#the image does not say 'random internet users making predictions they feel have a reasonable chance of coming true'

[wewontbesleeping]

ok the apollo's dodgeball meme is really annoying sometimes. bc someone will post a well thought out post with a reasonable prediction that ends up coming true, and someone else will have to post that fucking apollo's dodgeball pic, reducing their post to an offhand joke. no one was trying to be funny.

[bunnyinthestars]

Adrien is definitely gonna take Emilie’s place in a coma (A Theory)

Yeah so I mean the title of this is exactly what I’m pretty sure is gonna happen. This is because there has been a huge load of foreshadowing and some other subtler reasons I will be going over in this post. Of course, there’s always a chance it won’t happen, but if it didn’t I think I’d be pretty surprised considering just the amount of evidence thats going into this.

(Also sorry ahead of time for the structure of this, I tried to structure this based on my specific reasons for this theory but I kind of went off on tangents in some places and in others I use ideas that I assume come with the theory and don’t necessarily fit into any specific reason (like Emilie coming back to life and what would happen there, why Adrien and not Nathalie, and loosely how theyd get Adrien out of the coma), although I mosty stick to the structure I still want to add this disclaimer just so you’re aware that I wrote this in one go at midnight (also wait right now its 12:10am it is now ten minutes into my birthday??? ok ignoring that))

I dont know man. Just consider what I have to say. Or dont. I will be listing my reasons starting now.

1. Imagery of Adrien being in comatose state/ in a coffin-like thing.

This is surprisingly common??? Off the top of my head I can think of Style Queen and Riposte (I believe) which involve this. In Style Queen, Audrey in the form of her akumatized self had essentially kidnapped Adrien and put him in this gold/glass coffin thing that disintegrated the longer it remained untouched. The other one is Riposte, where Ladybug hides Adrien in that big sarcophogus in the Louvre (he didn’t stay in it but still the imagery is there.)

I also just remembered in Chameleon when Lila took Adrien’s form he was asleep/in a comatose state in that locker and Plagg was like “aw man am I gonna have to kiss him.....” but then Adrien wakes up because Lila stole someone else’s form

EDIT: another instance of Adrien/Chat Noir being shoved into a sarcophagus (besides Riposte) is in Pharaoh in season 1

So yes there is definitely a good number of foreshadowing for this. I might take this further and say if Adrien were to go comatose and be in the coffin Emilie was in then Felix might replace him for some amount of time?? Like impersonate him amd stuff?? Just because there’s lots of stuff in the show with impersonation I feel like it could work aNYWAY BACK TO THE EVIDENCE I KNOW ITS A TANGENT

2. Possible evidence foreshadowing Emilie *inadvertantly* killing (not killing but making comatose you get it) Adrien

This one is not as strong as the first but its worth considering. I was googling the word “mayura” just out of curiosity a while back and basically its a peacock in Hindu stories (like peacocks are a kinda revered animal) and I just initially found a couple websites that said that the mayura has been depicted eating a snake as a symbol of the cycle of time (you dont have to read this part in parenthesis, its just kind of a tangent: the cycle of time as known in Hinduism is another aspect of Hinduism directly referenced in the show: the horse/space miraculous kwami Kaalki’s name is a reference to the prophecied tenth avatar/reincarnation of the god Vishnu, and he is referenced in the Kalachakra tantra which is basically a Hindu book about the cycle of time. Keep in mind I got all this from wikipedia and other internet websites, I do not practice Hinduism and I dont directly know anybody who does, so if any of this is wrong pls lmk because there is surprisingly not a lot of information on the internet about it from what I could tell)

So anyways yes peacock (mayura) eating snake representing the cycle of time. Both Luka and Adrien are represented in the show as the snake, but ultimately I think the snake here represents Adrien just because it makes more sense (Snake Noir, future Alix’s tattoo depicts a snake to be Adrien and is meant to represent Adrinette, Adrien just has some shifty stuff going on with the snake in general etc) and thus, if Gabriel manages to actually get the ladybug and black cat miraculouses and make the wish to bring Emilie to life, then this “mayura” analogy (assuming Emilie as the mayura in this scenario) would make sense if her life brought upon Adrien losing his.

The reason I dont think it would refer to Nathalie even though her official name is Mayura is for pretty much two sub-reasons. The first is that I think she is going to die before this wish happens. I know, its a kids show, whatever, but consider it. The Agreste/Graham de Vanily family has a trend of having opposite names [I am so sorry I literally first heard this from a tumblr user but I cannot remember who I just remember they had made a string of theories on why Emilie Agreste will not be who she seems to be so credit to them I did not discover that] for example the name Gabriel means hero/angel, Felix means happy/fortunate, Adrien means dark, etc, and Nathalie Sancoeur means “birthday (of Christ)” and “heartless” respectively. We already know she is not heartless but rather full of heart because she has fallen in love with Gabriel. So then,,,,,,,,,, the opposite of birth is death. She’s already shown to be pretty sick too despite the peacock miraculous having been “fixed” (as of the New York special being the most recent piece of content). I’m sorry guys I do not make the rules

stop why his face look like that though

The second part of why I think this is a little stupid but. The original art released by Jeremy Zag for Mayura does not look like Nathalie. Plus this art was only released under the name of “the Peacock” (originally Le Paon in French) so it might not actually be the Mayura we know as of now. Now, theoretically, it could be that they had made this art before they knew they wanted Nathalie to be Mayura or just as art depicting what Emilie would have been like as the peacock miraculous holder, and it could literally just be Nathalie. When you compare the images, though, the original Mayura art looks far more like Emilie and a lot less like Nathalie. Yes I am aware this is stupid just know this is only a minor point

I dont know man those faces do not look the same to me and the original Mayura definitely had Emilie’s eye shape and face shape in mind. They might’ve changed it after making the concept art but my point still stands

Ok next reasoning

Again not a very strong point but sometimes dialogue just implies things in Miraculous and I can think of a very specific quote that would fit this happening, and there are probably more that I just dont know to look for since I dont have this whole show memorized

So the quote is from Startrain after Gabriel loses control of the akuma then learns about the Startrain having been akumatized with Adrien on board, and he says “hoping that my enemies will save my son..... how ironic.” When I first heard this quote I really, really felt like it was foreshadowing something just based on his tone and the way this new idea was being introduced of him having to be on the same side as Ladynug and Chat Noir for once, even if it was just temporary. This quote absolutely is indicative to me of a future event in which he’ll have to work with his “enemies” to save his son. A situation in which Adrien is in comatose would perfectly align with this. At least for how I would predict the show would make it, Gabriel would have to turn away from Emilie (who represents the past for him, and this action would therefore represent moving on) and join forces with Ladybug/Marinette, his “enemy”, to save Adrien.

