Marc

@ecomtryggvi @lilyraynyc Yeah, as much as I hate seeing it, there's a reason "Top 7..." style commodity articles (and videos on YouTube) work - it's because people click on them and they love that crap. The problem is flooding the internet with this garbage creates a bad experience everything's recycled.

Can someone show me "non-commodity" content ranking in Google for any meaningful keywords? If Google was actually any good that type of content would get some meaningful traffic but Google is not smart enough to promote the well researched, fact based non-keyword optimized articels...

Google recently reminded everyone that "non-commodity content" is what wins in search, meaning content with a unique perspective, real E-E-A-T, and genuine lived experience. (BTW, this is an extension of what Google has been promoting in its quality guidelines for years.) I made a half-joke the next day that many marketers' first thought would be: "How can I automate non-commodity content with AI?" Real talk: the entire point of non-commodity content is that it requires what AI alone can't deliver: real human experience, real expertise, real mistakes, real product testing, real opinions, real emotions, etc. These are the kinds of insights that only come from actually living through something, and the valuable "human" stuff that other humans actually want to read. Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines made a change a couple of years back to emphasize the amount of "effort" that goes into building a page. While content creation and scaling have become dramatically easier with AI, I don't see Google's fundamental approach changing much. If anything, this leveling of the technological playing field raises the bar for what truly helpful, original content looks like. If a piece of content can be built with a few button clicks and a 25-minute Claude session, there isn't a lot of effort or originality behind it, even with the best possible workflows and a polished-looking deliverable. Take product review sites as an example - as this is a category where Google has become extremely strict when it comes to evaluating content quality. The better-performing product review sites actually buy the products, test them for weeks or months, take their own photos, film side-by-side comparison videos, and document genuine pros and cons from hands-on use. A single piece of content like that can take *days or even weeks* to produce. That's real expertise, real experience, and real effort, and it's exactly the stuff that AI can't replicate. What will stand the test of time, and what I believe search engines and AI assistants will continue to promote, is the hard work being done by sites with real humans providing their opinions, their experiences, their humor and authenticity, and years of detailed expertise. The kind of evaluations only a human can do. If there's a middle ground where AI assists the process and creates efficiencies, but the content is still truly evaluated and generated by genuine human expertise, then *that's* the happy medium worth chasing. But my concern is that - in the spirit of AI - many companies will try to automate something that fundamentally shouldn't be automated. They'll build "non-commodity content" workflows and miss the entire point of why users prefer it. The sites that succeed long term are the ones with real human evaluation happening throughout the process. That part can't be automated. By design, it takes time and effort. That's what makes it good content in the first place.

@NickLeRoy Pretty sure everyone with brain cells already knew that most of Backlinko's content was TOFU and that AIO pretty much destroyed all that.

funny how people poke at Backlinko because they think it's cool to call out the big companies for traffic loss. You do realize everyone is down, right? NP, ahrefs, SEJ, SEL But don't worry, talk about Semrush "killing" Backlinko. Props to Moz, though, they look to see a big spike recently.

@poe_collector @nicole_clash I don't see how you're not grasping this extremely simple timeline and concept.

@poe_collector @nicole_clash No. She wrote in her screenshot she was going to take legal action and refused $15k. Then in her actual post she said she's not going to take legal action. Between her performative email that she intended to post, and the actual post, she realized she had no case.

