Best Way to Learn About AI | VibeBuilders.ai Resource Directory

My boss taught me how to build a Failed business (15 lessons)

[Discussion] When ML and Data Science are the death of a good company: A cautionary tale.

TD;LR: At Company A, Team X does advanced analytics using on-prem ERP tools and older programming languages. Their tools work very well and are designed based on very deep business and domain expertise. Team Y is a new and ambitious Data Science team that thinks they can replace Team X's tools with a bunch of R scripts and a custom built ML platform. Their models are simplistic, but more "fashionable" compared to the econometric models used by Team X, and team Y benefits from the ML/DS moniker so leadership is allowing Team Y to start a large scale overhaul of the analytics platform in question. Team Y doesn't have the experience for such a larger scale transformation, and is refusing to collaborate with team X. This project is very likely going to fail, and cause serious harm to the company as a whole financially and from a people perspective. I argue that this is not just because of bad leadership, but also because of various trends and mindsets in the DS community at large. Update (Jump to below the line for the original story): Several people in the comments are pointing out that this just a management failure, not something due to ML/DS, and that you can replace DS with any buzz tech and the story will still be relevant. My response: Of course, any failure at an organization level is ultimately a management failure one way or the other. Moreover, it is also the case that ML/DS when done correctly, will always improve a company's bottom line. There is no scenario where the proper ML solution, delivered at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion, will somehow hurt the company's bottom line. My point is that in this case management is failing because of certain trends and practices that are specific to the ML/DS community, namely: The idea that DS teams should operate independently of tech and business orgs -- too much autonomy for DS teams The disregard for domain knowledge that seems prevalent nowadays thanks to the ML hype, that DS can be generalists and someone with good enough ML chops can solve any business problem. That wasn't the case when I first left academia for the industry in 2009 (back then nobody would even bother with a phone screen if you didn't have the right domain knowledge). Over reliance on resources who check all the ML hype related boxes (knows Python, R, Tensorflow, Shiny, etc..., has the right Coursera certifications, has blogged on the topic, etc...), but are lacking in depth of experience. DS interviews nowadays all seem to be: Can you tell me what a p-value is? What is elastic net regression? Show me how to fit a model in sklearn? How do you impute NAs in an R dataframe? Any smart person can look those up on Stackoverflow or Cross-Validated,.....Instead teams should be asking stuff like: why does portfolio optimization use QP not LP? How does a forecast influence a customer service level? When should a recommendation engine be content based and when should it use collaborative filtering? etc... (This is a true story, happening to the company I currently work for. Names, domains, algorithms, and roles have been shuffled around to protect my anonymity) Company A has been around for several decades. It is not the biggest name in its domain, but it is a well respected one. Risk analysis and portfolio optimization have been a core of Company A's business since the 90s. They have a large team of 30 or so analysts who perform those tasks on a daily basis. These analysts use ERP solutions implemented for them by one the big ERP companies (SAP, Teradata, Oracle, JD Edwards,...) or one of the major tech consulting companies (Deloitte, Accenture, PWC, Capgemini, etc...) in collaboration with their own in house engineering team. The tools used are embarrassingly old school: Classic RDBMS running on on-prem servers or maybe even on mainframes, code written in COBOL, Fortran, weird proprietary stuff like ABAP or SPSS.....you get the picture. But the models and analytic functions were pretty sophisticated, and surprisingly cutting edge compared to the published academic literature. Most of all, they fit well with the company's enterprise ecosystem, and were honed based on years of deep domain knowledge. They have a tech team of several engineers (poached from the aforementioned software and consulting companies) and product managers (who came from the experienced pools of analysts and managers who use the software, or poached from business rivals) maintaining and running this software. Their technology might be old school, but collectively, they know the domain and the company's overall architecture very, very well. They've guided the company through several large scale upgrades and migrations and they have a track record of delivering on time, without too much overhead. The few times they've stumbled, they knew how to pick themselves up very quickly. In fact within their industry niche, they have a reputation