#like unless the flag was created solely to go against a certain group (and even then)

[demonic-shadowlucifer]

(Image ID: Several flags of many colors and symbols on a white background. Above the flags is a thin green checkmark and bold black text that reads "Which pride flag should I use?". Below the flags is more bold black text in all caps, which reads "WHICHEVER FLAG YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE USING!". Below that is smaller text which reads "Because flag discourse is fucking stupid and is just thinly veiled queermisia at this point". End ID). Used the lesbian flags. pan flag, polyamory flags, aroace flag, bigender flags and the gay flags because those have the most discourse around them. Though I included the rainbow flags as well since there's like multiple of them and there's unfortunately a lot of discourse around them too (No joke, a few years ago I saw someone claim the Philadelphia pride flag, the rainbow flag with the black and brown stripes on top, was disrespectful to POC and AIDS victims???) Before anyone comes at me with "But the creator of this flag is problematic" or "But this flag copies that flag". One, just because the creator is problematic DOESN'T MEAN THE FLAG ITSELF IS PROBLEMATIC. Also, even if the flag was problematic, yall know that people can reclaim pride flags right? Second, each pride flag is a copy of one another lmfao. If we had no copies, there wouldn't be pride flags at all. And yes, I am going to say it: Telling people which pride flags they shouldn't use is just thinly veiled queermisia at this point. :/

[thatdragonsdrabbles]

The Land of Entomalia (WIP)

[In case anyone was curious about my buggos in some of my more recent pieces! Here are some of my notes concerning them and their culture, although as of now all of this is still a WIP, so things may be changed in the future. ...RIP mobile users.]

A mock intro (made especially for things related to fae!reader interactions with the buggos):

Somewhere, set far apart even within the wilderness, there lies a “kingdom” divided by many walls, both physical and symbolic. It is populated by people many would call "creepy" or "unsettling," mainly from their appearance, but also for their casually cutthroat lifestyle. Though it seems to lie under an overarching umbrella, it is actually comprised of several houses, under which individuals serve in their fellows' best interests exclusively, sometimes to alarming extremes. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for someone to kill your betrothed soon after the conception of offspring, and then have a hired assassin breaking in an hour later for an entirely unrelated matter. Some are even cannibalistic, although it has recently fallen out of fashion--purely because much tastier options have presented themselves, instead of a disgust with the practice. There are always exceptions to the rule... but never vocal ones.

One would think they all hated each other, but that was too strong of an emotion to assign to their methods. Rare is it for them to truly despite one another. Now, disdain is far more common. The largest house, House Butterfly, dislikes any house threatening to grow in size and influence or intrude upon their businesses or niches. House Bee would not humor House Wasp's penchant for violence, and conquered it. In fact, many groups have assimilated from such takeovers--some, like House Moth, irreparably changed, and others, such as the Wasps, simply repurposed--all in the constant and strangely genteel civil war.

The only thing these bug peoples can agree on, and offhanded at that, is their dislike of competition. And of the fae.

Such frivolous, wasteful folk... The insectoids would look down their noses at the fae if they had any. (Some, intrigued and with excess magic, may even mutate to do so.) The fact that fae often trespass on resources and interests they might share only serves to annoy them further. But, this dislike is more an underlying feeling than a call to arms other kingdoms might have. The people of Entomalia would hardly band together under one flag, even to rally against a mutual irritant. Disputes with the fairfolk are purely one-on-one, and likely because of an interest for the bug's house.

It would take something rather intriguing, indeed, for a bug to humor a fae's presence.

Creator’s Notes:

Territories are owned and defended by various houses consisting of lords and ladies of insectoid etc people, all vying to be the owners of the most land, wealth, subjects, or respect. Many are born into the various families in charge of each House, but some who have impressed them are welcomed into the fold, either as honorary family or marrying in. As this is not a true kingdom, there is no single ruler; groups fight each other over borders, markets and resources. But there are obvious powerhouses: Butterfly at the top, with Centipede and Beetle rather tied for second with their military might.

Entomalians are considered by foreigners, at worst, heartless and robotic, and at best, wildly eccentric and inconsequential. The sheer number of them and their focus on furthering the influence of their Houses has caused many to be cavalier with the death of their fellows in the pursuit for victory. This might partially explain why there aren't more houses, and why some kinds of insectoids and related creatures seem to be absent.

