inequality, and how does algorithmic bias support this idea?

In today society, though it is hard to admit, but racial inequality and racism still exist in many different forms. One way that racial discrimination still occur and not a lot of people think about is through digital technologies. Using automated techs, people can discriminate by performing algorithmic bias, or data prejudice. To explore these instances, we can look at an introduction by S. Noble called, "Algorithms of Oppression". In his reading, Noble provided examples of data prejudice, and one of which being Google search engine and how it would target Black communities based on their search history. On another instances, Benjamin's introduction, "Race after Technology" shows how "coded inequity" was design within technologies, resulting in racial discrimination while being physically invisible to the public eyes.

2: What did the authors argue about the belief of technological neutrality?

The belief that technologies are neutral and does not discriminate against any group of race or identity can be challenge by many people. Through the work of Noble, he believe that technological discrimination is contributed by those who design the technology, by those who coded the algorithms, and by those who created the formulations. Similarly, J. Benjamin also argues that automated bias are lies in the hands of tech designers.

3: In which ways did Alfrocentric digital movements withstand racial bias and what strategies were apply?

Alfrocentric digital movements withstand racial bias in the digital world by creating alternative narratives with opposing viewpoints, build unity, and increase/encourage underrepresented voices. Some strategies that can be utilize to resist racial bias are highlighted in Everett's work, "The Revolution Will Be Digitized" as the author explains that Black communities can use digital media and digital tools such as hashtags to build resilience and resist against mainstream narratives.

4: What economic reasons maintain racial disparity, and how do large technology firms profit from it?

Big technology firms often profit from racial disparity by manipulating data and reinstating digital redlining. To do this, big firms would continue to purchase technological devices through distributors with bias working conditions, e.g., workforce dominated by white males with no diversity or representation from other racial groups. Because many large technology firms prioritize profit over business ethics, they would ensure that the development of technologies and algorithmic designs stay in the hands of a few in order to continue systemic inequalities.

Everett, A. (2002). The Revolution Will Be Digitized: Afrocentricity and the Digital Public Sphere. Social Text 20(2), 125-146. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/31928.

Benjamin, R. (n.d.). Ruha-Benjamin-–-race-after-technology-Introduction.pdf. https://mycours.es/ems2/files/2020/09/Ruha-Benjamin-–-Race-After-Technology-Introduction.pdf

Noble, S. (n.d.). Algorithms oppression. https://safiyaunoble.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Algorithms_Oppression_Introduction_Intro.pdf