for their expertise, and have very good relations with the various vendors they've had to deal with. They were the launching pad of several successful ERP consulting careers. Interestingly, despite dealing on a daily basis with statistical modeling and optimization algorithms, none of the analysts, engineers, or product managers involved describe themselves as data scientists or machine learning experts. It is mostly a cultural thing: Their expertise predates the Data Science/ML hype that started circa 2010, and they got most of their chops using proprietary enterprise tools instead of the open source tools popular nowadays. A few of them have formal statistical training, but most of them came from engineering or domain backgrounds and learned stats on the fly while doing their job. Call this team "Team X". Sometime around the mid 2010s, Company A started having some serious anxiety issues: Although still doing very well for a company its size, overall economic and demographic trends were shrinking its customer base, and a couple of so called disruptors came up with a new app and business model that started seriously eating into their revenue. A suitable reaction to appease shareholders and Wall Street was necessary. The company already had a decent website and a pretty snazzy app, what more could be done? Leadership decided that it was high time that AI and ML become a core part of the company's business. An ambitious Manager, with no science or engineering background, but who had very briefly toyed with a recommender system a couple of years back, was chosen to build a data science team, call it team "Y" (he had a bachelor's in history from the local state college and worked for several years in the company's marketing org). Team "Y" consists mostly of internal hires who decided they wanted to be data scientists and completed a Coursera certification or a Galvanize boot camp, before being brought on to the team, along with a few of fresh Ph.D or M.Sc holders who didn't like academia and wanted to try their hand at an industry role. All of them were very bright people, they could write great Medium blog posts and give inspiring TED talks, but collectively they had very little real world industry experience. As is the fashion nowadays, this group was made part of a data science org that reported directly to the CEO and Board, bypassing the CIO and any tech or business VPs, since Company A wanted to claim the monikers "data driven" and "AI powered" in their upcoming shareholder meetings. In 3 or 4 years of existence, team Y produced a few Python and R scripts. Their architectural experience consisted almost entirely in connecting Flask to S3 buckets or Redshift tables, with a couple of the more resourceful ones learning how to plug their models into Tableau or how to spin up a Kuberneties pod. But they needn't worry: The aforementioned manager, who was now a director (and was also doing an online Masters to make up for his qualifications gap and bolster his chances of becoming VP soon - at least he now understands what L1 regularization is), was a master at playing corporate politics and self-promotion. No matter how few actionable insights team Y produced or how little code they deployed to production, he always had their back and made sure they had ample funding. In fact he now had grandiose plans for setting up an all-purpose machine learning platform that can be used to solve all of the company's data problems. A couple of sharp minded members of team Y, upon googling their industry name along with the word "data science", realized that risk analysis was a prime candidate for being solved with Bayesian models, and there was already a nifty R package for doing just that, whose tutorial they went through on R-Bloggers.com. One of them had even submitted a Bayesian classifier Kernel for a competition on Kaggle (he was 203rd on the leaderboard), and was eager to put his new-found expertise to use on a real world problem. They pitched the idea to their director, who saw a perfect use case for his upcoming ML platform. They started work on it immediately, without bothering to check whether anybody at Company A was already doing risk analysis. Since their org was independent, they didn't really need to check with anybody else before they got funding for their initiative. Although it was basically a Naive Bayes classifier, the term ML was added to the project tile, to impress the board. As they progressed with their work however, tensions started to build. They had asked the data warehousing and CA analytics teams to build pipelines for them, and word eventually got out to team X about their project. Team X was initially thrilled: They offered to collaborate whole heartedly, and would have loved to add an ML based feather to their already impressive cap. The product owners and analysts were totally onboard as well: They saw a chance to get in on the whole Data Science hype that they kept hearing about. But through some weird mix of arrogance and insecurity, team Y refused to collaborate with them or share any of their long term goals with them, even as they went