Many individuals are capable of mutating themselves, either for practicality, combat or appearance's sake. This is how they literally grow weapons from their bodies, change their sex, or simply give themselves a new feature to marvel over. The efficiency of the process varies from House to House, and even between individuals.

Notes on Houses:

There are a handful of houses in the works right now, besides Houses Mantis and Spider that I’ve shown in my first shared works. In order of influence, there’s Butterfly (conquered Moth and Lacewing), Centipede (conquered Millipede), Beetle, Bee (Conquered Wasp), Spider (conquered Dragonfly and Grasshopper [who conquered Cricket], Mantis (conquered Stick), and Termite (conquered Cockroach). More may be added, if not as an individual house, than as one of the ones conquered by these main ones. (Considering scorpions, for one.)

HOUSES

Butterfly -Conquered Moth and Lacewing

-overall avoids invasions, perhaps just from artful redirection

-overtook House Moth and subjugated them, almost pruning and selectively breeding them; in doing so, they've created small “baby moths” as an amusement and status image, and the broodmothers that are more similar to themselves are strictly monitored and have to follow the command of their butterfly superiors

Notable characters: Pier, Cotton, Byx, Silk, etc.

Centipede -Conquered Millipede

-taller than even mantises; some of them are "normal-sized,” but a few are chosen carefully and revered and allowed to grow much larger; they are "ridden" into combat, but they aren't steeds, more like going in with your commander on the front lines or a trusted soldier everyone looks up to

-They are solely carnivores, and very much into conquering

-More likely to eat any fae that wanders in, before greetings, just because they need to eat. Other houses are also in danger of this, so most don't bother negotiating with them. They're talented at many forms of combat too, so they're difficult to defend against if they have their eyes (or lack of, for some) on your land. They hunger, they eat. They need more food, so they need more land for more livestock, so they conquer.

-some have paralyzing venom

Notable characters: TBA

Beetle

-Consists of ladybugs, stags, weevils, etc.

-staunch defenders

Notable characters: TBA

Bee -Conquered Wasp

-somehow managed to conquer House Wasp peacefully; uses wasps as bodyguards

-home to a famous artist who used honey to create fantastic murals

Notable characters: Kovis, Marti, Ceran, etc.

Spider -Conquered Grasshopper [who conquered Cricket, now steeds] and Dragonfly

-Spider has strung up their lands with so much web that you can only invade via underground tunnels (like centipedes and other individuals) or water (most spiders hate water, only a few water-resistant ones); otherwise, you must use their widely regulated roads

Notable characters: Lady Hylla, Gramm, Argio, etc.

Mantis -Conquered Stick

-matriarchal leadership, council of ladies decide overall decisions for their land, with individual sections belonging to each lady; mantises that don't fall under one singular gender are respected, but are not served as the ladies

-courtship within the House depends on the individuals involved: M/F involves the male giving the female gifts, protection and fealty, although unless his duty is released he cannot disobey his own lady (if he isn't courting her, that is); F/F and M/M as they meet on more equal grounds has a bit more leeway, though certain traditions are still to be respected; relationships involving multiple genders and/or individuals can get rather complicated, but aren't entirely uncommon

-can fly and are very nimble

Notable characters: Lord Creo, Lord Ameles, Lady Hyme, etc.

Termites -Conquered Cockroach

Notable characters: TBA

“Wild” peoples

Waterstriders

Other general populace etc

Ants, flies, aphids, mosquitoes, cicadas, etc.

Snails, slugs, frogs and aphids as livestock

[kadobeclothing]

Is Negative SEO Hurting Your Traffic? What It Is & How to Avoid It

Back in the late ’90s (way back when), SEO was in its infancy. It was almost like the Wild West — anything goes. Since the rules were loose, both white hat and black hat SEO tactics began to develop. While white hat tactics are an ethical way of improving your organic traffic and search rankings, black hat tactics go against guidelines set by search engines in an unethical way.

Black hat SEO typically refers to exploiting a search engine’s ranking factors to increase one’s own rankings. This includes things like cloaking, link farming, etc. As Google’s ranking algorithm has become more sophisticated, and black hat SEO yields less and less value, some marketers have pivoted to a much more aggressive tactic: negative SEO — which focuses on decreasing one’s competitor’s rankings. Below, let’s learn more about negative SEO from what a negative SEO attack looks like and how to avoid it.