Onto the last reason!

Emilie is probably definitely coming back. Which means someone’s going into a coma in her place.

I mean come on it would be so anticlimactic if they just caught Gabe before he fulfilled his wish. Plus with the way they are outlining Emilie to be this perfect golden being is definitely because its going to far contrast with how she will actually turn out. This doesnt really support the Adrien thing in particular but honestly it would also be anticlimactic of the coma was for anyone else. If it was Nathalie, then yeah itd suck for Adrien I guess but like???? Doesn’t really connect the plots as much. Whereas if its Adrien, that brings Marinette into it, that gives her a powerful as heck conflict. Im guessing they would also somehow resolve his coma with “the power of love” mentioned in the theme song, just because of the foreshadowing with like waking someone up with a true love’s kiss (think Plagg in Chameleon, I guess the rose in Style Queen, maybe Alya’s story to Manom in Stormy Weather if we’re strecthing it....)

TL;DR: Adrien is probably gonna go comatose (like Emilie did) at some point because its been pretty foreshadowed (think Style Queen, Riposte, and even Chameleon), because of the legend surrounding the Hindu “mayura” peacock eating a snake representing time (wow that was not a sentence ok then), because Gabriel has previously foreshadowed having to work with his enemies to save his son, and also just because it would be super awesome and allow each character involved to have a pretty fulfilling conflict and arc.

(all images from the miraculous ladybug wiki excluding the piece of art depicting the mayura which is from murugan.org)

I hope however took the time to read this post enjoyed this theory, sometimes I have really random yet detailed theories regarding this show and I wanted to share this one because if I’m right then this will be proof I had predicted it, also you guys could possibly elaborate on it. I’m all for friendly discussions folks fr

If this doesn’t end up happening the theory is still awesome and they should have done it, and if it does my ego will probably expand and hopefully they will make it as awesome as it seems like it would be. Sorry if the structure of this post is not great, but thank you for reading. I appreciate you, have a wonderful week :)

[your-demi-blog1]

How Google’s New Layout Predicts the Future of SEO

When you think about SEO and what’s changed over the last 5 years, what comes to your mind?

 Chances are, it’s something related to how it’s harder to get rankings on Google.

  But why has it gotten harder to get more organic traffic? 

 Well, if you ask most SEOs, they’ll say it’s because Google has created a much more complex algorithm.

 They look at factors like page speed, brand queries, and hundreds of other factors that it may have not been placing much emphasis on in the past.

  But that’s only half the story. 

 The reason SEO has gotten harder is only partially related to Google’s algorithm changes.

 Here’s what most SEOs aren’t talking about that you need to pay attention to because this will show you the future of SEO.  

  Google’s ever-changing layout   When you perform a Google search, what do you see?

 Some organic listings and some paid results,  right? 

 And that’s what Google has shown for years. Much hasn’t changed from its core concept.

 But over the years, they have continually made small layout tweaks which have added up to big changes.

 Let’s look at Google’s layout changes over the past few years… lucky for us,  Orbit Media  performed random Google searches in 2013, 2014, and 2015 and compared them to Google’s current layout for us.

   The big differences from 2013 versus 2019 are:

  The first organic listing is drastically pushed down  The ads used to be clearly identified through design elements, but now they blend in more.   Now let’s look at 2014 versus 2019:

   And 2015 versus 2019:

   The big trend is that the organic search results have been drastically pushed down below the fold. Roughly by 3.3X.

  That’s a huge difference! 

 A listing these days may have a map, elements from their knowledge graph, more videos and images, and whatever else Google feels their users may want.

 Another big trend is that there are now featured snippets. Although these featured snippets can drive traffic to your site, they also provide the searcher with the answer they are looking for without having to click through to your site.

 Just perform a search for the largest tree in the world…

   Sure, I could click through over to livescience.com to get the answer, but why?  Google gives it to me right then and there. 

 With organic listings being pushed down, and Google answering a portion of people’s questions without them even needing to click through, this means organic listings will get fewer clicks over time.

  And it’s not stopping there   Let me ask you a question…

  How many organic listings are on the first page? 

 10, right?

  Well, that’s what we are used to, but when’s the last time you actually counted? 

    Google’s dumped 5.5% of organic first page listings . Yes, the first page does have 10 listings a lot of the time, but not as often now.

  Here’s a graph that’ll show you the change :

    18%!!  That’s the percentage of first page listings with less than 10 organic results.

 What’s crazy is it used to be 2%. That’s a huge jump.

  So, what else is Google testing with their layout?   This is a small test that they are doing with their layout, in which  some results may not have any listings .

    But Google did report that was a glitch . The page was not supposed to contain any organic listings, but at the same time, it was supposed to contain no paid listings either.

 And over time you should continually expect Google to run more layout experiments and make more permanent changes.

 Now before we get into the  future of SEO , let’s get one thing straight.

 Google is a publicly traded company. Sure, their goal is to create an amazing product, but they have to make money at the same time.

 You can’t blame them for making changes that increase their ad revenues.

 Yes, you may claim that this is creating a terrible experience for users,  but is it really?  If it was, people would switch to  Bing  or any of the other alternative search engines out there.