to other parts of the company giving brown bag presentations and tutorials on the new model they created. Team X got resentful: from what they saw of team Y's model, their approach was hopelessly naive and had little chances of scaling or being sustainable in production, and they knew exactly how to help with that. Deploying the model to production would have taken them a few days, given how comfortable they were with DevOps and continuous delivery (team Y had taken several months to figure out how to deploy a simple R script to production). And despite how old school their own tech was, team X were crafty enough to be able to plug it in to their existing architecture. Moreover, the output of the model was such that it didn't take into account how the business will consume it or how it was going to be fed to downstream systems, and the product owners could have gone a long way in making the model more amenable to adoption by the business stakeholders. But team Y wouldn't listen, and their leads brushed off any attempts at communication, let alone collaboration. The vibe that team Y was giving off was "We are the cutting edge ML team, you guys are the legacy server grunts. We don't need your opinion.", and they seemed to have a complete disregard for domain knowledge, or worse, they thought that all that domain knowledge consisted of was being able to grasp the definitions of a few business metrics. Team X got frustrated and tried to express their concerns to leadership. But despite owning a vital link in Company A's business process, they were only \~50 people in a large 1000 strong technology and operations org, and they were several layers removed from the C-suite, so it was impossible for them to get their voices heard. Meanwhile, the unstoppable director was doing what he did best: Playing corporate politics. Despite how little his team had actually delivered, he had convinced the board that all analysis and optimization tasks should now be migrated to his yet to be delivered ML platform. Since most leaders now knew that there was overlap between team Y and team X's objectives, his pitch was no longer that team Y was going to create a new insight, but that they were going to replace (or modernize) the legacy statistics based on-prem tools with more accurate cloud based ML tools. Never mind that there was no support in the academic literature for the idea that Naive Bayes works better than the Econometric approaches used by team X, let alone the additional wacky idea that Bayesian Optimization would definitely outperform the QP solvers that were running in production. Unbeknownst to team X, the original Bayesian risk analysis project has now grown into a multimillion dollar major overhaul initiative, which included the eventual replacement of all of the tools and functions supported by team X along with the necessary migration to the cloud. The CIO and a couple of business VPs are on now board, and tech leadership is treating it as a done deal. An outside vendor, a startup who nobody had heard of, was contracted to help build the platform, since team Y has no engineering skills. The choice was deliberate, as calling on any of the established consulting or software companies would have eventually led leadership to the conclusion that team X was better suited for a transformation on this scale than team Y. Team Y has no experience with any major ERP deployments, and no domain knowledge, yet they are being tasked with fundamentally changing the business process that is at the core of Company A's business. Their models actually perform worse than those deployed by team X, and their architecture is hopelessly simplistic, compared to what is necessary for running such a solution in production. Ironically, using Bayesian thinking and based on all the evidence, the likelihood that team Y succeeds is close to 0%. At best, the project is going to end up being a write off of 50 million dollars or more. Once the !@#$!@hits the fan, a couple of executive heads are going to role, and dozens of people will get laid off. At worst, given how vital risk analysis and portfolio optimization is to Company A's revenue stream, the failure will eventually sink the whole company. It probably won't go bankrupt, but it will lose a significant portion of its business and work force. Failed ERP implementations can and do sink large companies: Just see what happened to National Grid US, SuperValu or Target Canada. One might argue that this is more about corporate disfunction and bad leadership than about data science and AI. But I disagree. I think the core driver of this debacle is indeed the blind faith in Data Scientists, ML models and the promise of AI, and the overall culture of hype and self promotion that is very common among the ML crowd. We haven't seen the end of this story: I sincerely hope that this ends well for the sake of my colleagues and all involved. Company A is a good company, and both its customers and its employees deserver better. But the chances of that happening are negligible given all the information available, and this failure will hit my company hard.