Yesterday was my last day at Riot Games. It’s been 3 years since I dropped out and joined the company. And despite the way my relationship with Riot ended, this has been the best learning experience I could have asked for. I had the chance to work with an amazing, passionate group of people, and count it among my many blessings. I was fired. I did not leave, and I was not laid off. I’m not going to come on here and pretend otherwise. They flat out fired me, and offered me 15k to keep my mouth shut. Needless to say, I did not take them up on that. The official reason for my termination that I was given was about an Applied AI pitch deck I made. I had put it up as a website with a password protection on it before sharing the site with our execs. They are claiming that I broke confidentiality. While I highly doubt that this was the real reason, I’m not gonna open myself up to libel by saying here what I believe the real reason to be. There has been no proof that anyone outside of Riot has seen the pitch deck, and that the security measures I’ve taken were not enough. What is more absurd, however, is that our CEO and various other execs have read it, told me how much they enjoyed reading it, and further encouraged me to explore the concepts I’ve outlined in the deck. Zero mention of needing me to take it down. If this was the decision of a random middle manager up my chain of command, I would have found that a lot easier to accept. What broke me though was the fact that an exec who I viewed as a role model, one of two people that I shared the deck with originally, who explicitly told me to share it out further, he knew about my termination ahead of time. And he did nothing to stop it. I was sad. Then I was pissed. Then I was sad and pissed. Now though, all I feel is an overwhelming sense of freedom. Normally, posting something like this is a big no no, since it will kill your chances of ever working in corporate. Luckily for me, I have made the decision that I will never work corporate again. Riot, if you’re reading this, I have also made the decision to not legally pursue the case of wrongful termination. We’re cool. I’m taking today off. Tomorrow is my first day as an entrepreneur. This is a step that I’ve thought about taking for a while now, but could never bring myself to leave Riot for. In a twisted way, I’m grateful the decision’s been made for me. I have a few ideas on direction. I will not be raising money. And I cannot wait to build, truly build.

@poe_collector @nicole_clash No, I definitely remember her wanting to sue, and then not wanting to sue. But I guess you didn't glean that from my response. The point stands: she thought she had something, but she didn't. Now she's fucked.

@mdflores @nicole_clash So she clarified in her post and you didn’t read it until now. Gotcha.

@poe_collector @nicole_clash Most companies send out AI guidance to not use sensitive materials (intellectual property) in any AI platforms, etc. I work in law and every firm I know has custom AI and we're not allowed to use ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.

@poe_collector @nicole_clash Correction to what I said: In the email she had in the screenshot, she said she was going to pursue legal action for wrongful termination. In her post, she said she was no longer going to do it. She screwed up big time.

@poe_collector @nicole_clash She edited it after because she knew she doesn't have a case against them. Braindead.

@mdflores @nicole_clash She already said in the post that she’s absolutely not pursuing anything legally, please read things before commenting

This one is so much more accurate than the original.

@glow_in_snow @FPS_G33KS And? There were never conclusions or recommendations made by this observation. You're acting like this is a controlled study lmfao. Literally everyone knows it's a single anecdote. I guess you're proving your own point with yourself about league player intelligence.

@FPS_G33KS yes lets extrapolate data from a single person, league players rly will never beat allegations of being the biggest retards ever

【LoL界隈で“生理トラッキング理論”が話題】 ・コーチのSaskioLoLがデュオ相手の生理周期を147試合分追跡 ・平均勝率：55.1% ・生理中：52% ・それ以外：57.5% → 約5%の差があると主張 ・プレイスタイルをデュオ相手の生理周期に合わせて変更する戦略を実施 ■生理中 ・攻撃性アップ（ダメージ＆デス増加） ・突っ込み気味のプレイ →一緒に前に出る戦法（例：トリスターナで突撃） ■生理じゃない時 ・慎重で計算的 ・デス少なくKDA安定 →待ち重視の戦法（例：ヴェインで後半キャリー） ・生理をガチ分析し「相手の状態に合わせる」新戦術が話題に

A summary of the common talking points & sentiment in the comments section of this week's New York Times article about inaccurate information in AI Overviews: (Note - the below content is AI-generated): Here are the 10 key takeaways from the NYT comments: Commenters overwhelmingly distrust AI Overviews, sharing dozens of specific examples — wrong biographies, fabricated historical figures, reversed sports scores, misidentified photos, and invented restaurant closures. The confident, authoritative tone is the biggest irritant. People are less bothered by errors than by the system's refusal to ever say "I don't know," which makes mistakes feel deceptive rather than honest. Source quality is seen as a fundamental flaw. Reddit posts, Facebook comments, and other unvetted content get elevated to authoritative-sounding answers, with no distinction between expert and casual sources. AI Overviews create more work, not less. Many commenters describe a "double work" problem — they now have to fact-check the overview before doing their actual research, making search slower than before. Users are actively seeking workarounds — adding "-ai" to queries, switching to DuckDuckGo or Kagi, using the "web" filter — and overwhelmingly want an opt-out option Google won't provide. Healthcare and legal queries are flagged as especially dangerous territory, with commenters reporting wrong medication info, misread laws, and incorrect medical instructions that could cause real harm. Educators sound the loudest alarm, citing students who accept AI answers uncritically and teachers who use AI to generate study materials containing invented facts (e.g., "Cady B Anthony"). The "slop loop" concern is widespread — AI training on AI-generated content, producing a self-reinforcing cycle of degrading quality that commenters compare to "a Xerox of a Xerox." Many frame this as a regression from pre-AI Google, which at least surfaced sources users could evaluate themselves rather than burying them behind a confidently wrong summary. A small minority finds AI Overviews useful for low-stakes queries, but even defenders generally acknowledge the need to verify everything, undermining the core value proposition of saving time.