 I still use Google every day. Yes, it may be harder to get clicks organically, but as a user, they’ve created an amazing experience.

  The future of SEO   Google doesn’t just make changes to their layout blindly. They run experiments, they survey users, they try to figure out what searchers want and provide it.

 Based on the layout changes they have made over the years, you can make a few assumptions:

   More rich snippets  – people want the answers to their problems as quickly as possible. You’ll see more versions and variations of rich snippets integrated within future layouts as this provides searches with their answers faster.   Less clicks to your site because of voice search  – according to Comscore,  50% of searches will be voice searches by 2020 . Don’t expect people to go to your site because of voice search.   People are trained to ignore ads  – no matter how much Google pushes the first organic listing below the fold, people are trained to ignore ads. No matter how much Google blends them in, most people tend to click on organic listings.   43.9% of the world still hasn’t come online  – we all know Google is the dominant global search engine.  But only 56.1% of the world’s population has Internet access . As more people come online, more people will use Google as their search engine, which means more people to click on your organic listings.   In other words, SEO isn’t dead and it is still an amazing channel. Just look at my traffic stats over the last 31 days:

   Now of those 4,362,165 monthly visits, guess how many come from search engines like Google?

   A whopping 2,343,362 visits.

 In other words, SEO makes up 53.71% of my traffic.  That’s a ton of traffic. 

 And even with Google’s continual changes, you would expect my traffic to be lower, but it isn’t…  it’s gone up .

   A year ago, I was generating 1,088,251 visits a month from Google. It’s now gone up to 2,343,362 even though Google’s algorithm has continually gotten harder and organic results are continually being pushed further below the fold.

  But still, you shouldn’t only rely on SEO   I love Google and even though there is a future for SEO, you shouldn’t rely on it. No matter how good you are at SEO, it doesn’t guarantee success.

 Let’s look at a company that you are familiar with…  Airbnb .

 Did you know that Airbnb didn’t come up with the concept of renting out your house or rooms in your house?

  Can you guess who it was? 

 It was VRBO and they came up with that model 13 years before Airbnb did.

 But here’s what’s interesting… who do you think wins when it comes to SEO?

  Shockingly, it’s VRBO. 

  VRBO crushes Airbnb when it comes to Google rankings  and they have for a very long time. Here are just a few examples of keywords VRBO ranks for that Airbnb doesn’t:

  hilton head rentals  ocean city maryland rentals  cape cod rentals  cabin rentals  vacation homes  vacation rentals  vacation home rentals   Airbnb does rank for organic keywords as well, but most of them are brand related.

 They crushed their competition without relying on SEO and they were 13 years late when it came to entering the market.

 So how did Airbnb win? Well, the main way was they built a better product.

 But in addition to that, you focused on an omnichannel approach. From SEO to PPC to advertising on TV screens in airplanes, they tried all of the major channels out there.

 Yes, you need to do SEO, but you can’t rely on it as your only source of traffic or income. Diversify, not because of Google, but because you can’t control consumer behavior.

 People may not prefer to use search engines in the future, they may want something else, which means you will have to adapt.

 Plus you can no longer build a big business through one channel.

 Yes, Facebook did grow through referrals. Quora did grow through SEO. Dropbox grew through social media… but those circumstances don’t exist anymore. What worked for these old companies won’t work for you.

 You have to leverage all channels to do well in today’s market.

  Conclusion   Google may be making changes that you don’t like as a marketer or business owner, but that doesn’t mean SEO is dead.

 You can see it from my own traffic stats. You can still grow your traffic, even with  Google’s ever-changing algorithm .

 Don’t worry about the future because you won’t be able to always predict it or even prevent the inevitable.

 The only real solution is to take an omnichannel approach so that you aren’t relying on any one channel.

  What do you think about Google’s current layout?  

 The post  How Google’s New Layout Predicts the Future of SEO  appeared first on  Neil Patel .

https://neilpatel.com/blog/googles-new-layout/

[simplemlmsponsoring]

New Post has been published on http://simplemlmsponsoring.com/attraction-marketing-formula/copywriting/why-going-viral-should-not-be-one-of-your-goals/

Why going viral should not be one of your goals

The word ‘viral’ used to refer to the sudden, uncontrollable spread of an illness, but in recent years has been repurposed, becoming synonymous with the rapid proliferation of certain types of online content.

Regardless of whether it’s a news story, funny video or cute photo of a cat typing on a keyboard, viral content is now an inescapable part of how the internet (and social media in particular) work in modern society. Going viral can also come with huge benefits, ranging from increased exposure and sudden fame all the way through to providing a platform for getting a certain message out into the world.

For a long time, viral content was something of a mystery, with few able to predict which pieces of content would capture the internet’s attention and spread like wildfire. That’s changed in recent years though, with an entire industry springing up around the concept of going viral and what it takes to achieve such widespread success online. But is this really the right approach for businesses looking to improve their digital presence and better reach their audience? Recent examples of going viral have illustrated the importance of being careful what you wish for, while also underlining the value of taking a slower, more controlled approach to online campaigns.

Why is #Wendy’s so savage? Striking the right social media tonehttps://t.co/jE9l9u0fGS #contentmarketing #contentmktg pic.twitter.com/tqWvCHfuBr

— Castleford Media (@castlefordmedia) May 19, 2017 What does going viral really mean?

Before we can get into the reasons why going viral may not be the best strategy for your business,

It’s important to clearly define what viral content is. The content side of the equation is easy, encompassing everything from articles and photos to videos, songs, graphics and other images. So what about ‘viral’?

A great definition comes from Elise Moreau, who writes in Lifewire that: “On the internet, a piece of content can spread just like a virus if people become “infected” when they see it. The infection usually comes from evoked emotions that spur the viewer to share it, so they can relate with other people and discuss how they feel.”