#reddit #[discussion]#data

[D] Why can't you guys comment your fucking code?

0

didntfinishhighschoo•This week

[D] Why can't you guys comment your fucking code?

Seriously. I spent the last few years doing web app development. Dug into DL a couple months ago. Supposedly, compared to the post-post-post-docs doing AI stuff, JavaScript developers should be inbred peasants. But every project these peasants release, even a fucking library that colorizes CLI output, has a catchy name, extensive docs, shitloads of comments, fuckton of tests, semantic versioning, changelog, and, oh my god, better variable names than ctxh or langhs or fuckyoufortryingto_understand. The concepts and ideas behind DL, GANs, LSTMs, CNNs, whatever – it's clear, it's simple, it's intuitive. The slog is to go through the jargon (that keeps changing beneath your feet - what's the point of using fancy words if you can't keep them consistent?), the unnecessary equations, trying to squeeze meaning from bullshit language used in papers, figuring out the super important steps, preprocessing, hyperparameters optimization that the authors, oops, failed to mention. Sorry for singling out, but look at this - what the fuck? If a developer anywhere else at Facebook would get this code for a review they would throw up. Do you intentionally try to obfuscate your papers? Is pseudo-code a fucking premium? Can you at least try to give some intuition before showering the reader with equations? How the fuck do you dare to release a paper without source code? Why the fuck do you never ever add comments to you code? When naming things, are you charged by the character? Do you get a bonus for acronyms? Do you realize that OpenAI having needed to release a "baseline" TRPO implementation is a fucking disgrace to your profession? Jesus christ, who decided to name a tensor concatenation function cat?

#reddit #can't #guys

[D] Should We Be Concerned About The Failure Of Evolutionary Algorithms, And Its Implications?

