#this project comes with the caveat that i’m an engineering major and i’m taking too many classes so updates will be slow but i’m excited!!!

[arithmonym]

my first exposure to the locked tomb was an excellent wolf 359 fic set in its universe (Signal Decay by fathomfive), so i decided to write the reverse!

i hope to post the first chapter of Dominicus 359 within the next few days. here’s a little snippet:

[loraneldin]

Eight pack - Part 3 (Part 1, Part 2)

Bruce wakes to a roaring and can’t decide if it is inside his head or out. Trying to find out almost makes him miss that there are arms wrapped around him. He finally decides that they are in the Quinjet and part of the noise are the engines starting. But the majority of it is actually his head feeling like it has been screwed on the wrong way around. 

He opens an eye anyway to see who is holding him in their lap. Thor’s eyes flicker down to him and for a moment a smile washes the tension off his face. 

The last sense that registers is smell. The smile comes with a waft of relaxing omega but mostly Thor smells worried and … slightly aggressive. That must be a remnant from the fight.

They were called out to Maine to fight a thing. That was what the first responder report said. A giant thing. When they arrived, Tony had looked expectantly at Bruce waiting for an assessment.

“It could be a Malva– Nephro– Odoco– I have no idea. I’m sure it’s not a mineral, though.”

So, they fought the thing. And it sure was vicious. Vicious enough that Steve decided they needed the Hulk, who found some soft spot to pummel while the rest kept the thing’s maws occupied. Then a giant tentacle (or was it a vine?) passed just beside the Hulk’s head and he had tried to bat it away and then he got knocked out from behind. It is the last thing Bruce remembers.

“Is the thing dead?” he asks. Because that would explain why the note of agitation isn’t  disappearing from Thor’s scent.

“Yes, it is. Thor got you away from it, and Tony finished it off with the Unibeam.”

Bruce turns his head to where Steve has been talking. He is standing at the bulkhead all the way over by the pilot seat, his hands held down and out in a somewhat awkward manner.

‘“The police and the army are going to do the clean up. We’re getting you and Nat back to the tower and into medical.”

There is a low growl that, as Bruce belatedly realizes, is coming from Thor.

Steve stretches all his fingers even further apart as if at a loss for what else to do with them.

“They just need to take a look at Nat and Bruce and if they are alright we’ll take them back home.”

Bruce thinks he is probably alright once the headache is gone. “What’s with Nat?”

“I’m fine.” Nat’s voice is coming from behind Bruce back and he tries to turn his neck that far but winces when pain shoots up his spine and into his skull.

Thor growls again and cradles Bruce’s head against his chest, so firm that Bruce has no doubt he won’t be moving again any time soon.

“Nat, you’ve been stabbed.” Sam’s voice is coming from the cockpit area. Bruce hears it slightly muffled, closed in as he is in Thor’s arms.

“And?” Nat bites back.

Sam sighs.

Everybody expects alphas to be stupid about injuries, but on this team it is basically everybody, and Nat is the queen of them all. Again, Thor’s pheromones are shifting towards uncertainty. If he is getting this protective about Bruce, there is a good chance he thought about trying to do the same with Nat when they were boarding. And there is no way that went over well.

Nat hates people doting on her when she’s injured. Steve is only able to ever get her to see a doctor by swearing to ban her from missions if she doesn’t do it. But Bruce knows without being able to look that Clint is by her side and has already checked the wound too. He is somehow exempt from all of Nat’s suspicions.

“Just let me take a look,” Sam asks again and there is a barely noticeable tremble to his voice, so the wound must have at least looked bad. If everyone is worried about Nat, the air in the jet was probably going to be hell in a few minutes. 

Bruce almost jolts when he recognizes who he hasn’t heard so far. “Tony, you are way too silent there.”

“I’m flying to get you all to the doctors as fast as possible. Although it would really be helpful if you would let Sam check since he’s the only one with medical training here.”

“I think Nat needs that more than me.”

“Ha, if Bruce doesn’t need to be checked out neither do I.”

“Bruce needs to be checked for a concussion,” Sam explains. “The bit that we can do here, I can tell Steve how to do, while I check on Nat.”

Nat harumpfs and Thor growls again. At Steve checking on Bruce? Is that what is going on here?

They have become a lot closer after Bucky spoke up and Tony induced a cuddle fest. But everything has been neither here nor there so far. Team activities have become more and there is a lot more of casual touching and asks for hugs, but that is it.

It sure is better than before and they all know it, but if they’re honest, it’s not enough. 

The reactions from everyone were neutral or negative when Bruce only mentioned the word pack. Back then it was only an observation. But especially Bucky and Steve were horrified by the mention alone, which after all is probably connected to their youth taking place almost a century ago. It still isn’t a common concept, but there are different views on relationships and families today. If one would ask Bruce himself, he knew that the traditional epitome of relationships, one alpha and one omega, was no recipe for joy either. He grew up with the worst possible outcome of that structure.

And doing this thing half assed isn’t an option either as they are effectively demonstrating right now. 

“Thor,” Bruce rasps maybe a bit more pitiable than his condition requires.

A questioning sounds makes him open his eyes. Thor is fully concentrated on him, and Bruce doesn’t even try to ignore how nice that feels. They all know that Thor’s protective streak is a mile wide, but the combination of the intensified bonding and a mission leaving two of them in need of medical attention have apparently send those instincts into overdrive.

Bruce takes a deep breath and lets go of all the things that are scurrying through his mind for the moment. They will be there to worry about when they are through this. He concentrates on not making any distressed sounds when lifting his arm to cup Thor’s cheek. He doesn’t bother to smile. It would look as fake as it feels, instead he tries to project a sense of calm. 

“Will you let Steve take a look? You know he is as worried as you are.” He lets his need for attention filter through as good as he is able to manage. It still makes him feel guilty after relearning and practising it for years. The smell of his longing for connection starts to become noticeable and his first thought is that it is much too strong, but Thor doesn’t react negatively, instead buries his face in Bruce’s neck. 

“Steve can help,” Bruce tries again. “And then Sam can go take a look at Natasha and make sure she is okay too.”

That there is not more growling from Thor is a good sign. Bruce only feels how Thor nods against his neck. The hand still pressing his head to Thor’s chest let’s go and he can turn around to beckon Steve over.

-

Nat has no choice but to let Sam check the wound. Well, she does, but then she would be responsible if Thor sinks further into this overbearing-omega-will-demolish-anyone-getting-too-close-to-his-loved-ones persona. That Bruce managed to get him even so far out of it is respectable. And she doesn’t really have an argument if it isn’t about her but about Thor, does she? 

She would trust Sam with her life, has several times, but she still hates this situation. He asks before he does anything, and while Natasha understands why, she still hates it. It just makes it resemble a medical treatment even more.

“Can you just poke me where you need to and forgo the good bedside manners?”

Thor’s head turns to monitor the situation, and Natasha rolls her eyes. “Everything is fine, Thor. I just don’t need the talk. Sam would never hurt me, right?” She adds the last bit with her most vicious smile. 

Sam looks up from where he is at eye-level with the gash at her side and gives her the stink-eye.

“It’s superficial but still bleeding. It probably will need stitches, though.” Sam stands up and removes the latex gloves. Before he can go back to the co-pilot seat, however, Clint grabs his arm and pulls him back. 

“I think Nat needs some cuddles too until we’re back.”

“We are three minutes out,” Tony interrupts from the front.

“Still,” Clint waves the objection away.