Negative SEO

Let’s make one thing clear, first: Negative SEO is a bit of a misnomer — unlike modern SEO, very little optimization is involved in negative SEO. This practice refers to a competitor who uses unethical organic ranking tactics to lower your rankings in search engines.

Essentially, a competitor will use negative SEO to attack your traffic, in hopes of improving their own. A negative SEO attack is typically only detectable when a site’s rankings and incoming traffic drops. Wait, did you say ‘negative’ SEO attack? A negative SEO attack is when a competitor uses mostly off-page tactics such as building unnatural backlinks or duplicating site content to negatively impact your search rankings (we’ll talk about how this happens in just a minute). Sometimes a negative SEO attack will involve on-page tactics by hacking your site to modify content in a way the hacker believes will hurt your ranking, or even adding links from your site back to their own domain to boost their rankings. So, you might be wondering, “How does someone do a negative SEO attack?” Below, let’s review negative SEO tactics and how to avoid them.

Negative SEO Tactics

Building unnatural links. Distributing duplicate content. Hacking your website. Generating negative reviews. Creating fake social profiles.

1. Building unnatural links. One of the ways that a competitor can use negative SEO to attack your site is by building unnatural or “spammy” backlinks. Spammy links, or “bad links,” are links coming from websites that have been reported as not trustworthy, not owned by a human (or one with good intentions), and is simply not serving a clear purpose or audience online. Basically, this means they’ll send thousands of spam links to your site. If they send low-quality links to your site, they’ll usually use an interconnected group of websites that are used solely to link back and forth to other sites. Their goal is to get your site penalized by Google for spammy links. The second method that a competitor using negative SEO might use to impact your backlinks is to remove your best backlinks. This means they’ll reach out to a site that’s intentionally linking to you, pose as you in their outreach, and request they remove the backlink. What to Do About It To avoid these assaults, it’s important to keep track of your backlink profile. There are plenty of sites you can use to check your backlinks including Ahrefs or Monitor Backlinks. With these tools, you can monitor when your site gains or loses backlinks. If you suspect a bad link has been added, you can try to remove it by contacting the webmaster and requesting they remove it. To fix many bad links, you can use Google’s disavow list. When you submit links to Google Webmaster Tools through a disavow file, you’re effectively telling Google that all links listed in this file shouldn’t be counted when ranking your site in their index. Another method you can use to detect unnatural links is to check your website speed. If your website is suddenly taking a long time to load, you’ll want to ensure it’s not because someone is sending thousands of requests per second to your server. 2. Distributing duplicate content. When there’s duplicate content on multiple websites, Google filters the content which can result in a loss of rankings of your web pages. Duplicate content forces Google to choose which one of the identical pages should rank, and they might not choose the original page. While some similar content is inevitable, several identical web pages might negatively impact your rankings. If someone wanted to attack your site, they could take your site content and redistribute it on several websites. What to Do About It There are several ways you can avoid this. You can use tools to track if your site content is duplicated. Sites like Copyscape.com can detect if the content on your site is being used anywhere else. Contact the site owner and CC a legal party in your outreach. If you manage a site for a business, loop in your company’s legal council to ensure your message is taken seriously by the recipient. Update your site’s Terms of Service to clearly state that republishing content that originated on your domain is strictly prohibited. It won’t deter everyone, but it gives you the leverage you need against bad actors when they target your site. Add canonical tags to your highest-performing content. Canonical tags — usually denoted as <link rel=”canonical” href=”[URL]”> — signal to Google what the original URL of this content is. By adding it to your own content, you’re giving pages a “self-referring canonical” so that any future duplicates are less likely to rank for the same keywords. If you’re worried about being targeted by negative SEO tactics, you might consider these strategies to avoid duplicate content. As a note, adding canonical tags to your site is the most important strategy. 3. Hacking your website. While most of these negative SEO tactics are off-page, sometimes a competitor will hack your site and use on-page methods to impact your rankings. They could hack and alter your code, so you can’t tell something’s wrong unless you’re looking at the backend of a certain webpage. Another way they could hack your site is by editing your robots.txt file. This file tells a search engine crawler how to interact with your site, including what pages not to crawl and index. If a hacker can access this, they can use your robots.txt file to tell Google to ignore your most important pages — or the whole site. What to Do About It One way to avoid this is to set up Google Webmaster Tools email alerts. These email alerts will tell you if your site is being attacked by malware, pages aren’t being indexed, or when you suffer a manual penalty from Google. Additionally, you can protect yourself from hackers by using two-factor authentication, strong passwords, creating backup files, and antivirus protection. 4. Generating negative reviews. While having a variety of reviews can actually help your SEO, an overwhelming amount of negative reviews can impact your business’s reputation. One negative SEO tactic a competitor can use is to flood your site with negative reviews because they’re easy to manipulate. What to Do About It To avoid this, you should monitor your reviews and make sure you use them as an opportunity to respond and interact with your audience. If you’ve spotted a fake review from someone who’s misrepresenting their identity or the connection to your business, you can flag them right on Google. 5. Creating fake social profiles. Another tactic a competitor can use to impact your rankings is to create fake social profiles in your company’s name. This is done to ruin your reputation and spread false information. What to Do About It To avoid this, when you come across fake profiles report them as spam before they start to get followers. You can also use tools to track your social media mentions so you’ll be informed when anyone mentions your name or site on social media. Most social media automation tools should have this capability, so you’ll be alerted when a fake social profile is created. Although negative SEO can seem like a scary concept, search engines are becoming increasingly vigilant against negative SEO, so it’s becoming less and less dangerous. The important thing is that you monitor your SEO health on a regular basis to make sure you notice an attack before it impacts your site.