Going viral requires emotion

With this focus on emotions in mind, it’s easy to see why certain types of content capture the online zeitgeist. Perhaps they’re funny, sad or simply strange, but all share some form of emotion that a huge group of people can relate to.

The stronger the emotion, the more shareable a piece of content is, and these emotions aren’t always the most wholesome. In fact, many pieces of viral content, be they Wendy’s mean tweets or over-the-top political rants, deliberately tap into the darker sides of the human psyche. There’s a reason why videos of people falling over or being embarrassed tend to perform so well on social media platforms.

Viral content is therefore unpredictable, and even if you do manage to create something that captures attention, there’s no real way of telling what sort of emotions you’ll stir up.

The reach of viral content

What’s undeniable about viral content is its reach, offering businesses the kind of attention and connection with audiences they could only dream about with traditional content marketing tools.

This vast reach is the benefit most closely associated with going viral, and it’s easy to see why companies might be enticed by the promise of instantly broadening their audience by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. The problem, however, is that the definition of viral content changes with every new phenomenon.

Back in the early days of YouTube and Facebook, a video or post with 10,000 likes or more might have been considered a viral success. Today, anything with less than a few million is a mere drop in the bucket, as exemplified by the recent example of the Instagram page world_record_egg.

Created with the express goal of becoming the most-liked post on the platform (beating Kylie Jenner’s measly 18 million likes on a photo of her newborn baby), the account’s only update – a stock photo of, you guessed it, an egg – currently boasts a whopping 44 million likes and counting.

That’s the kind of audience money simply can’t buy, but before you start planning your own egg-based marketing campaign, it’s worth taking a closer look at whether it will succeed and what the benefits would be even if it did.

View this post on Instagram

Let’s set a world record together and get the most liked post on Instagram. Beating the current world record held by Kylie Jenner (18 million)! We got this #LikeTheEgg #EggSoldiers #EggGang

A post shared by EGG GANG (@world_record_egg) on Jan 4, 2019 at 9:05am PST

Why going viral is a bad goal

The first reason attempting to create viral content isn’t the most efficient or effective goal is that it’s unpredictable. Using the example of the world record egg, there was no indication that the post would achieve anything like the success it’s had, with the post’s spread a completely random occurrence that could only happen in the age of the internet. In another time, the exact same success could have been had with a photo of something else, or the egg could have quickly faded from popularity with only a few hundred likes.

Of course, there are certain factors that can play into viral success, such as hopping on to a popular trend, mimicking other successful campaigns or attaching a brand to a popular influencer. Even with all of these characteristics, there’s simply no guarantee, making attempts at viral campaigns an often expensive waste of time, money and energy.

The next reason why viral video marketing and other forms of rampant online success aren’t always the best option for businesses is that there’s no real next step. If you reach an enormous audience with a well-timed piece of viral content, that very rarely translates into meaningful leads or conversions. Nobody is buying eggs through Instagram.

As with many aspects of content marketing and digital advertising, it all comes back to the idea of quality versus quantity. All the web traffic in the world won’t help your business sell more product, and while raising brand awareness is a good goal in its own right, that awareness needs to be within an audience that may decide to convert at some point in the future.

Finally, viral success is short-lived. Even though the world record egg is currently a big deal, it will only be a matter of time before something else comes along and eclipses it. For this reason, viral marketing isn’t a sustainable investment, unlike higher quality content such as informative blog posts or whitepapers that have a long shelf life.

Viral success is short-lived. Even though the world record egg is currently a big deal, it will only be a matter of time before something else comes along and eclipses it. Viral marketing gone wrong

If you needed more convincing that viral marketing isn’t the best approach for a business, it’s worth keeping in mind that in addition to the strategy’s drawbacks, there’s also a very real potential for viral videos, articles and other content to spectacularly backfire.

We’ve talked about this before, using the example of Kendall Jenner and Pepsi, but it’s worth looking into some more examples of when traditional businesses have tried to go viral.

At particular risk are viral campaigns centred around social media. The appeal of this approach is it allows  users to put their own stamp on a certain piece of content by interacting with it, but the risks are significant. One recent example is Southern Rail, which attempted to get users to have their say on the effects of its employees’ rail strikes in the UK. While the campaign certainly went viral, the responses were definitely not what Southern Rail wanted to hear.

Similarly, when Coca Cola encouraged online followers to ‘gif the feeling’ as part of a rebrand, it was probably expecting a series of wholesome images reflecting how people feel about cracking open an ice cold can or bottle of Coke.

Instead, the company was treated to a wide variety of gifs that ranged from anti-capitalism messaging to explicit content.

These examples underline the very real dangers associated with going viral, which come down to the simple fact that it’s impossible to predict how users will react to a particular campaign. For every wholesome share of a photo of an egg there’s a hijacking of a well-intentioned viral strategy. The risk of falling victim to this sort of backlash makes viral marketing a risk too great for many businesses.

So, instead of attempting to go viral, which guarantees almost nothing in terms of success, it’s a far better idea for businesses to play the long game and focus on generating quality leads through long-term plays that can be controlled, calculated and tweaked as need be.

The post Why going viral should not be one of your goals appeared first on Castleford Media.

Read more: castleford.com.au

[sempiternalsandpitturtle]

Why going viral should not be one of your goals

The word ‘viral’ used to refer to the sudden, uncontrollable spread of an illness, but in recent years has been repurposed, becoming synonymous with the rapid proliferation of certain types of online content.

Regardless of whether it’s a news story, funny video or cute photo of a cat typing on a keyboard, viral content is now an inescapable part of how the internet (and social media in particular) work in modern society. Going viral can also come with huge benefits, ranging from increased exposure and sudden fame all the way through to providing a platform for getting a certain message out into the world.

For a long time, viral content was something of a mystery, with few able to predict which pieces of content would capture the internet’s attention and spread like wildfire. That’s changed in recent years though, with an entire industry springing up around the concept of going viral and what it takes to achieve such widespread success online. But is this really the right approach for businesses looking to improve their digital presence and better reach their audience? Recent examples of going viral have illustrated the importance of being careful what you wish for, while also underlining the value of taking a slower, more controlled approach to online campaigns.