Sam plops down on Natasha’s other side and raises one eyebrow questiongly. With a sigh Natasha lifts his arm and snuggles close, pulling Clint with her, so that they are both half lying atop of Sam. She is still able to see the other three where Thor has allowed Steve to at least crouch in front of them and have a settling hand on Bruce’s back. 

The calm that settles over the Quinjet is hard to ignore. Nat still isn’t sure where they are going with this. So far the developments all have been kind of nice, but she knows that there’s always a caveat. 

She cards a hand through Clint’s hair. With him it’s been worth it. Not that she ever weighed it that way; since they met it has been clear that there was nothing coming between them. Mostly because Clint would never give her up and wasn’t that something completely new. But being lucky once was one thing, repeating that six times? How lucky could one person be? 

Sam is humming some song that Natasha doesn’t know. She takes a deep breath. The worry and aggression and thinly veiled disappointment that have been in the air are mostly gone. Instead, it is a mixture of content and drained omegas and betas. And even Sam, who is usually very much in control of his pheromones and not as communicative that way (one could also say more polite than to push it in everyone’s face), smells highly satisfied. Natasha pencilled him down as a carer the minute they met, but it is nice to know she has been so right. 

Natasha still isn’t wholly convinced of this thing, but it’s hard not to want to try.

Part 4

[codehunter]

Switching from MySQL to Cassandra - Pros/Cons?

For a bit of background - this question deals with a project running on a single small EC2 instance, and is about to migrate to a medium one. The main components are Django, MySQL and a large number of custom analysis tools written in python and java, which do the heavylifting. The same machine is running Apache as well.

The data model looks like the following - a large amount of real time data comes in streamed from various networked sensors, and ideally, I'd like to establish a long-poll approach rather than the current poll every 15 minutes approach (a limitation of computing stats and writing into the database itself). Once the data comes in, I store the raw version inMySQL, let the analysis tools loose on this data, and store statistics in another few tables. All of this is rendered using Django.

Relational features I would need -

Order by [SliceRange in Cassandra's API seems to satisy this]

Group by

Manytomany relations between multiple tables [Cassandra SuperColumns seem to do well for one to many]

Sphinx on this gives me a nice full text engine, so thats a necessity too. [On Cassandra, the Lucandra project seems to satisfy this need]

My major problem is that data reads are extremely slow (and writes aren't that hot either). I don't want to throw a lot of money and hardware on it right now, and I'd prefer something that can scale easily with time. Vertically scaling MySQL is not trivial in that sense (or cheap).

So essentially, after having read a lot about NOSQL and experimented with things like MongoDB, Cassandra and Voldemort, my questions are,

On a medium EC2 instance, would I gain any benefits in reads/writes by shifting to something like Cassandra? This article (pdf) definitely seems to suggest that. Currently, I'd say a few hundred writes per minute would be the norm. For reads - since the data changes every 5 minutes or so, cache invalidation has to happen pretty quickly. At some point, it should be able to handle a large number of concurrent users as well. The app performance currently gets killed on MySQL doing some joins on large tables even if indexes are created - something to the order of 32k rows takes more than a minute to render. (This may be an artifact of EC2 virtualized I/O as well). Size of tables is around 4-5 million rows, and there are about 5 such tables.

Everyone talks about using Cassandra on multiple nodes, given the CAP theorem and eventual consistency. But, for a project that is just beginning to grow, does it make senseto deploy a one node cassandra server? Are there any caveats? For instance, can it replace MySQL as a backend for Django? [Is this recommended?]

If I do shift, I'm guessing I'll have to rewrite parts of the app to do a lot more "administrivia" since I'd have to do multiple lookups to fetch rows.

Would it make any sense to just use MySQL as a key value store rather than a relational engine, and go with that? That way I could utilize a large number of stable APIs available, as well as a stable engine (and go relational as needed). (Brett Taylor's post from Friendfeed on this - http://bret.appspot.com/entry/how-friendfeed-uses-mysql)

Any insights from people who've done a shift would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks.

https://codehunter.cc/a/django/switching-from-mysql-to-cassandra-pros-cons

[kalelblogdanove]

What It Takes To Be A Voice Actor REDUX

In 2015 I wrote a blog about what it takes to be a successful voice actor. I have since come to feel that I was perhaps a little too discouraging in tone. There are plenty of voices in the world to say “no” to your dreams. I don’t wish to be one of them. So here is my previous article on the matter, re-released and annotated to reflect my current thinking.

Old essay in plain text or bold. New thoughts struck throughstruck through and replaced with italics.

 I’m going to offer two kinds of advice. First I will touch on passion, work ethic and other similarly rarefied intangibles—the habits and the mentality required to succeed. Only then will I move on to some nuts-and-bolts advice—the stuff you can take to the bank… or the booth, as the case may be.

A few caveats:

I am not a voice actor.

I have directed many wonderful voice actors. I know a lot about what “the biz” is looking for, and I know what I myself am looking for in a good voice actor. But I have done very little professional acting.

This is art, not science.

This is an art form, and like any art form it is squishy. There are no hard-and-fast rules, just guidelines, and the guidelines are riddled with exceptions. Like…keeping your eyes open is a basic rule of effective stand-up comedy, right? Well, tell that to Gilbert Gottfried or Mitch Hedburg. The same goes for VO—a certain amount of wiggle room is inherent.

Some people might disagree with me.

That’s okay! My opinion is subjective, and the industry is always in flux. There are lots of different opinions out there, and if you are a professional and you have one, please send it to me so I can make it available here, and incorporate it into my own understanding.

There is no magic bullet.

It is not a 1+1=you’rethenextNolanNorth scenario. You can follow all these guidelines and still find yourself working at The Cheesecake Factory for years. There is no shame in that. A big ingredient to success is luck. The other major ingredient is persistence and that brings me to…

Part 1: This Is A Very Hard Job To Get

Before you decide to become a voice actor it is essential that you have an understanding of what it will take to break in.

You must love it enough to spend as many as five years breaking in, working other jobs, spending money on classes and demos, and being relentlessly hardworking and self-improving, without landing a single gig. Some people waltz right in. Others have to batter down brick walls. You must be prepared to do the latter. If you are not, do yourself a favor and pick a different career.

Kal 2017: Actually, try this career. ALWAYS try to follow your dreams. You and you alone will know if you’ve had enough and want to do something else. Might take a month, might take five years, might be never. Pick the career you love, don’t let anyone tell you not to.

Let’s revisit those words “relentlessly hardworking and self-improving.”

Throughout your career, but particularly when you are breaking in, you will be competing against the very best actors in the world. You might be talented to begin with, but that is not enough. You MUST MUST MUST push yourself to be better, ALWAYS. I guarantee that your competition will.

Kal 2017: This remains true, but I temper it by saying do not worry if you are not the best to start with. Skills can be built over time. The most important thing is that you have a fun and happy life doing something you enjoy. You can actually hear the sound of stress in a performance, and it’s not a good sound. Try to relax and have fun!

This means acknowledging early-on that you always have something to learn, and then being proactive about learning it. Read books, and take classes.

TAKE CLASSES!

Take voice acting classes, take stage acting classes, take directing classes, take breath work, take improv, take puppetry, take singing lessons. If you can, take an animation class or two. Since you’re going into audio, you might try to learn a bit about audio engineering/editing.