@davepl1968 @ZacksJerryRig youtu.be/DB3FkbCROSE?si… This is what he's doing with his life and money. What about you, you turd?

@ZacksJerryRig How about you post your YouTube revenue so we can decide if you make too much money? And then that way, if some calamity should befall you, we'll know whether to empathize with you or not.

I'm not saying what this guy did was right - I'm just statistically pointing out that the company leasing this warehouse, Kimberly-Clark, has a CEO named Michael D. Hsu that made $16.4 million dollars last year. That is $7,884.62 an hour. Food for thought.

Preemptively stating that you are going to pardon your entire staff and yourself before leaving office is one of the biggest admissions of guilt I have ever seen.

@sixpackbrands_ @timsoulo @ahrefs Lmfao what a shit take. You're spending too much time reading LinkedIn garbage.

@timsoulo @ahrefs So this isn’t “SEO is dying.” It’s distribution is getting pay-to-play faster than expected. Own intent (SEO) + capture demand (paid) + build audience (email)

Google lost ~5% of traffic share in the past 10 months (35.11% → 30.53%). Everyone thinks AI search ate it. Well… ▪️ AI search: 0.22% → 0.26% (+0.04pp) ▪️ Social: 7.67% → 8.24% (+0.6pp) ▪️ Paid: 13.99% → 17.15% (+3.2pp) ^ that’s across ~75k websites in @Ahrefs’ panel. (HINT: visit chatgpt-vs-google(DOT)com to see more data) ... AI search gained almost no traffic share. And it makes sense. AI search is zero-click by nature. It answers questions, it doesn't send traffic. The real winner? Paid. Businesses are losing organic clicks from Google and compensating with ad spend. They have no choice. They still need customers on their websites. So Google pushes AI Overviews, organic traffic drops... and businesses respond by giving Google more money for ads. ..or at least that's my read on the situation. What's yours?

@GamewithDave Legend of Zelda

What game is this?

@RiotHjarta I work in the area. I'll visit for a caffeine fix.

SOMEONE ACTUALLY MEASURED HOW MUCH DUMBER CLAUDE GOT. THE ANSWER IS 67%. the data shows Opus 4.6 is thinking 67% less than it used to. anthropic said nothing until the numbers went public. then suddenly Boris Cherny (creator of Claude Code) shows up on the GitHub issue. users are calling it "AI shrinkflation" (same price, less intelligence) we already know from the leaked source code that they have an internal switch that keeps the models working to their full extent for anthropic employees. in the last week Claude went from WOW to being a more restricted and expensive version of ChatGPT. people are saying Anthropic is deliberately downgrading Opus to save compute for training Mythos, their next model.

Trump every time the S&P 500 drops more than a percent

@Chris436893 @RealAlexJones You look like a cuck in that outfit

@RealAlexJones Been listening to you for over 20 years you have changed bro it's so sickening to see what you Owen and Harrison have become politely fuck off... Throwing all my Infowars merchandise in the trash including the hat I'm wearing

Imagine if Iran bombed and destroying the Golden Gate Bridge in California. What would you call the act? The USA-Israel the “aggressors”bombed and destroyed Iran's tallest bridge, the B1 Bridge. This will only unify the Iranian people against Israel and the United States. This is not what Trump ran on and this is not what we voted for…