Why is #Wendy’s so savage? Striking the right social media tonehttps://t.co/jE9l9u0fGS #contentmarketing #contentmktg pic.twitter.com/tqWvCHfuBr

— Castleford Media (@castlefordmedia) May 19, 2017

What does going viral really mean?

Before we can get into the reasons why going viral may not be the best strategy for your business,

It’s important to clearly define what viral content is. The content side of the equation is easy, encompassing everything from articles and photos to videos, songs, graphics and other images. So what about ‘viral’?

A great definition comes from Elise Moreau, who writes in Lifewire that: “On the internet, a piece of content can spread just like a virus if people become “infected” when they see it. The infection usually comes from evoked emotions that spur the viewer to share it, so they can relate with other people and discuss how they feel.”

Going viral requires emotion

With this focus on emotions in mind, it’s easy to see why certain types of content capture the online zeitgeist. Perhaps they’re funny, sad or simply strange, but all share some form of emotion that a huge group of people can relate to.

The stronger the emotion, the more shareable a piece of content is, and these emotions aren’t always the most wholesome. In fact, many pieces of viral content, be they Wendy’s mean tweets or over-the-top political rants, deliberately tap into the darker sides of the human psyche. There’s a reason why videos of people falling over or being embarrassed tend to perform so well on social media platforms.

Viral content is therefore unpredictable, and even if you do manage to create something that captures attention, there’s no real way of telling what sort of emotions you’ll stir up.

The reach of viral content

What’s undeniable about viral content is its reach, offering businesses the kind of attention and connection with audiences they could only dream about with traditional content marketing tools.

This vast reach is the benefit most closely associated with going viral, and it’s easy to see why companies might be enticed by the promise of instantly broadening their audience by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. The problem, however, is that the definition of viral content changes with every new phenomenon.

Back in the early days of YouTube and Facebook, a video or post with 10,000 likes or more might have been considered a viral success. Today, anything with less than a few million is a mere drop in the bucket, as exemplified by the recent example of the Instagram page world_record_egg.

Created with the express goal of becoming the most-liked post on the platform (beating Kylie Jenner’s measly 18 million likes on a photo of her newborn baby), the account’s only update – a stock photo of, you guessed it, an egg – currently boasts a whopping 44 million likes and counting.

That’s the kind of audience money simply can’t buy, but before you start planning your own egg-based marketing campaign, it’s worth taking a closer look at whether it will succeed and what the benefits would be even if it did.

View this post on Instagram

Let’s set a world record together and get the most liked post on Instagram. Beating the current world record held by Kylie Jenner (18 million)! We got this #LikeTheEgg #EggSoldiers #EggGang

A post shared by EGG GANG (@world_record_egg) on Jan 4, 2019 at 9:05am PST

Why going viral is a bad goal

The first reason attempting to create viral content isn’t the most efficient or effective goal is that it’s unpredictable. Using the example of the world record egg, there was no indication that the post would achieve anything like the success it’s had, with the post’s spread a completely random occurrence that could only happen in the age of the internet. In another time, the exact same success could have been had with a photo of something else, or the egg could have quickly faded from popularity with only a few hundred likes.

Of course, there are certain factors that can play into viral success, such as hopping on to a popular trend, mimicking other successful campaigns or attaching a brand to a popular influencer. Even with all of these characteristics, there’s simply no guarantee, making attempts at viral campaigns an often expensive waste of time, money and energy.

The next reason why viral video marketing and other forms of rampant online success aren’t always the best option for businesses is that there’s no real next step. If you reach an enormous audience with a well-timed piece of viral content, that very rarely translates into meaningful leads or conversions. Nobody is buying eggs through Instagram.

As with many aspects of content marketing and digital advertising, it all comes back to the idea of quality versus quantity. All the web traffic in the world won’t help your business sell more product, and while raising brand awareness is a good goal in its own right, that awareness needs to be within an audience that may decide to convert at some point in the future.

Finally, viral success is short-lived. Even though the world record egg is currently a big deal, it will only be a matter of time before something else comes along and eclipses it. For this reason, viral marketing isn’t a sustainable investment, unlike higher quality content such as informative blog posts or whitepapers that have a long shelf life.

Viral success is short-lived. Even though the world record egg is currently a big deal, it will only be a matter of time before something else comes along and eclipses it.

Viral marketing gone wrong

If you needed more convincing that viral marketing isn’t the best approach for a business, it’s worth keeping in mind that in addition to the strategy’s drawbacks, there’s also a very real potential for viral videos, articles and other content to spectacularly backfire.

We’ve talked about this before, using the example of Kendall Jenner and Pepsi, but it’s worth looking into some more examples of when traditional businesses have tried to go viral.

At particular risk are viral campaigns centred around social media. The appeal of this approach is it allows  users to put their own stamp on a certain piece of content by interacting with it, but the risks are significant. One recent example is Southern Rail, which attempted to get users to have their say on the effects of its employees’ rail strikes in the UK. While the campaign certainly went viral, the responses were definitely not what Southern Rail wanted to hear.

Similarly, when Coca Cola encouraged online followers to ‘gif the feeling’ as part of a rebrand, it was probably expecting a series of wholesome images reflecting how people feel about cracking open an ice cold can or bottle of Coke.

Instead, the company was treated to a wide variety of gifs that ranged from anti-capitalism messaging to explicit content.

These examples underline the very real dangers associated with going viral, which come down to the simple fact that it’s impossible to predict how users will react to a particular campaign. For every wholesome share of a photo of an egg there’s a hijacking of a well-intentioned viral strategy. The risk of falling victim to this sort of backlash makes viral marketing a risk too great for many businesses.