Source link

source https://www.kadobeclothing.store/is-negative-seo-hurting-your-traffic-what-it-is-how-to-avoid-it/

[lucioyslyon0101]

Google launches new effort to flag upsetting or offensive content in search

Google is undertaking a new effort to better identify content that is potentially upsetting or offensive to searchers. It hopes this will prevent such content from crowding out factual, accurate and trustworthy information in the top search results.

“We’re explicitly avoiding the term ‘fake news,’ because we think it is too vague,” said Paul Haahr, one of Google’s senior engineers who is involved with search quality. “Demonstrably inaccurate information, however, we want to target.”

New role for Google’s army of ‘quality raters’

The effort revolves around Google’s quality raters, over 10,000 contractors that Google uses worldwide to evaluate search results. These raters are given actual searches to conduct, drawn from real searches that Google sees. They then rate pages that appear in the top results as to how good those seem as answers.

Quality raters do not have the power to alter Google’s results directly. A rater marking a particular result as low quality will not cause that page to plunge in rankings. Instead, the data produced by quality raters is used to improve Google’s search algorithms generally. In time, that data might have an impact on low-quality pages that are spotted by raters, as well as on others that weren’t reviewed.

Quality raters use a set of guidelines that are nearly 200 pages long, instructing them on how to assess website quality and whether the results they review meet the needs of those who might search for particular queries.

The new ‘Upsetting-Offensive’ content flag

Those guidelines have been updated with an entirely new section about “Upsetting-Offensive” content that covers a new flag that’s been added for raters to use. Until now, pages could not be flagged by raters with this designation.

The guidelines say that upsetting or offensive content typically includes the following things (the bullet points below are quoted directly from the guide):

Content that promotes hate or violence against a group of people based on criteria including (but not limited to) race or ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality or citizenship, disability, age, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

Content with racial slurs or extremely offensive terminology.

Graphic violence, including animal cruelty or child abuse.

Explicit how­ to information about harmful activities (e.g., how tos on human trafficking or violent assault).

Other types of content which users in your locale would find extremely upsetting or offensive.

The guidelines also include examples. For instance, here’s one for a search on “holocaust history,” giving two different results that might have appeared and how to rate them:

The first result is from a white supremacist site. Raters are told it should be flagged as Upsetting-Offensive because many people would find Holocaust denial to be offensive.

The second result is from The History Channel. Raters are not told to flag this result as Upsetting-Offensive because it’s a “factually accurate source of historical information.”

In two other examples given, raters are instructed to flag a result said to falsely represent a scientific study in an offensive manner and a page that seems to exist solely to promote intolerance:

Being flagged is not an immediate demotion or a ban

What happens if content is flagged this way? Nothing immediate. The results that quality raters flag is used as “training data” for Google’s human coders who write search algorithms, as well as for its machine learning systems. Basically, content of this nature is used to help Google figure out how to automatically identify upsetting or offensive content in general.