0

-1

mystikaldanger•This week

[D] Should We Be Concerned About The Failure Of Evolutionary Algorithms, And Its Implications?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6287292/  A number of possible explanations for \[why we can't evolve complex software\] could be considered. We tried to be as comprehensive as possible in this section, but it is possible that we have not considered some plausible explanations: Incompetent programmers—It is theoretically possible, but is highly unlikely, that out of thousands of scientists working on evolutionary computation, all failed to correctly implement the Darwinian algorithm. Nonrepresentative algorithms—Some have suggested that EAs do not accurately capture the theory of evolution, but of course that would imply that the theory itself is not specified in sufficient detail to make falsifiable predictions. If, however, such more detailed specifications are available to GP believers, it is up to them to implement them as computer simulations for testing purposes, but no successful examples of such work are known and the known ones have not been successful in evolving software. Inadequate fitness functions—Fitness function for a complex software product is difficult to outline and specify and may be as complex (or even more complex) as the software we want to evolve as it has to consider all the possible use cases and pass all unit tests. This may be the Achilles heel of GP, but it is also an objection to feasibility of programming in general and GP in particular, as both have to convert software specification into the source code. If human programmers and biological evolution succeed with such constraints, so should Darwinian simulations. The Halting problem—Turing proved that it is impossible to determine whether an arbitrary program halts, but this is also a problem for human programmers and could be easily addressed by placing time limits on considered solutions. Program correctness—If we require evolved software to be provably correct, this would present a problem as GP does not verify produced designs but only tests them against specific unit tests. Likewise, we cannot rely on automated software verification as it is still an unsolved problem in the general case. This is not really a problem as most of the human-written software is never proven to be correct and only a small portion of software engineering process relies of formal specification and Test Driven Development. Inappropriate solutions—Literature on EA is full of examples of surprising creativity of Darwinian algorithm resulting in solutions which match the letter of design specifications but not the spirit. This is similar to human-produced software and numerous examples of ways in which such software fails the goals of the initial design. Insufficient complexity of the environment (not enough data, poor fitness functions)—It is possible that the simulated environment is not complex enough to generate high complexity outputs in evolutionary simulations. This does not seem correct as Internet presents a highly complex landscape in which many self-modifying computer viruses roam. Likewise, virtual world such as Second Life and many others present close approximations to the real world and are certainly more complex than early Earth was: A skeptic might insist that an abstract environment would be inadequate for the evolution . . ., believing instead that the virtual environment would need to closely resemble the actual biological environment in which our ancestors evolved. Creating a physically realistic virtual world would require a far greater investment of computational resources than the simulation of a simple toy world or abstract problem domain (whereas evolution had access to a physically realistic real world “for free”). In the limiting case, if complete microphysical accuracy were insisted upon, the computational requirements would balloon to utterly infeasible proportions. Requiring more realistic environmental conditions may result in an increase in necessary computational resources, a problem addressed in the next bullet. Insufficient resources (compute, memory)—From the history of computer science, we know of many situations (speech recognition, NN training), where we had a correct algorithm but insufficient computational resources to run it to success. It is possible that we simply do not have hardware powerful enough to emulate evolution. We will address this possibility in section “Computational Complexity of Biological Evolution and Available Compute.” Software design is not amenable to evolutionary methods—Space of software designs may be discrete with no continuous path via incremental fitness to the desired solutions. This is possible, but this implies that original goals of GP are unattainable and misguided. In addition, because a clear mapping exists between solutions to problems and animals as solutions to environmental problems, this would also imply that current explanation for the origin of the species is incorrect. Darwinian algorithm is incomplete or wrong—Finally, we have to consider the possibility that the inspiration behind evolutionary computation, the Darwinian algorithm itself is wrong or at least partially incomplete. If that was true, computer simulations of such algorithm would fail to produce results comparable with observations we see in nature and a search for an alternative algorithm would need to take place. This would be an extraordinary claim and would require that we discard all the other possible explanations from this list. We challenge EA community to prove us wrong by producing an experiment, which evolves nontrivial software from scratch and without human help. That would be the only way in which our findings could be shown to be incorrect. Perhaps, reframing the problem in terms of maximizing negentropy of digital organisms, as suggested by Schrödinger, Michaelian, and Ulanowicz and Hannon, with respect to negative energy being a fundamental property of all life-forms may produce better results. On a positive side, the fact that it seems impossible to evolve complex software implies that we are unlikely to be able to evolve highly sophisticated artificially intelligent agents, which may present significant risk to our safety and security. Just imagine what would have happened, if the very first time we ran a simulation of evolution on a computer, it produced a superintelligent agent. Yampolskiy has shown that programming as a problem is AI-complete; if GP can solve programming that would imply that GP = AGI (artificial general intelligence), but we see no experimental evidence for such claim. In fact, it is more likely that once we have AGI, it could be used to create an intelligent fitness function for GP and so evolve software. Genetic programming will not be the cause of AI, but a product of it. However, neuroevolution methods for optimizing deep learning architectures and parameters remain a strong possibility for creation of AGI.

#reddit #should #concerned

0

0.6

AlexSnakeKing•This week

[Discussion] When ML and Data Science are the death of a good company: A cautionary tale.