So, instead of attempting to go viral, which guarantees almost nothing in terms of success, it’s a far better idea for businesses to play the long game and focus on generating quality leads through long-term plays that can be controlled, calculated and tweaked as need be.

from http://bit.ly/2TdXYws

[javleech-blog]

New Post has been published on Jav Leech

New Post has been published on https://javleech.com/google-shows-how-smooth-its-miles-for-software-to-eliminate-watermarks-from-pictures/

Google shows how smooth it's miles for software to eliminate watermarks from pictures

  Google’s research division nowadays certain simply how smooth it is for laptop algorithms to pass widespread picture watermarking practices, stripping the ones snap shots of copyright protection and making them susceptible to reporting throughout the internet without the credit score. The research, provided at a main computer vision convention in Hawaii returned in July, is described in detail in a paper titled, “On the Effectiveness of Visible Watermarks.”

“As regularly done with vulnerabilities found in working structures, packages or protocols, we want to disclose this vulnerability and propose answers on the way to help the photography and stock picture groups adapt and better defend its copyrighted content material and creations,” Tali Dekel and Michael Rubinstein, Google studies scientists, provide an explanation for in a publish published on Google’s studies blog in advance today.

Dekel and Rubinstein say the middle problem with contemporary picture watermarking methods is the high stage of consistency in fashion. “We show that this consistency may be used to invert the watermarking system — that is, estimate the watermark photograph and its opacity, and recover the unique, watermark-loose picture underneath,” the duo provides an explanation for. “This can all be finished automatically, with none consumer intervention or earlier facts about the watermark, and by way of most effective looking at watermarked image collections publicly available online.”

Photo: Google The crew in the back of the watermark-elimination set of rules turned into able to teach software program with sufficient public examples to pick out watermark patterns after which, through a method known as “multi-photo matting,” separate the watermark’s components from the relaxation of the photograph. Then, due to the fact, the software program knows the factors of the watermark like its opacity, structure, and shadow or color gradient consequences, Google’s set of rules is capable of taking away it from any photo containing that particular watermark or a similar one.

  To restoration this, and create more potent copyright protections for photos at the net, the crew suggests including elements of precise randomness to the watermark. However, you couldn’t definitely alternate the area, or make changes to the opacity of the watermark, Dekel and Rubinstein explain. Instead, you want to make changes on the way to depart visible artifacts after the elimination manner. This includes including “random geometric perturbations to the watermark” — successfully warping the text and emblems getting used. That way, while algorithms just like the one Google makes use of try to scrub the watermark out, they’ll depart outlines of the photograph due to the fact these systems are educated to look for consistency and work with the aid of concentrated on the vulnerabilities inherent in that consistency.

  Photo: Google “In a nutshell, the purpose this works is because doing away with the randomly-warped watermark from any single photo calls for to additionally estimate the warp area that became implemented to the watermark for that picture — a project this is inherently greater hard,” the duo write. “Therefore, even supposing the watermark sample may be predicted within the presence of these random perturbations (which through itself is nontrivial), correctly disposing of it with none saw artifact is a long way greater difficulty.”

The team admits that the protection isn’t an ideal one. There will probably constantly be greater sophisticated algorithms developed to pass present day practices, in a cat-and-mouse war much like that of cyber security protections. However, the modern-day country of watermarks leaves image protection in an unhappy nation, they are saying, or even only a little little bit of the proper form of randomness can go an extended way in preserving pix secure from theft in the brief term.

Why Opt For Old Version Software?

Are you familiar with the Free Open Source Software? Have you tried the use of it on your machine? Are you keen on upgrading modern-day model of numerous varieties of the software program?

The global internet gives a lot of freebies that all and sundry could use to develop other virtual merchandise for in addition use. One of those useful things online is the Free Open Source Software. The existence of a supply code and different rights to the software allow the customers to apply it and modify it according to their needs in the gadget.

So, how does the free open supply software emerge? Are these sorts of software clearly unfastened and widely available to most people? Why do they’ve distinctive licensing terms and rights? These are simply some of the features which can draw your interest in regards to the usage of the open source software for all your virtual desires.

The Free Open source Software exists as part of a software marketplace campaign. This pretty free software program is thought to be open-source of the ultra-modern software versions. Software’s modern-day model may additionally give you all the state-of-the-art functions which include cool colors and a greater pleasant interface. However, it could take up numerous space for your PC. Using the newer versions of software over the years makes you realize that the features here are nearly the same as the older variations. You could even say to yourself that it nevertheless feels profitable to use its preceding model without sacrificing quite a few space as said inside the device necessities.

There are also times when you feel that you are certainly extra comfy and assured in the usage of the older model than its cutting-edge version that you have recently downloaded. This is the truth that there are extra capabilities in it which can be new to you which could reason resistance in your component otherwise you just truly just like the old model’s style.

On the opposite hand, you’ll be significantly interested in the tremendous consumer interface of the brand new version of the software program. For some customers, that is a great plus element as most software carriers will now require you to use the present day model for extracting or downloading more recent software program packages they’re currently selling.

Vendors code this modern-day software on sale to allow prospective buyers recognize that they are professional sufficient in deciding on and developing new software which can be in the call for and in present day fad. They may even use the great user interface of the latest software model to inspire more sales. You may go for the contemporary version of it, however, do not be amazed if your gadget runs slower than usual. The state-of-the-art model consumes lots of page record reminiscence that generally exceeds from RAM, leaving the whole system slower.

What is simply essential right here is to don’t forget the fact that you need to pick the software program that exactly meets your desires. In this regard, you need to weigh both aspects of the argument to justify your wishes and alternatives.

[lavleech-blog]

Google shows how smooth it's miles for software to eliminate watermarks from pictures

New Post has been published on https://javleech.com/google-shows-how-smooth-its-miles-for-software-to-eliminate-watermarks-from-pictures/

Google shows how smooth it's miles for software to eliminate watermarks from pictures

  Google’s research division nowadays certain simply how smooth it is for laptop algorithms to pass widespread picture watermarking practices, stripping the ones snap shots of copyright protection and making them susceptible to reporting throughout the internet without the credit score. The research, provided at a main computer vision convention in Hawaii returned in July, is described in detail in a paper titled, “On the Effectiveness of Visible Watermarks.”