Kal 2017: Side note on this last idea. It is a great idea, if you are moving to Hollywood to do something fun and crazy, to pick up a production/postproduction skill like film/video editing, audio engineering/mixing/mastering, AfterEffects/graphics etc. These disciplines are a great and generally flexibly scheduled way to make a good living while you try to break into the job you’re passionate about.

Why? Because people love to shoot and record, but hate to edit/do post. Post work is an art, but it is also a trade, like plumbing—labor that HAS to get done before anything can be released. If you can get good and fast at this, and you don’t mind spending hours working on reality TV, web content, and infomercials, you can make some sweet bank. You’ll often be your own boss, and even when you’re not, postproduction people tend to be the most chill. Plus you’ll likely make some great contacts within your chosen field as well.

For instance, you can work at a recording studio, and meet voice actors, directors, and producers who have already broken in. If you do an awesome job with a good attitude, and help them be successful in their endeavors, they will be predisposed to say “yes” down the road when you ask for that audition, that recommendation to an agent, that free coaching session.

Believe me, anything and everything related to performance or art will be valuable, even if it is not VO-based.

I want to give a particular shout out to Shakespearean acting techniques, particularly those pioneered by Kristen Linklater. Almost all the best actors I have known have a serious grounding in that material.

Kal 2017: This is a great time to recommend some LA coaches who are awesome. I really like:

Bill Holmes @vodoctor

Andrea Romano

Kalmenson & Kalmenson @kalmenson

The Voice Actor’s Network with Hope Levy @hopelevysings

JB Blanc @thejbblanc  — Side note about this one. In addition to being a fantabulous actor, director, and coach, JB is also one of the leading experts on dialects. If you are international and looking to lose your accent, JB is the guy. If you are looking to acquire an accent for a role, JB is the guy.

And of course, me @kalelbogdanove

I’ll try to update with some reliable classes/coaches in other cities.

Also, remember to take movement classes like dance or martial arts. I know it sounds odd, since you will not be physically seen by anyone, but having an understanding of your body’s kinesthetics will improve your work.

Brian T. Delaney (Male Soul Survivor in Fallout 4) isn’t just one of the most physical voice actors I know, he is one of the most physical actors I know, full-stop. This does two things for him. First, it gives him technical control in the booth—he almost never goes off-mic, or hits the stand, or rustles his clothing (which is astonishing, given how much he moves around). Second, it invests all his game work with a sense of space and a sense of place—a layer and texture of reality that could not sound less like a guy reading a line—and his combat work in particular with a breathtaking degree of authenticity.

In short… learn how to move.

“BUT I’M ALREADY AWESOME,” you say.

Or, “I’ve already done a little voice work,” or some other excuse. Doesn’t matter. All the best working voice actors take classes constantly. They do not rest on their laurels. The best directors take classes too, including me. (He said with pompous implications.)

If you can’t afford classes, form a group of like-minded actors and practice together regularly. Watch videos on YouTube. Make your continuing education a priority.

The great thing is, these classes are FUN! You’ll meet like-minded artists! You’ll make great projects! You’ll feel impressive and confident as your abilities grow and grow!  Hell, you might get laid.

The point is that while the waiting and the day jobs are can be grueling, the work itself is fun. And if you don’t find it fun… do yourself a favor and pick a different career.

Kal 2017: Again, you’ll know. It’s okay to have a bad class/day/week/month. Stick to it! You can do it! Remain open and willing to grow, and you will likely succeed.

Part 2: This Is A Very Hard Job To Do

Voice over looks easy but it is VERY DIFFICULT—particularly in games. Take a moment and go on a journey of imagination with me:

Imagine four hours at a time in a booth that is as silent as The Surface of The Moon, unless the director has the talk-back open.

Imagine making seventy major emotional adjustments an hour. (By contrast, on-camera actors make between 2 and 10 per DAY.)

Imagine formulating a performance, delivering it, absorbing a note, reformulating, and redelivering in as little as 30 seconds.

Now imagine doing that 300-600 times in four hours.

This can be extremely tough. You must be able to clear as many as 150 lines an hour, with an average of 70. (Animation is closer to 20-30.) You must be a MUTHAFUCKIN’ BAWSE at cold-reading. (Better always to give a strong-but-wrong take right off the bat, than fiddle-fart around with broken half-takes.)

And line 600 has to be as strong and fresh as line 001.

Do not confuse fun and easy. This is a very fun job when it’s done right. It is ALWAYS very hard work. And if you’re not ready for hard work… do I have to say it again? You’re smart. I don’t. You get the idea.

Kal 2017: I really don’t. Even at its most difficult this is a pretty great job, one of the few remaining that is protected by a strong union. It is hard, but it is also a blast.

Part 3: A Great Voice Actor

I’ll keep this straightforward. A great voice actor is…

Punctual. Be on time. On time means 5-10 minutes early.

Friendly, but not unctuous. Don’t be a sourpuss, don’t climb in anyone’s lap.

Patient. Sometimes (rarely) writers and clients and producers will test your patience, or act outright rude. Try to be Zen. A good director will shield you from as much of this as possible.

CONFIDENT. I’m gonna repeat this—

CONFIDENT! Always give me a strong-but-wrong choice instead of a     hesitant garble. I cannot stress this enough. If you are second-guessing yourself, you are wasting everyone’s time undercutting your talent and hard work. Be kind to yourself by standing by your ability, and let the     director tell you if we need to adjust the performance.

A great listener. Redirect is gonna come at you thick and fast and you will have to pay close attention!

Dedicated. You may work on some dumb projects in your life. Doesn’t matter. You give every single stupid burger commercial your all. It is your job. Do not phone it in. Do not EVER EVER EVER show up drunk, high, or bored.

A strong reader. No two ways around this one. You have to pick stuff up off the page very rapidly. Kal 2017: Yes, okay, but also don’t be afraid to ask for the script in advance. Some won’t be willing to share it, but many simply assume you do not want it ahead of time. (Many voice actors don’t.) In that case they will be overjoyed to share it so you can rehearse. It never hurts to ask.

Not afraid to ask questions. If you don’t understand a line, or a piece of direction, just ASK ME ABOUT IT. Kal 2017: Please do this. Don’t be shy. We’re here to help YOU, so you can please THE CLIENT, which in turn makes US look good.

Excited to collaborate. You should bring ideas to the material. You should also be willing to totally chuck them and try something new in the spirit of exploration, even if you think it’s gonna be garbage.

Resilient. If you fuck up, just do another one. :) Kal 2017: This is related to confident. It’s okay to mess up. All the pros do. Don’t be embarrassed. Try not to get in your head. Just climb back on that horse.

Part 4: Upsides

There are a lot of upsides. As I said, it can be very fun work. More importantly, it can be very creatively satisfying.

It also pays well. Voice actors are one of the few lucky groups of American workers still protected by a strong union. Union minimums are in the ballpark of $800.00 for a four hour session. Voice actors work like Russian plow-horses, but thanks to SAG/AFTRA they are adequately recompensed for it.

Finally, voice acting is the one realm of acting where your age and your looks do not factor in too heavily. You can break into it fairly late in life, unlike on-camera acting where you essentially reach your expiration date at 30. Steve Blum, who is currently the toast of the VO town (you probably know him as Zeb Orelios in Star Wars Rebels or as Wolverine in just about everything) didn’t really get going in mainstream animation and games until middle age. He is not unique in that respect. It is never too late.

And, you can do it until you literally croak.

Part 5: Reel Etc.

So let’s say I haven’t scared you off. Let’s say you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no other job on earth that will satisfy you, and you are willing to walk barefoot across hot glass and mixed metaphors to be a voice actor.