TD;LR: At Company A, Team X does advanced analytics using on-prem ERP tools and older programming languages. Their tools work very well and are designed based on very deep business and domain expertise. Team Y is a new and ambitious Data Science team that thinks they can replace Team X's tools with a bunch of R scripts and a custom built ML platform. Their models are simplistic, but more "fashionable" compared to the econometric models used by Team X, and team Y benefits from the ML/DS moniker so leadership is allowing Team Y to start a large scale overhaul of the analytics platform in question. Team Y doesn't have the experience for such a larger scale transformation, and is refusing to collaborate with team X. This project is very likely going to fail, and cause serious harm to the company as a whole financially and from a people perspective. I argue that this is not just because of bad leadership, but also because of various trends and mindsets in the DS community at large. Update (Jump to below the line for the original story): Several people in the comments are pointing out that this just a management failure, not something due to ML/DS, and that you can replace DS with any buzz tech and the story will still be relevant. My response: Of course, any failure at an organization level is ultimately a management failure one way or the other. Moreover, it is also the case that ML/DS when done correctly, will always improve a company's bottom line. There is no scenario where the proper ML solution, delivered at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion, will somehow hurt the company's bottom line. My point is that in this case management is failing because of certain trends and practices that are specific to the ML/DS community, namely: The idea that DS teams should operate independently of tech and business orgs -- too much autonomy for DS teams The disregard for domain knowledge that seems prevalent nowadays thanks to the ML hype, that DS can be generalists and someone with good enough ML chops can solve any business problem. That wasn't the case when I first left academia for the industry in 2009 (back then nobody would even bother with a phone screen if you didn't have the right domain knowledge). Over reliance on resources who check all the ML hype related boxes (knows Python, R, Tensorflow, Shiny, etc..., has the right Coursera certifications, has blogged on the topic, etc...), but are lacking in depth of experience. DS interviews nowadays all seem to be: Can you tell me what a p-value is? What is elastic net regression? Show me how to fit a model in sklearn? How do you impute NAs in an R dataframe? Any smart person can look those up on Stackoverflow or Cross-Validated,.....Instead teams should be asking stuff like: why does portfolio optimization use QP not LP? How does a forecast influence a customer service level? When should a recommendation engine be content based and when should it use collaborative filtering? etc... (This is a true story, happening to the company I currently work for. Names, domains, algorithms, and roles have been shuffled around to protect my anonymity) Company A has been around for several decades. It is not the biggest name in its domain, but it is a well respected one. Risk analysis and portfolio optimization have been a core of Company A's business since the 90s. They have a large team of 30 or so analysts who perform those tasks on a daily basis. These analysts use ERP solutions implemented for them by one the big ERP companies (SAP, Teradata, Oracle, JD Edwards,...) or one of the major tech consulting companies (Deloitte, Accenture, PWC, Capgemini, etc...) in collaboration with their own in house engineering team. The tools used are embarrassingly old school: Classic RDBMS running on on-prem servers or maybe even on mainframes, code written in COBOL, Fortran, weird proprietary stuff like ABAP or SPSS.....you get the picture. But the models and analytic functions were pretty sophisticated, and surprisingly cutting edge compared to the published academic literature. Most of all, they fit well with the company's enterprise ecosystem, and were honed based on years of deep domain knowledge. They have a tech team of several engineers (poached from the aforementioned software and consulting companies) and product managers (who came from the experienced pools of analysts and managers who use the software, or poached from business rivals) maintaining and running this software. Their technology might be old school, but collectively, they know the domain and the company's overall architecture very, very well. They've guided the company through several large scale upgrades and migrations and they have a track record of delivering on time, without too much overhead. The few times they've stumbled, they knew how to pick themselves up very quickly. In fact within their industry niche, they have a reputation for their expertise, and have very good relations with the various vendors they've had to deal with. They were the launching pad of several successful ERP consulting careers. Interestingly, despite dealing on a daily basis with statistical modeling and optimization algorithms, none of the analysts, engineers, or product managers involved describe themselves as data scientists or machine learning experts. It is mostly a cultural thing: Their expertise predates the Data Science/ML hype that started circa 2010, and they got most of their chops using proprietary enterprise tools instead of the open source tools popular nowadays. A few of them have formal statistical training, but most of them came from engineering or domain backgrounds and learned stats on the fly while doing their job. Call this team "Team