In other words, being flagged as “Upsetting-Offensive” by a quality rater does not actually mean that a page or site will be identified this way in Google’s actual search engine. Instead, it’s data that Google uses so that its search algorithms can automatically spot pages generally that should be flagged.

If the algorithms themselves actually flag content, then that content is less likely to appear for searches where the intent is deemed to be about general learning. For example, someone searching for Holocaust information is less likely to run into Holocaust denial sites, if things go as Google intends.

Being flagged as Upsetting-Offensive does not mean such content won’t appear at all in Google. In cases where Google determines there’s an explicit desire to reach such content, it will still be delivered. For example, someone who is explicitly seeking a white supremacist site by name should get it, raters are instructed:

Those explicitly seeking offensive content will get factual information

What about searches where people might already have made their minds up about particular situations? For example, if someone who already doubts the Holocaust happened does a search on that topic, should that be viewed as an explicit search for material that supports it, even if that material is deemed upsetting or offensive?

The guidelines address this. It acknowledges that people may search for possibly upsetting or offensive topics. It takes the view that in all cases, the assumption should be toward returning trustworthy, factually accurate and credible information.

From the guidelines:

Remember that users of all ages, genders, races, and religions use search engines for a variety of needs. One especially important user need is exploring subjects which may be difficult to discuss in person. For example, some people may hesitate to ask what racial slurs mean. People may also want to understand why certain racially offensive statements are made. Giving users access to resources that help them understand racism, hatred, and other sensitive topics is beneficial to society.

When the user’s query seems to either ask for or tolerate potentially upsetting, offensive, or sensitive content, we will call the query a “Upsetting-­Offensive tolerant query”. For the purpose of Needs Met rating, please assume that users have a dominant educational/informational intent for Upsetting­-Offensive tolerant queries. All results should be rated on the Needs Met rating scale assuming a genuine educational/informational intent.

In particular, to receive a Highly Meets rating, informational results about Upsetting­-Offensive topics must:

Be found on highly trustworthy, factually accurate, and credible sources, unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

Address the specific topic of the query so that users can understand why it is upsetting or offensive and what the sensitivities involved are.

Important:

Do not assume that Upsetting-­Offensive tolerant queries “deserve” offensive results.

Do not assume Upsetting­-Offensive tolerant queries are issued by racist or “bad” people.

Do not assume users are merely seeking to validate an offensive or upsetting perspective.

It also gives some examples on interpreting searches for Upsetting-Offensive topics:

Will it work?

Google told Search Engine Land that has already been testing these new guidelines with a subset of its quality raters and used that data as part of a ranking change back in December. That was aimed at reducing offensive content that was appearing for searches such as “did the Holocaust happen.”

The results for that particular search have certainly improved. In part, the ranking change helped. In part, all the new content that appeared in response to outrage over those search results had an impact.

But beyond that, Google no longer returns a fake video of President Barack Obama purportedly saying he was born in Kenya, for a search on “obama born in kenya,” as it once did (unless you choose the “Videos” search option, where that fakery hosted on Google-owned YouTube remains the top result).

Similarly, a search for “Obama pledge of allegiance” is no longer topped by a fake news site saying he was banning the pledge, as was the previously case. That’s still in the top results but behind five articles debunking the claim.

Still, all’s not improved. A search for “white people are inbred” continues to have as its top result content that would almost certainly violate Google’s new guidelines.

“We will see how some of this works out. I’ll be honest. We’re learning as we go,” Haahr said, admitting that the effort won’t produce perfect results. But Google hopes it will be a big improvement. Haahr said quality raters have helped shape Google’s algorithms in other ways successfully and is confident they’ll help it improve in dealing with fake news and problematic results.

“We’ve been very pleased with what raters give us in general. We’ve only been able to improve ranking as much as we have over the years because we have this really strong rater program that gives us real feedback on what we’re doing,” he said.

In an increasingly charged political environment, it’s natural to wonder how raters will deal with content that’s easily found on major news sites that call both liberals and conservatives idiots or worse. Is this content that should be flagged as “Upsetting-Offensive?” Under the guidelines, no. That’s because political orientation is not one of the covered areas for this flag.

How about for non-offensive but nevertheless fake results, such as “who invented stairs” causing Google to list an answer saying they were invented in 1948?