What now?

Well, if you have been working very hard, and taking your classes and all that stuff I just spent an hour flapping my Tumblrgums about, then you might be ready to record a reel.

A reel is a short audio sample that showcases your best abilities and your best work.

Generally speaking most pro VO actors have:

An animation reel

A videogame reel

A commercial reel

Three separate reels with different material on them. If creature sounds are something they do, they might also also have a fourth creature noise reel.

A basic videogame reel should include:

The Leader—think Captain America, Superman, Princess Leia, Katniss Everdeen, and Jennifer Hale’s incomparable Fem Shep

The Rogue—think Han Solo, Black Widow, Tony Stark, Catwoman, and Marion Ravonwood

The Pale Rider—think Clint Eastwood, Batman, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Conner, Trinity

The weak protagonist — this is, like, an affable scientist with no combat skills — someone who could be endangered.

Strong crazy — this can range from a sinister psycho like The Joker, to a likeable loon like Crazy-Eyes — the key is unhinged/unpredictable.

Weak crazy — the person who saw their whole crew torn apart by demons and is a basket case — edge of sanity.

Strong antagonist sinister, rational — like Voldemort.

Strong antagonist tough, rational — more of a bully in a barfight, a “the fuck you lookin’ at?” kind.

Antagonist crazy/desperate — there’s some overlap here with the weak protag so be sure to differentiate them, or just do one or the other.

Add to this any accents you do REALLY well. Like, indistinguishable from the real thing. Not a Groundskeeper Willy Scottish accent — that belongs on an animation reel — just absolute realism. If you can’t nail these then leave ‘em out!

An animation reel is more of a laundry list of different character voices and characters you can do. The key is total consistency. Don’t add a voice or speech impediment or texture you can’t maintain for four hours at a time.

Commercial reels can play to your strengths type-wise but there’s a few standbys you hear all the time:

If you’re a dude, commercial requires (amongst other clichés)

smooth ad dude (introducing the all new Lexus Privilege RX with comfort ride technology)

excited ad dude (a triple-pounder, large fry and fountain drink for just 3.99? I’m lovin’ it!)

and befuddled husband/boyfriend/father (Honey? What’s this 'Greek yog hurt’? What happened to the double-choco chip?)

If you’re a dudette, you want

smooth ad dudette (again the Lexus)

sexy hamburger subtext (With large fries and gooey, melty cheese. She’s a little too into that sandwich, Man.)

and Motrin Momwife (So you can be the “on the PTA, on the town, side-planking, keeping up with your girlfriends gal” you want to be!)

Kal 2017: There is a recent trend in VO for commercials that I would be remiss if I did not mention. This is the “read that is so laid back and casual it is almost nonexistent.” Millenials know when they’re being solicited, so the ad industry has adopted a—in my opinion comically— disinterested tone. I call it “maybe you’d like a hamburger or whatever, I don’t care”. Here is the most extreme example I am aware of:

Facebook Live "Hidden Talent" from Buck on Vimeo.

It is bizarre from a traditional perspective, and it will go against the grain for anyone who grew up with this:

Nevertheless, it is here, and you should make sure you have it on your reel.

In all your reels:

NO MORE THAN A SENTENCE OR TWO FROM EACH VOICE. Target length of a whole reel should be around 90 SECONDS TOTAL. If they want more than that, they will ask you to record AN AUDITION, which is what you’re hoping they’ll do anyway. Do not go over in length. You will irritate casting directors who have 500 of these to go through. Kal 2017:     TRY not to go over in length, by more than one voice.😁

ONLY YOUR VERY BEST STUFF. When in doubt, leave it out. There are some actors in this business who can do a million voices, there are some who do JUST ONE THING THE BEST. Both kinds work. Better to kill it with three voices than to give them a reason NOT to hire you.

A GOOD MIX ON A GOOD MIC. You will probably have to go to a studio to record your reel. If you do, I recommend getting a voice director to work with you while you’re at it. This will cost money, but it is an investment. If you are the rare and enterprising voice actor who has a ton of equipment and is a sound engineer too, you might be able to do it yourself. Do not go too cheap on this, though. You don’t want great performance undercut by a bad mix.

One final thought:

MOVE TO LOS ANGELES. There is only one place to be if you are a serious professional in this business, and that is L.A. It is the biggest market, and the center of the industry. You might land a couple of radio spots living in East Anywhere, but you are not going to break into the industry proper.

That does not mean that you can’t TRAIN in other, cheaper places. But when you are ready to work, you come to L.A.

No, Austin and San Francisco aren’t just as good. No, your stage work in New York doesn’t count for anything out here. I wish it did, but it doesn’t.

The five year break-in period doesn’t begin until you live here. Sorry folks!

Part 6: Wrap-up

I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few things here, and I’ll try to fill in the gaps as they occur to me. Please feel free to tweet at me with any questions: @kalelbogdanove

In summary: if you LOVE voice acting, and you can’t imagine doing anything else on Earth, and you are willing to work your butt off to improve, AND you are willing to keep at it for YEARS… then go for it! I’ll see you in the booth.

Kal 2017: Or if you love it and you are willing to give it a whirl and follow your dreams. Always, always follow your dreams. (Just work hard at them, too.)

-Kal-El

P.S. — for a smart (and much shorter) perspective on this subject from an actual actor, you might try reading this Facebook post by industry luminary Tara Strong:

https://www.facebook.com/tara.strong.514/posts/10155956807350494

[writeprivledge-blog]

Interview with an EMU Professor

What makes a liberal arts degree still valuable in this day in age? What sorts of jobs are available to these degree holders?

So yes, the value of a liberal arts degree has been what's it's always been and I think that's been lost in the last ten years. And I think that's because you have young students coming in and thinking “I need to get a degree that will guarantee me a job when I graduate”. And for some programs that’s easier than others, if you’re a nursing student you become a nurse, an engineer student an engineer, a biologist ends up in a biology lab and then where its starts to get hard is what does an English major do, right? My experience was I became a professor after having been a creative writing major in undergrad but that was working in other industries for many years. And what I noticed is a lot of people like me with liberal arts degrees got hired because they were critical thinkers, they’re good at communicating, they’re thoughtful people, they’re good project managers, they’re good at translating business needs into communicable documentation. Just speaking from my own experience as a liberal arts major, I seemed to do pretty well in a field for many years that I hadn’t gone to school for because I was a liberal arts major, but I think more generally speaking if you’re a liberal arts major and study whatever you’re passionate about that what you’re doing is learning to think on a higher order by studying something you care about and through that you obtain a lot of these analytical, problem solving, creativity, writing, etc, skills that are invaluable in the workplace now. So what you find now is all these articles saying they need liberal arts majors because they need employees with all these skills. And the other side of that coin is that I think the world needs more artists, needs more critical thinkers and that’s what this degree can help you get there. And not that you can’t be a good person and be an engineer, but the ideas that an engineer takes some liberal arts classes too so they can become a more well rounded citizen. And a lot of business leaders, whether they go on to law or business school started as liberal arts undergraduates and that foundation is essential.

Do you know the exact amounts or at least have a general idea of how Eastern's budget breaks down by category? How much of it is allocated to the liberal arts programs here? Is Eastern's allocation higher, lower, or about average to what other comparable schools (i.e. Oakland, Washtenaw, etc.) give to their liberal arts program? Is the money allocated to us significantly less or more than other programs at Eastern?