“As regularly done with vulnerabilities found in working structures, packages or protocols, we want to disclose this vulnerability and propose answers on the way to help the photography and stock picture groups adapt and better defend its copyrighted content material and creations,” Tali Dekel and Michael Rubinstein, Google studies scientists, provide an explanation for in a publish published on Google’s studies blog in advance today.

Dekel and Rubinstein say the middle problem with contemporary picture watermarking methods is the high stage of consistency in fashion. “We show that this consistency may be used to invert the watermarking system — that is, estimate the watermark photograph and its opacity, and recover the unique, watermark-loose picture underneath,” the duo provides an explanation for. “This can all be finished automatically, with none consumer intervention or earlier facts about the watermark, and by way of most effective looking at watermarked image collections publicly available online.”

Photo: Google The crew in the back of the watermark-elimination set of rules turned into able to teach software program with sufficient public examples to pick out watermark patterns after which, through a method known as “multi-photo matting,” separate the watermark’s components from the relaxation of the photograph. Then, due to the fact, the software program knows the factors of the watermark like its opacity, structure, and shadow or color gradient consequences, Google’s set of rules is capable of taking away it from any photo containing that particular watermark or a similar one.

  To restoration this, and create more potent copyright protections for photos at the net, the crew suggests including elements of precise randomness to the watermark. However, you couldn’t definitely alternate the area, or make changes to the opacity of the watermark, Dekel and Rubinstein explain. Instead, you want to make changes on the way to depart visible artifacts after the elimination manner. This includes including “random geometric perturbations to the watermark” — successfully warping the text and emblems getting used. That way, while algorithms just like the one Google makes use of try to scrub the watermark out, they’ll depart outlines of the photograph due to the fact these systems are educated to look for consistency and work with the aid of concentrated on the vulnerabilities inherent in that consistency.

  Photo: Google “In a nutshell, the purpose this works is because doing away with the randomly-warped watermark from any single photo calls for to additionally estimate the warp area that became implemented to the watermark for that picture — a project this is inherently greater hard,” the duo write. “Therefore, even supposing the watermark sample may be predicted within the presence of these random perturbations (which through itself is nontrivial), correctly disposing of it with none saw artifact is a long way greater difficulty.”

The team admits that the protection isn’t an ideal one. There will probably constantly be greater sophisticated algorithms developed to pass present day practices, in a cat-and-mouse war much like that of cyber security protections. However, the modern-day country of watermarks leaves image protection in an unhappy nation, they are saying, or even only a little little bit of the proper form of randomness can go an extended way in preserving pix secure from theft in the brief term.

Why Opt For Old Version Software?

Are you familiar with the Free Open Source Software? Have you tried the use of it on your machine? Are you keen on upgrading modern-day model of numerous varieties of the software program?

The global internet gives a lot of freebies that all and sundry could use to develop other virtual merchandise for in addition use. One of those useful things online is the Free Open Source Software. The existence of a supply code and different rights to the software allow the customers to apply it and modify it according to their needs in the gadget.

So, how does the free open supply software emerge? Are these sorts of software clearly unfastened and widely available to most people? Why do they’ve distinctive licensing terms and rights? These are simply some of the features which can draw your interest in regards to the usage of the open source software for all your virtual desires.

The Free Open source Software exists as part of a software marketplace campaign. This pretty free software program is thought to be open-source of the ultra-modern software versions. Software’s modern-day model may additionally give you all the state-of-the-art functions which include cool colors and a greater pleasant interface. However, it could take up numerous space for your PC. Using the newer versions of software over the years makes you realize that the features here are nearly the same as the older variations. You could even say to yourself that it nevertheless feels profitable to use its preceding model without sacrificing quite a few space as said inside the device necessities.

There are also times when you feel that you are certainly extra comfy and assured in the usage of the older model than its cutting-edge version that you have recently downloaded. This is the truth that there are extra capabilities in it which can be new to you which could reason resistance in your component otherwise you just truly just like the old model’s style.

On the opposite hand, you’ll be significantly interested in the tremendous consumer interface of the brand new version of the software program. For some customers, that is a great plus element as most software carriers will now require you to use the present day model for extracting or downloading more recent software program packages they’re currently selling.

Vendors code this modern-day software on sale to allow prospective buyers recognize that they are professional sufficient in deciding on and developing new software which can be in the call for and in present day fad. They may even use the great user interface of the latest software model to inspire more sales. You may go for the contemporary version of it, however, do not be amazed if your gadget runs slower than usual. The state-of-the-art model consumes lots of page record reminiscence that generally exceeds from RAM, leaving the whole system slower.

What is simply essential right here is to don’t forget the fact that you need to pick the software program that exactly meets your desires. In this regard, you need to weigh both aspects of the argument to justify your wishes and alternatives.

[luxus4me]

CSS-Tricks http://j.mp/2sQ8fVR

This is a real worry these days. I've heard it from lots of lots of developers. The years tick by on their projects, and all they ever seem to do is add to their CSS, never remove. It's not just a feeling, I've talked with companies before that track hard data on this. Over five years of tracking the size of their stylesheet, and all it's ever done is tick upwards in size.

This could be considered problematic for several reasons:

Files getting bigger is worse for performance

The developers are afraid of the CSS

#2 being, in my opinion, a much bigger deal than #1. The overall file size of CSS is likely to be fairly small compared to things like image assets and even the JavaScript payload these days. Fancy tooling and the world's internet speed ever-lurching faster will probably make #1 not that big of a deal.

But being afraid of your own styles is a bigger problem.

"Afraid" isn't usually how this problem is talked about, but I think that's what it amounts to. It's often talked about in terms of how the global nature of CSS is problematic or that the middle "S" in "CSS" is the only one worth saving.