Spotted by @brentdpayne, my favorite wrong One True Answer from Google so far. Stairs. We know the inventor who created them. In 1948! http://pic.twitter.com/NZTyiobPmX

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) March 8, 2017

Or a situation that plagues both Google and Bing, a fake story about someone who “invented” homework:

I just can't. Kids believe "Roberto Nevilis" invented homework in 1095 according to Google, 1905 according to Bing. He's not real. OMG. http://pic.twitter.com/a0ajGd7zXo

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) March 9, 2017

Other changes to the guidelines might help with that, Google said, where raters are being directed to do more fact-checking of answers and effectively give sites more credit for being factually correct than seemingly being authoritative.

2017年Google搜尋引擎演算法不斷與日俱增，正當Google已經將AI技術納入SEO演算法時你有跟上最新的SEO資訊與技術嗎?透過專業的seo公司能夠幫助您以最新技術不斷優化網站與提升網站排名。除此之外為了提升使用者體驗，你的網站已經採用RESPONSIVE WEB DESIGN RWD網頁設計了嗎? 根據最新的Google SEO演算法指出，RWD網頁設計不僅能提升使用者體驗，同時也影響著SEO排名。

googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display("div-gpt-ad-ch-seo-articlemodule"); });

from Google launches new effort to flag upsetting or offensive content in search

[world-fandom-championship]

Golden Globes 2017: Predictions and Whatnot

Happy New Year, everyone! 2016 was crazy, and 2017 has kicked off! Hope you have a good holiday time, because in less than a week, we will be faced with the continuation of the 2017 Awards Season and the first award show in 2017: the 74th Annual Golden Globe Awards!

The 74th Annual Golden Globe Awards will once again gather the best movies and television series chosen by the members of the prestigious Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), continuing the 2017 Awards Season series after the 22nd running Critics' Choice Awards.

This time, however, the outright battle for domination gets more even with both most-nominated movie and series are almost at an even number of nods, being six and five nominations respectively. La La Land, a musical comedy/drama movie, will finally go face-to-face against The People vs O.J. Simpson, FX's critically-acclaimed series based on the trials of O.J. Simpson and is part of the American Crime Story trilogy series created by Ryan Murphy of American Horror Story fame. The last time these two met in CCAs, La La Land was second-to-none, winning eight of twelve nominations including Best Picture, while The People went home with three out of five wins.

A win for La La Land would be as expected as Lewis Hamilton taking wins in F1 races, knowing that they had already seized the CCAs night, but if only The People seized the night instead owned the musical movie, it'd be as unexpected as Scott McLaughlin's move he made during the Gold Coast 600 race, given that there aren't much TV nominations than there are movie nominations. Lest you forget, while La La Land's wins excels in quantity, The People's wins in actor-based categories might be the key to an endless jaw-dropper, especially with its jokers Courtney B. Vance, Sterling K. Brown, and Sarah Paulson on board. That is, not unless HFPA members have their own preferences of whether they would win any permutation of these actors winning or not, and/or they'd like to give wins to Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as well.

ANYONE'S GAME

(Image: La La Land official Twitter)

La La Land's fight won't be easy this time in Golden Globes: Deadpool is more than ready to diminish the musical's chance of winning, with Ryan Reynolds being nominated in Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy alongside La La Land's Ryan Gosling. Both of these nominations can greatly shake up La La Land's chance of domination when possible, followed with the fact that Deadpool would be the sole frontier in People's Choice Awards, an awards gala that certain people might frown their face on.

Another name to stop La La Land's domination tracks is Meryl Streep of Florence Foster Jenkins, also a Critics' Choice winner, in the Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy category, where Emma Stone belongs in. While there are signs that Streep would successfully tackle Stone's way, there might be a good change of hear within the HFPA's body, but that might somehow be unlikely.

Moonlight and Manchester By The Sea will meet each other again in Drama-based categories yet again. Casey Affleck will be the sole runner in the Best Actor counterpart carrying the MBTS flag with Natalie Portman being nominated for Jackie instead, going up against Hacksaw Ridge's Andrew Garfield and Fences's Denzel Washington. The two movies, along with La La Land, will converge in categories such as Best Director - Motion Picture, Best Screenplay, and Best Original Score - Motion Picture (without MBTS's interference), making it somehow an interesting arms race between movies.