You know, our budgets are available online and I’ve definitely looked at them out of curiosity but I couldn't say off hand what exactly that breakdown looks like because we (the Creative Writing program) are lumped in with the Liberals Arts and Science Department. I will say though I think all academics at Eastern right now are struggling in every department, all except maybe the Business School because they bring in so much money but that the University from what I’ve read is struggling to balance their budget and part of that means budget cuts which I don’t think necessarily is a bad thing but that our school’s motto is “Education First” and that academics should be the number one priority especially for a university like Eastern that offers an affordable education, I think we offer a great diversity of programs and have a great student body, a diverse student body, and a student body who is looking for that quality education. So in my mind in times of budget stress, academics should be the last thing that gets cut. And granted I think there are somethings I think to keep in mind, like if the student body is shrinking then yes, you would offer fewer classes however at the same time our students need to graduate, need to be able to take classes they enjoy and that challenge them, and they need to be able to graduate from Eastern with that great experience, and that in its own way ensures a future student body thats just as vibrant and expanding. So to me, I suspect you came to Eastern because it was an affordable education and if you get a great education at a great price then you leave and tell others about your great experience rather than leaving frustrated. (In regards to the budget) I would assume other schools in the area are going through similar issues when it comes to their programs, like for example Oakland, I know they have a much smaller emphasis on athletics, they don’t have a football team and have a decent basketball team, so at least public perception is that they’re focused more on students.

Has Eastern's Liberal Arts budget effected your position or your ability to teach in anyway? If yes, can you think of specific examples or instances?

I’ll say that I think personally that what I see is a general tightening of things, I know Eastern went through a sort of exercise of equivalency of course loads through its departments, with some departments now teaching less and other departments picking up more. When I think Eastern should be pushing to have all faculty teaching fewer classes and setting aside more money to hire on more staff with tenure because right now we have a lot of part time lecturers, who are great teachers, but i believe they are overworked and underpaid and that we could solve this issue by giving them some job security and compensation and maybe there would be room for that if there was a focus on academics (laughs) but I’ll say where things have tightened, for example, last year the faculty had to make decisions like do we make less photocopies, spend less on travel money, things like that. And there became an emphasis of us hitting our capacity for students in our classes. And that urgency is good when times are tough but it seems odd that we’re continually told to tighten our belts and hit quotas but seem to have no real explanation as to why.

What seems to be the consensus of you and your colleagues about how Eastern treats the Liberal Arts program, particularly in regards to allocating student tuition towards remodeling dorms and football teams that only a small portion of the student body utilizes?

So, I fully acknowledge that running a university is complicated thing and that money flows in all kinds of different ways but the academic budget here has been flat for multiple years and liberal arts programs are pretty cheap (comparably) to run so the fact that we’re already running a pretty tight ship and that aside from our salaries it doesn’t cost the university much outside of that I think leads to the student and public perception that the universities funds are being misdirected and I think that is definitely something the faculty feels as well. And I don’t think any of us feel that these sport teams aren’t important but that at what point does that emphasis (in particular to the football team) shift back to academics. And what I’m guessing is ultimately what the university is hoping for is that if the football team becomes better is that they’ll get a stronger alumni base that will come back for games and give money to the school. But I don’t think we’re that kind of school. And I guess we want to be that. And I don’t understand, and this is my biggest complaint, if we’re an academic school and commuter school first, why don’t we embrace that? Granted we can have a campus life too but most students come here for reasons other than that or athletics. And I think that’s what really annoys student that are aware of what the University has been up to, something like 10% of your tuition, is going towards the athletic department, and granted that's the whole department, but the perception is the school is taking money away from the student body for something they don't care about. And there’s a lot of things your tuition pays for you probably don't care about, but at least they serve a purpose to some other student in the majority. So to come back to the question, my job right now is great. I love my students, love my peers and the faculty in general, but it’s like can we get any tighter on the budget? And couldn’t we be doing something radical to enthuse our students and bring more in while staying on message of  “Education First”? I don’t know what that is, but I think we need leadership that wants to do something surprising and exciting rather than doubling down on a football team that is receiving vocal criticism that is valid from many different areas of the university. And I say all this with the caveat that I don’t think everything of value needs to make a return on its investment or make a profit but I think the school needs to evaluate the reasonableness of these things.

[fernweh-kay-blog]

The Longevity of Links for SEO

Recently, I had a bit of a breakthrough.

As we’ve expanded the agency, I was finally able to use our internal resources to build out & rank our own projects. I’ve always had the mindset of “drinking our own Koolaid”, and as we’ve gone down this path, I recently stumbled into a rabbit hole that gave me a huge burst of excitement and an increase in expectations for what we could do in the near future. But it came at a cost: paranoia.

Once the dust settled on the improvements we made, I took a major step back and realized that what we were building was more or less sitting on the fault line of a tectonic plate.

It could all come crashing down in an instant, all because of one critical assumption that I’ve made to date: that links will continue to matter.

I quickly realized that I needed to have a better gauge on the longevity of links beyond the tweets I happened to read that day. I’ve never had much cause for concern over the years regarding this issue (evidence of why is listed later), but if I was going to make a major bet over the next 12-24 months, I needed to know the parameters of what could go wrong, and this was one of the items at the top of the list.

I ended up discussing things over with a few trusted colleagues of mine, as well as reaching out to a few other experts that I trusted the opinion of in regards to the future of SEO. So I wanted to share with you my thinking, and the overall conclusions I’ve drawn based off the information available.

Separating Facts from Opinions

The main source of “facts” that the industry points to as a whole are statements from Google. Yet, there have been numerous instances where what Google is telling us is, at the very least, misleading.

Here are a few recent examples to illustrate in what way they are misleading:

1. In their “Not Provided” announcement post in October 2011, Google stated that “the change will affect only a minority of your traffic.” Not even two years later, Danny Sullivan was told by Google that they had begun work on encrypting ALL searches. The rest is history.

My thoughts: even when we get the truth from Google, it should be labeled with huge, red letters of the date the statement was made, because things can change very, very quickly. In this case, it was probably their intention all along to gradually roll this out to all searches, in order to not anger people too greatly all at once.

2. Google’s John Mueller made this statement a few weeks ago about 302 redirects passing PageRank. It implies that 302 redirects are OK for SEO. As Mike King quicklypointed out on Twitter, that’s very misleading based off most SEO’s prior experiences.

My thoughts: is it difficult to believe that 302 redirects pass at least 0.01% of the PageRank of the page? I don’t think so. So really, this statement isn’t saying much. It’s a non-answer, as it’s framed in comparison to a 404 (no PR passes) instead of a 301 (~90% of PR passes), the direct alternative in this case. So really, it doesn’t answer anything practical.

Take those two examples & realize that things can change quickly, and that you should try to decipher what is actually, concretely being said.

So, with that in mind, here are some recent statements on the topic of this post:

1. March 24, 2016 – Google lists their top 3 ranking factors as: links, content and RankBrain (although they didn’t state the order of the first two; RankBrain is definitely 3rd, though).

My thoughts: this isn’t anything new. This list lines up with what they indicated in the RankBrain initial news article in Bloomberg when they stated RankBrain was #3. All that was left to speculate, until now, was what #1 and #2 were, although it wasn’t too difficult to guess.

2. Feb 2, 2015 – Google confirms that you don’t necessarily need links to rank. John Mueller cites an example of friend of his who launched a local neighborhood website in Zurich as being indexed, ranking, and getting search traffic.