"Unusued CSS"

Part of this story could certainly be about deleting CSS that is determined to be "unused" in a project. I know there is incredible demand for this kind of tooling. I feel like there are some developers damn near frothing at the mouth to blast their CSS through some kind of fancy tool to strip away anything unneeded.

This worries me just a little bit. It feels like saying: "Yes, I am afraid of our stylesheets. I don't want to understand them, I just want something to fix them for me."

Here's how one company I heard from was doing it:

They injected a script onto the page for some subset of users.

The script would look at the CSSOM and find every single selector in the CSS for that page.

It would also run a querySelectorAll("*") and find every single DOM node on that page.

It would compare those two sets and find all selectors that seemed to be unusused.

In order to get the best results, it would fire this script after a random amount of seconds, on a random set of users, in a random set of conditions. Even with this, it needed a lot of data over a long period of time.

After that had run for long enough, there was a set of CSS selectors that seemed likely to be unused.

To be sure, unique background images were applied to all those selectors.

After applying those and waiting for another length of time, the server logs were checked to make sure those images were never accessed. If they were, that selector was used, and would have to stay. Ultimately, the unused selectors could safely be deleted from the CSS.

Whew! That's an awful lot of work to remove some CSS.

But as you can imagine, it's fairly safe. Imagine just checking one page's CSS coverage. You'll definitely find a bunch of unused CSS. One page, in one specific state, is not representative of your entire website.

Websites have multiple pages. JavaScript runs on them affecting the HTML. Users may log into them, displaying things in a different state. Dynamic things happen on websites. In order to really know what CSS is used, you'd have to test every possible page in every possible interactive permutation, which is a tall order. I'm sure you can imagine some CSS that applies only to a select menu for a logged in user with an expired subscription who has logged in to update a credit card which happens in a modal window with a form that displays a certain way because the card is American Express.

All that said, there are tools that purport to help you find unused CSS

Chrome has a "Coverage" panel (in Canary as I write) that can tell you what of your CSS is used:

It's pretty nice in how you can hit the Record button, click around and do a bunch of stuff (even changing pages) and it will continue analyzing how much of the CSS gets used. Then you can see what is used or not with the red or green bars next to the CSS.

It suffers from the same problems that I described, in how you just clickin' around isn't enough to guarantee coverage. You're very likely to miss edge cases, and if you make choices on CSS to delete based on your incomplete testing, you'll be causing yourself problems.

There are other tools that take a stab at helping remove unused CSS, UnCSS probably being the most popular.

UnCSS does some smart stuff, like allowing you to list a whole array of URL's to test together, provide media queries to apply, and runs JavaScript. Here's their example configuration:

var uncss = require('uncss'); var files = ['my', 'array', 'of', 'HTML', 'files', 'or', 'http://urls.com'], options = { ignore : ['#added_at_runtime', /test\-[0-9]+/], media : ['(min-width: 700px) handheld and (orientation: landscape)'], csspath : '../public/css/', raw : 'h1 { color: green }', stylesheets : ['lib/bootstrap/dist/css/bootstrap.css', 'src/public/css/main.css'], ignoreSheets : [/fonts.googleapis/], timeout : 1000, htmlroot : 'public', report : false, uncssrc : '.uncssrc' }; uncss(files, options, function (error, output) { console.log(output); });

I'd still worry that this would be difficult to configure (and keep configured) such that it provides 100% test coverage. Everytime you wrote a new CSS rule, you'd need to make sure it didn't trigger a false positive here. That is, presuming you actually use this tool to delete CSS.

Not to mention that, while it does execute JavaScript, it's not simulating interactions.

Another approach: frameworks

Imagine you used a CSS framework that provided every practical bit of styling you'd want to apply. Rather than writing CSS, you'd apply the classes that the framework applied to do what you needed to do. You've now tied your HTML classes pretty heavily toward this framework, but you've solved the growing CSS problem. Over the years, your CSS will remain flat.

I'm no expert in Tachyons, but that's what it seems like to me. After you get used to using it, you get pretty speedy at coding up what you need with the side benefit of this rarely-changing static CSS file that nobody is afraid of.

This falls into a category that has come to be known as Atomic CSS, of which there are many players. A version of Atomic CSS is "programmatic", in which you use special classes and a processing step generates the final CSS for you. The idea being that now you aren't shipping a static framework of CSS, but only the very little bit of CSS you actually need.

John Polacek recently wrote about this. He's finding that he both suffered from the growth of CSS problem, and found that Atomic CSS not only stopped the trend but reversed it:

Heck, even frameworks like Boostrap, Foundation, Materialize, or Bulma fit the bill here. The idea is that if you stick to the framework, you'll never get to that undesirable state of being afraid of your own CSS.

CSS in JS

Managing styles in JavaScript (recommended reading) also can help with this problem. Styles that are entirely scoped to a particular module are, by nature, easy to delete. Don't need the module, don't need the styles.

Don't worry too hard

I find all this stuff fascinating to watch and think about. As is often said: the web is a big place. All of us have unique circumstances. This problem affects some percentage of us, and dare I say, probably a fairly small percentage.

If you aren't particularly worried about the size of your CSS and aren't particularly scare of it, good! Neither am I, on most of my projects.

I just have a feeling (a prediction, really) that there is a modular future for CSS:

When we write styles, we will always make a choice. Is this a global style? Am I, on purpose, leaking this style across the entire site? Or, am I writing CSS that is specific to this component? CSS will be split in half between these two. Component-specific styles will be scoped and bundled with the component and used as needed.

What the prodominant tooling for that will be, I am unsure, if there even is one.

Oh No! Our Stylesheet Only Grows and Grows and Grows! (The Append-Only Stylesheet Problem) is a post from CSS-Tricks

http://j.mp/2rwVdJb via CSS-Tricks URL : http://j.mp/2bNbLYg