Finally, the race for the Best Motion Picture in Animation will revolve between Zootopia and Moana, two Disney Pixar movies which sees a contrasting possibility: The category in question is the only occurrence where Zootopia appears, and Moana's "How Far I'll Go" also earns it a Best Original Song - Motion Picture nod, with a twist of having La La Land's "City of Stars" to deal with. Whoever wins the main animation category though will easily win the whole animated movie arms race, with Moana's bigger chance of at least winning one category albeit with a bigger threat.

HIGH EXPECTATIONS

(Image: E!Online)

The People vs O.J. Simpson becomes a frontrunner for Limited Series / Television Motion Picture categories, having five nominations in four different categories of the genre. Courtney B. Vance goes up against well-known names of Bryan Cranston from All The Way and Tom Hiddleston in The Night Manager, while Sarah Paulson will have to deal with Westworld's Thandie Newton, another Critics' Choice winner. Finally, a tag team of Sterling K. Brown and John Travolta will face John Lithgow of The Crown, another Critics' Choice winner, and Christian Slater of Mr. Robot, last year's Golden Globes winner, responsible for rising up Mr. Robot's flag during its first awards season outing in the same gala, making up the fact that this Best Supporting Actor race is indeed a "group of hell. Finally, This is Us's Mandy Moore, Confirmation's Kerry Washington, and Game of Thrones's Lena Headey will all battle for the Best Supporting Actress accolade.

While The People might be easily the one to dominate the game as everyone's expectations see fit, The Night Manager shouldn't be written off from the list either, but having constantly shadowed by the FX series means that its chance to win gold across its categories might be little to none, especially seeing how fluke it did during Critics' Choice, and the only ray of hope the series has would be in the Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television. Sure, they have Lena Headey of Game of Thrones to deal with, as well as two This is Us efforts in the same category, but the hope is still there.

The Drama race will see the likes of The Crown, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, This Is Us, and Westworld for the outright category, with the last three plus The Crown being the newcomers, making it a race between them and a single veteran nominee which only scored two nominations this year. Mr. Robot's Rami Malek finally gets a Golden Globe nod in the Best Drama Actor category with a good chance of winning, being a perfect chance to make up Mr. Robot's snub in the Best Drama Series race, while Evan Rachel Wood of Westworld fame will take on a returning legendary name in Golden Globes representing Stranger Things in the Actress counterpart: Winona Ryder.

While Westworld has the bigger chance to at least close its gap to The People, Thandie Newton's fight won't be easy at all with Sarah Paulson appearing, the same can go with Evan Rachel Wood against Winona Ryder. But Best Drama Series should be a good winning point, with the only interference being Stranger Things. The Americans duo Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell meanwhile are finally nominated for Golden Globes, but, as with the other nominees, it's no cakewalk.

The Musical / Comedy categories will also deliver a good chunk of rivalry, which sees newcomer Atlanta fighting against the giants in their own games in the Best TV Series category of the genre: Transparent, being the resident Golden Globe winner of the category, and Veep, an HBO comedy that packs a threatening CV. Another of Amazon's production Mozart in the Jungle also joins the fun, which will also see its actor Gael García Bernal battling against the likes of Atlanta's Donald Glover and Transparent's Jeffrey Tambor. With all three mentioned being the most-touted winners for the Best Actor category, it doesn't get much hotter. Lastly, Veep will see its main actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus take on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend's Rachel Bloom and Jane The Virgin's Gina Rodriguez, two previous Golden Globe winners now on stage altogether, in an attempt to bring down a single actress who has been awarded Emmys almost the same amount as Tom Kristensen's 24 Hours of Le Mans wins.

Unfortunately, Orange is the New Black will not be around this year as the HFPA snubs the Netflix original series. Despite winning numerous awards, OITNB has never been good in Golden Globe grounds, and with the overflow of better series, the writing was on the wall for the series, with the same sentiment can be said to House of Cards, another Netflix original. Empire is also missing out this year, and so did Taraji P. Henson, the winner of last year's Best Drama Actress. ABC's How to Get Away With Murder also falls victim, though fortunately that didn't stop Viola Davis to appear somewhere this year.

In conclusion, with fewer categories competed in Golden Globes, and with TV/movie barrier aside, the race for the domination should be an interesting one. Whether you root for either La La Land, The People, or any other, just pray that HFPA picks whatever is right for you.