My thoughts: this isn’t very surprising, for two reasons. First, that the queries they’re ranking for are probably very low competition (because: local + international), and because Google has gotten a lot better over the years at looking at other signals in areas where the link graph was lacking.

3. May 5, 2014 – Matt Cutts leads off a video with a disclaimer stating “I think backlinks have many, many years left in them”.

My thoughts: as much of an endorsement as that is, a haunting reminder of how quickly things change is Matt’s comments later in the video talking about authorship markup, a project that was eventually abandoned in the following years.

4. Feb 19, 2014 – Google’s Matt Cutts stated that they tried dropping links altogether from their ranking algorithm, and found it to be “much, much worse”.

My thoughts: interestingly enough, Yandex tried this starting in March 2014 for specific niches, and brought it back a year later after finding it to be unsuccessful. Things change awfully quick, but if there’s any evidence on this list that can add reassurance, the combination of two different search engines trying & failing this is probably best. With that said, our main concern isn’t the complete riddance of links, but rather, its absolute strength as a ranking factor. So, once again, it’s still not all that reassuring.

Opinions of Others

Let’s now transition to the opinions of others in the industry. It could be argued that these can be a much better gauge on the reality of SEO than whatever Google is telling us (and I’d agree!).

The most substantial opinion piece to start off with is Moz’s Bi-Annual Search Ranking Factors study. Half of the study is based around a survey that was given to 150 experts. In the survey, questions were asked about the most important ranking factors, both for today, and for the future. Here are the results of current ranking factors:

And here are the results for predictions of future algorithmic changes (only linked, not embedded, because it’s quite long). For these, note that zero of the “predicted to increase in impact” factors were link-based. Furthermore, the only 2 in the “predicted to decrease in impact” were link-based.

As I mentioned earlier, I decided to touch base with a few specific people in the industry that I place a lot of trust in: AJ Kohn & Justin Briggs. Here’s what their thoughts were when asked about the future of links as a ranking factor:

Links are and will continue to be an important part of SEO for the foreseeable future because they remain a powerful way for Google to measure authority and expertise.

The link graph has been at the heart of Google’s search algorithm from the start. One of the more interesting videos Matt Cutts did related to separating popularity from authority. He makes the point that popular sites might include porn but people don’t often link to porn. On the other hand he says that many government websites aren’t very popular but they do attract a number of links.

In the same video, Cutts also discusses how the anchor text used in those links can help Google to better understand the topic for which it might rank. And there are numerous patents that delve into how much weight to give anchor text and how that might aid in establishing topical relevance.

Now, Google is getting better and better at understanding the meaning of content, but that doesn’t mean that links will suddenly lose value. They might matter slightly less but I generally see these improvements as being synergistic.

But let’s put all of this aside and look at the bigger picture and use some logic. Does Google still police paid links and other manipulative link schemes? Of course they do. And the only reason to do this is because links still matter.

– AJ Kohn, Author of Blind Five Year Old

Currently, and within the short-term, links are here to stay (at least in the traditional information retrieval of documents aspect of search, which is shrinking over time). An often undervalued aspect of links, in a very traditional PageRank sense, is that “link equity” is an input for URL discovery, crawl scheduling, crawl budgeting, crawl depth, and likely hundreds of other processes and checks. I see links as the first layer in rank determinations. The net effect is that their “slice of the pie” is getting smaller, but that’s not exactly what’s happening. Results may be put in order based on more traditional ranking processes, then search engines integrate usage data (CTR, bounce, bias), brand affinity, search sessions, query refinement, machine learning, localization, and personalization. The net outcome of these “re-sorts” is that the perceived weight of links goes down, but links are responsible for getting the URLs into the original consideration set for rankings.

The value of links in Universal Search has eroded, because search is about more than retrieving articles. Mobile, voice, entities, structured data, personal search, conversational search, predictive search, and apps have little dependency on links. Some of these technologies never refer to the link graph, with the caveat that many of these rely on the desktop index to run (or at least to “learn”).

When looking at SEO, I’m less concerned about the changing value of links and more focused on the declining importance of traditional, document-based search results in a company’s overall search strategy. However, we think of links in terms of digital PR and promotion. A marketing plan always has room for good promotion.

– Justin Briggs, CEO of Briggsby

Additionally, another person I was going to ask to contribute to this section was Will Critchlow, but he did the legwork for me when he published an article titled, “Google to Announce that Links are no Longer a Major Ranking Factor” (disregard the clickbait title).

In it, Will talks about how RankBrain being added to the mix affects the future potential value of links for SEO. I will pull out the most relevant bit:

What this means in practice is that even after whatever change is made to dial up the dependence on RankBrain and dial down the dependence on the human-tweaked algorithm, I believe that we will continue to see link metrics be better correlated to rankings than any other metric we have access to.

In other words, RankBrain will be more important than all the individual signals in the human-tweaked algorithm (including links) but links will remain the dominant signal that RankBrain itself uses.”

– Will Critchlow, CEO of Distilled

My Own Opinions

Let’s take a step back. Have links stopped being an indicator of the quality & relevance of a website? Has a link from TechCrunch or the National Institute of Health stopped being relevant to the assessment of the legitimacy of a website? Has that changed?

I only see two main things that have changed in our understanding of links as a ranking signal:

That some links do a better job than others at indicating the quality & relevance of a website.

That there are things beyond links that can also indicate the quality & relevance of a given website.

Google has done a better job of understanding those two things since they first started. For the first item, that’s why you have Penguin. For the second item, that’s why you hear about things like unlinked brand mentions & social signals.

But the idea that links not being a signal in the future altogether is beyond ludicrous.

It would be discounting the foundation of what the algorithm is built upon. And that’s not important because of historical significance, it’s important because it’s based off how the Web fundamentally works. Links are just connections between things, and some of those connections hold more importance than others. Throwing out links altogether as a ranking signal would be the equivalent of disregarding recommendations from people that you trust.

So really, the argument over link-based factors playing a role versus no role at all, is dumb.

Note: so now that we’ve established this, when I talk about links in the context of the rest of this article, I will be talking about the links that Google WANTS to count, not all links on the Web.

If, so far, we’re on the same page, then the real question is how strong of a ranking factor links will be. There are two main things that will influence this.

The introduction of new factors.

The relative strength of each factor

The first is simplest to explain, so let’s start there.

The Introduction of New Factors

As new ranking factors are added to the algorithm, inevitably, dilution happens. There is only 100 percentage points that make up the entire decision making process behind an algorithm. It’s a limited amount of space. So the introduction of something new, even if it’s tiny, inevitably takes space away from all others.

And if the factor does its job and holds meaning, then that’s good. That means a smaller reliance on any one, single factor. That doesn’t mean just links. That also means things like content-based or user experience-based factors.

The concept of new factors being introduced into the algorithm represents an unknown. And I could never claim to have an accurate pulse on new things altogether that Google might be introducing into their ranking algorithm.

The Relative Strength of Each Factor

Note: I will usually be using the phrase “the concept of RankBrain” instead of simply the term “RankBrain”. This is because I only know that it’s using machine learning, and will describe it from the standpoint of what machine learning models do, in order to extinguish any confusion about me having any real idea of what RankBrain is & does, which I don’t, because not much is publicly known.

People are talking a lot about the concept of RankBrain, and for very good reason. It,without much doubt, dictates the future of the importance of individual ranking factors. But to illustrate why I think that is, I’ll back up a bit.

After reading all of the wild speculation about RankBrain, I noticed that there are a significant amount of people that still don’t know the basics of what machine learning does, the technology that RankBrain is said to be using. This is how Wikipedia describes it:

Machine learning explores the study and construction of algorithms that can learn from and make predictions on data.

In essence, machine learning is used to make predictions. It can’t help Google magically figure out what is the best result is for a user who is conducting a specific search. That would involve things like definitively knowing exactly what “the best” is, and outside of things like math equations or historical facts, is most likely impossible. So for now,Google can only guess, and get really, really good at guessing.

And that’s why we’re talking about predictions.

So let’s now focus on figuring out how to make an accurate prediction. Predictions are based off a set of factors. The “secret sauce” of machine learning is figuring out which factors are more important than others in determining what you’re predicting. As Will put it in his article, it won’t be humans doing this manually in the future, but rather “the machine tweaking the dials.”

That explanation helps to explain why links and the concept of RankBrain are not at odds with each other. They’re apples and oranges. It’s like saying historical forecast data and a weatherman are at odds with each other over predicting the weather. One is information and the other is an interpreter. They are two separate types of things.

So hypothetically, in the case of links, two potential things could happen when machine learning gains more control over the ranking algorithm:

The dial is turned back on links, realizing that they’re not as good of an indicator of the quality & relevance of a website than what Google engineers had previously given them credit for.

The dial is turned up on links, realizing that they’re a better indicator of the quality & relevance of a website than what Google engineers had previously given them credit for.

To date, I’ve never seen the second hypothetical situation talked about. And while its probability can be (justly) questioned, I think it’s an interesting scenario to discuss.

What if the hysteria around links in our industry has caused Google engineers over time to manually & mistakenly give them less weight than they deserve? What if their new machine learning models indicate that quality links (remember: Penguin is changing the game here) are actually a really good indicator, more so than previously given credit for?

I don’t have a clear idea on the likelihood of each of the two hypothetical scenarios listed above, but let’s be clear: links being dialed up as a ranking signal due to new machine learning models is as real of a potential outcome as links being dialed down as a ranking signal.

Now that we understand the potential outcomes that machine learning in a ranking algorithm can have from the standpoint of links, it’s now time to discuss the probability of each outcome happening. This is where the real discussion begins. There are two main ways that a dramatic change could happen in the given value of links as a ranking signal:

Google engineers, previous to machine learning, had done a poor job in determining the exact importance of links as a ranking signal.

Google engineers, previous to machine learning, had done a poor job in determining the exact importance of other ranking signals.

And as a result of either, when a highly accurate machine learning model is introduced, the correction is made. The limited space within the algorithm would be re-distributed.

So let’s now discuss each of the above two possibilities separately.

Links As A Ranking Factor

The first option sounds improbable.

Links are the oldest signal in their algorithm. These PhDs have had almost two decades to screw around with the dial. It’s very reasonable to think that a machine learning model is not going to significantly alter their importance as a ranking signal, as it would imply that these engineers had been horribly wrong after all this time, in one direction or the other.

But there is a very real scenario to consider. It involves Penguin.

We’ve all seen numerous examples of link spam, even in shockingly recent times. Those examples, coupled with the insane amount of time Google has taken in releasing the next Penguin update, shows that they’re still scratching their heads & don’t quite have it all figured out.

But in the context of this investigation, its importance here is significant. It’s a wild card. I’ll explain why.

Let’s assume, just for a moment, that Google had been right for placing their immense trust in links as a ranking signal. Let’s pretend that somehow we were able to divinely identify what really was the best indicator of a quality search result, and that at the top of the list of indicators was links. This is important because, soon enough, they’re going to find this out the more that they use machine learning.

So, if Google’s views on the importance of links as a predictor of a quality search result does not change, what will happen when they perfect the art of cutting through the noise & only identify and give weight to links that indicate a true endorsement of a website (a quality link)? If Google has been giving links as much weight as it has in the past, even when they didn’t fully understand which links were good & which ones weren’t, just how much further would the dial potentially be turned up once they’re near-perfect at this?

The conclusion I’m trying to draw here is that, once again, there’s a very legitimate potential outcome that links could INCREASE in importance as a ranking factor as they continue to refine Penguin and their overall analysis of link-based factors.

I think that’s a profound realization, and yet, once again, it’s not even being discussed.

Personally, though, I don’t think that this will happen any time in the near future. Here’s why:

Overall, Google still seems to be far off in correctly classifying links 10 times of 10 as either spam or not.

The last Penguin update has taken a while. This could be because they’re not happy with the results, or because they’re putting internal resources elsewhere. Both aren’t good signs for links, although other reasons could exist.

There are many other new signals that haven’t been tested & used to the extent of links.

Other Ranking Factors

Now let’s discuss the second scenario. Unfortunately, it’s a much more complex discussion than the first because:

1 signal is simpler to discuss than hundreds of other individual ones & all their various combinations.

We’ve gotten information about links publically from Google. For a lot of other signals, we don’t know much.

As a historically important factor, there have been a lot of studies & opinion articles published about links in the marketing community.

So with that said, here are my main thoughts about this group as a whole.

1. Time. It’s on the side of a lot of new factors Google has been rolling into the algorithm over recent years, at least in comparison to links.

Machine learning aside, even though I’m guessing they’re much more efficient at doing so in 2016 than in 2006, they still haven’t had relatively much time to mess with the dials of each, as opposed to something like links.

Additionally, for a lot of newer signals, it’s doubtful that they’ve cut through all of the noise for each, in the same way that they’re trying to cut through the noise in regards to links via Penguin. I assume that’s what is holding back a lot of UX signals.

Note: for a more concrete set of timelines around specific factors, checkout SEO By The Sea. Bill Slawski has done a great job surfacing Google patents (as they’re granted) that talk about some of these, and they all have a filing date, which is better than nothing.

2. Segmentation of ranking algorithms. The implication of an answer given by Google in an FAQ help doc about the mobile friendliness update is just one piece of evidence signaling a division in SEO, in which the concept of a singular ranking algorithm is dated.

Earlier examples of this concept are found with things like the Payday Loans updates, in which the organic results of certain industries were ranked differently than for other industries.

In most cases, especially with things like mobile, I fail to see much of an opportunity for links to be a beneficiary of these segmentations. I more so see it as links being more or less a “fall back” when they aren’t able to use factors that do a really good job for specific segmentations of searches (i.e. UX factors for a search done on mobile, dwell times for an investigative search, etc.).

With that said, there are a number of very interesting problems that Google has here. A few of them are noted further down in this write up of a recent Googler’s presentation on search.

3. The increasing complexity of the algorithm. Inevitably as more signals have been introduced, and the dials of each have been tweaked and re-tweaked 100s of times, and that each of those dials are no longer universal and are now segmented for different types of searches users do, the complexity has grown.

From what’s been said publicly by Google about machine learning, the feeling I’ve gotten is that they’re working on it, but that we shouldn’t expect things to happen quickly, and my guess is because of the level of complexity behind integrating this technology into all of the various parts of organic search.

Overall, it’ll be interesting to see just how quickly Google will move now & in the future as their algorithm becomes increasingly complex, especially when most of it seems to still be driven by humans, not machines.

My Conclusions

Because the above evidence listed in various places throughout this post is far from substantial, I’m only confident in my conclusions from the standpoint of where we are today, not 5 years from now.

Here’s what I believe:

Links still work, today. This is based off strong evidence of link campaigns we’re currently running (in April, 2016), Google’s March 24th, 2016 statement, and as AJ Kohn noted earlier, Google’s active pursuit in combating link spam.

Tomorrow is not a guarantee. As we’ve seen, Google can move very quickly. With that said, even if Google decided this very morning to move away from links as a significant factor, I highly doubt they could make a major change within a ~12-18 month timeframe, just because links are so foundational to their search engine.

The concept of RankBrain is not a major threat to links. I even think there’s a very real chance that it’s not even a minor one.

There doesn’t seem to be a golden knight to replace links. The most talked about new set of factors is UX, and I have seen more than a few examples of specific UX signals being easily manipulated, even more so than links.

The real threat is more foundational than links. Justin Briggs explained it best in his response earlier. The aspect of ranking a page organically in Google’s results has slowly declined in value, both because of other SERP features & search ads. There’s still a ton of money to be made, but we should work like we’re living on borrowed time.

Things do change quickly. But for now, I won’t be hopping off the link bandwagon in the near future.

[roctechcncrouter-blog]

Small Shop CNC Router: A Class of Machines Designed to Fit In

How Could You Fit a CNC Router into Your Shop?

Is Your Shop Sufficient for a CNC Router?

In the back of your head, you might be thinking that one day it’s possible that you might add a CNC Router to your shop, then you’ve got a lot to think about.

 This Laguna IQ 2’x3′ CNC Router, like others in this class, is well designed and engineered for small-shop digital woodworking.

 If you’re at the point to where you’re at least thinking about the idea of adding a CNC Router to your shop, then you’ve likely done some research. If that’s the case then you’ve certainly noticed there’s a huge range of sizes and prices of machines to consider.  With CNC routers from as small as 12” x 18” to as large as 5’ x 10’ in size, and prices from a few thousand dollars up to the stratosphere, there’s a lot to think about.

Owning a CNC router would have been unthinkable for a small woodworking shop just a few years ago. The high cost of these remarkable machines meant that CNC routers were out of reach for all but the largest operations, but recent cost reductions have meant that even do it yourselfers can have the power and versatility of a wood router. A CNC wood router can be a great investment, especially if you want to produce high quality signage. With such a machine the user can input almost any design into the software program and produce intricate engravings, three dimensional effects, and even pictures of people or animals that are incredibly life like.

 There is a way to narrow down the choices quickly. That’s to keep in mind that – more than any feature, or level of performance, or price – it’s the size of the CNC that directly determines the kind of things that they can best be used for. So I encourage readers to think beyond those flashy 3D carving demos that every manufacturer has and consider some of the practical things that you might use a CNC for.

The smallest machines that are suited for detailed carvings and small project work might not work quite as well for furniture projects if your intention is to use it for cutting parts. The larger machines are designed around cutting full sheets of plywood but may be too big to fit in your shop. So whether you’re driven by need, space or cost, the best solution for many woodworkers needs is likely somewhere in the middle.

Over time, I’ll cover different sizes and classes of CNC machines from less expensive tabletop machines all the way up to bigger, fancier, and thus pricier, solutions. But that’s a lot to cover. Since I can’t do it all at once, a good place to start is at the intersection of size/function/price where I think a lot of woodworkers will be most interested: CNC machines that are large enough for a broad range of hobbyist/small shop furniture projects. They also happen to be around the size of a table saw and priced just above a fancy one. That makes them a nice fit in home or small professional shops that are typical of many Popular Woodworking readers.

What size of CNC am I referring to? Machines that are in the range of 24” wide by 36” to 48” long. A machine of this size is well-suited for cutting parts for the majority of furniture projects that a serious hobbyist would likely to build. The smaller machines in the range could be used to make guitars, parts for smaller cabinet projects, 3D carving details, many furniture parts, stools, chairs and just about any kind of shop project or jig you could come up with.

Keep in mind that with any CNC there are ways for even smaller-sized machines to work on larger projects, so they can definitely work as well as the larger size. It’s just easier to start with enough length to begin with;  that extra foot makes the 48” of some models a plus for longer furniture parts like dining chair backs and some cabinet pieces. And, as a division of 4’ x 8’, a 2’ x 4’ CNC is a natural for plywood-based projects.

In this size range, there are at least a dozen candidates including machines from ShopBot, Shark,Automation Technologies, Legacy CNC Woodworking and more. Plus, there are a handful of companies that produce quality kits like CNC Router Parts and the wonderfully designed Grunblau Platform CNC. Over time, I hope to look into these and other CNCs in more detail.

For this article, I’m going to focus on a specific group of machines that are very similar in terms of design, engineering, and choice of components. These are the machines made by Laguna Tools, Powermatic and Axiom Precision. I’ve had the opportunity to use two out of the three on CNC projects, so I’m familiar with their capabilities and have had a close look at the third. Between their components, specifications and construction, they have much in common and much to like. So, let’s have a look.

What’s in a Class?

These are the features that make this 24″ x 36″ to 24″ x 48″ class special – and give digital woodworkers a lot to like in a package sized for a small shop.

Z     height of 6” or more

3hp     water-cooled spindles

Linear     rails for smooth guidance

Ball     screws for precision motion

Stiff     frame and gantry for strength and accuracy

A     simple pendant controller

 You certainly make a valid point. Beyond learning to live with the technology that’s part of digital woodworking, for many hobbyists there’s the issue of the cost of entry into this world. I don’t have an easy answer but I can offer a couple of observations.

When it comes to the price of the equipment itself, time and market size is already having an effect and will continue to do so. Just a few years ago, quality machines in this class and performance would have been $12K-$16K, easily. For them to drop to this range in such a short period is certainly an indication that the market is growing quickly, more manufacturers are getting involved, common core components like linear rails, ball screws, spindles, etc are more prevalent. And, because machines like this are just as desirable for another group of CNC users known as “Makers” expect the prices to continue to drop.

The one caveat I’d make is though mechanically CNCs are somewhat simple, compared to other fixed tools like a shaper they are much more complicated with a demanding precision build and the added electronics. So, it’s hard to imagine them falling to that range. But, over time, closing in on the price of a tool like a Saw Stop Industrial table saw seems possible.

A second thing to take into perspective is that many home woodworkers invest quite a lot of money into equipping their shops. I’ve heard all kinds of industry estimates, from a few thousand to many thousands on average. But let’s just say that it’s an impressive amount. For some woodworkers, particularly new ones, a CNC may be an alternative to some of the other expensive fixed machinery in a shop. Like any tool or approach to the craft, the choices you make all depends on what you want you to do with your hobby and how you want to do it.

Finally, there’s another way to go if cost is the critical factor. As I hinted at in this article and will get into more detail in the future you could choose to build your own machine from a kit. There are some good ones out there that are well thought out, well spec’d and quite attractively priced.

Then there are also other alternatives to fixed CNCs. The Maslow CNC for example. And, the very impressive Shaper Tools Origin that will debut this fall. They don’t have all the benefits of fixed tool CNCs, but they do come with far less cost and still keep most of the good parts of digital woodworking.

With all that said, all the machines in the group in the article are well designed, engineered and executed. For many digital woodworkers including some home hobbyists in small shops, these CNCs offer a lot to like in ready-made solutions. Like the best table saws, shapers, planers, and bandsaws, these are good tools.

  wood CNC router

CNC router machine

CNC Router 4 axis

CNC Router 3 axis

cnc router

5 axis CNC Router

cnc router kit homemade cnc router cnc wood carving machine price cnc wood carving machine reviews cnc router machine price in india cnc drilling machine price