X". Sometime around the mid 2010s, Company A started having some serious anxiety issues: Although still doing very well for a company its size, overall economic and demographic trends were shrinking its customer base, and a couple of so called disruptors came up with a new app and business model that started seriously eating into their revenue. A suitable reaction to appease shareholders and Wall Street was necessary. The company already had a decent website and a pretty snazzy app, what more could be done? Leadership decided that it was high time that AI and ML become a core part of the company's business. An ambitious Manager, with no science or engineering background, but who had very briefly toyed with a recommender system a couple of years back, was chosen to build a data science team, call it team "Y" (he had a bachelor's in history from the local state college and worked for several years in the company's marketing org). Team "Y" consists mostly of internal hires who decided they wanted to be data scientists and completed a Coursera certification or a Galvanize boot camp, before being brought on to the team, along with a few of fresh Ph.D or M.Sc holders who didn't like academia and wanted to try their hand at an industry role. All of them were very bright people, they could write great Medium blog posts and give inspiring TED talks, but collectively they had very little real world industry experience. As is the fashion nowadays, this group was made part of a data science org that reported directly to the CEO and Board, bypassing the CIO and any tech or business VPs, since Company A wanted to claim the monikers "data driven" and "AI powered" in their upcoming shareholder meetings. In 3 or 4 years of existence, team Y produced a few Python and R scripts. Their architectural experience consisted almost entirely in connecting Flask to S3 buckets or Redshift tables, with a couple of the more resourceful ones learning how to plug their models into Tableau or how to spin up a Kuberneties pod. But they needn't worry: The aforementioned manager, who was now a director (and was also doing an online Masters to make up for his qualifications gap and bolster his chances of becoming VP soon - at least he now understands what L1 regularization is), was a master at playing corporate politics and self-promotion. No matter how few actionable insights team Y produced or how little code they deployed to production, he always had their back and made sure they had ample funding. In fact he now had grandiose plans for setting up an all-purpose machine learning platform that can be used to solve all of the company's data problems. A couple of sharp minded members of team Y, upon googling their industry name along with the word "data science", realized that risk analysis was a prime candidate for being solved with Bayesian models, and there was already a nifty R package for doing just that, whose tutorial they went through on R-Bloggers.com. One of them had even submitted a Bayesian classifier Kernel for a competition on Kaggle (he was 203rd on the leaderboard), and was eager to put his new-found expertise to use on a real world problem. They pitched the idea to their director, who saw a perfect use case for his upcoming ML platform. They started work on it immediately, without bothering to check whether anybody at Company A was already doing risk analysis. Since their org was independent, they didn't really need to check with anybody else before they got funding for their initiative. Although it was basically a Naive Bayes classifier, the term ML was added to the project tile, to impress the board. As they progressed with their work however, tensions started to build. They had asked the data warehousing and CA analytics teams to build pipelines for them, and word eventually got out to team X about their project. Team X was initially thrilled: They offered to collaborate whole heartedly, and would have loved to add an ML based feather to their already impressive cap. The product owners and analysts were totally onboard as well: They saw a chance to get in on the whole Data Science hype that they kept hearing about. But through some weird mix of arrogance and insecurity, team Y refused to collaborate with them or share any of their long term goals with them, even as they went to other parts of the company giving brown bag presentations and tutorials on the new model they created. Team X got resentful: from what they saw of team Y's model, their approach was hopelessly naive and had little chances of scaling or being sustainable in production, and they knew exactly how to help with that. Deploying the model to production would have taken them a few days, given how comfortable they were with DevOps and continuous delivery (team Y had taken several months to figure out how to deploy a simple R script to production). And despite how old school their own tech was, team X were crafty enough to be able to plug it in to their existing architecture. Moreover, the output of the model was such that it didn't take into account how the business will consume it or how it was going to be fed to downstream systems, and the product owners could have gone a long way in making the model more amenable to adoption by the business stakeholders. But team Y wouldn't listen, and their leads brushed off any attempts at communication, let alone collaboration. The vibe that team Y was giving off was "We are the cutting edge ML team, you guys are the legacy server grunts. We don't need your opinion.", and they seemed to have a complete disregard for domain knowledge, or worse, they thought that all that domain knowledge consisted of was being able to grasp the definitions of a few business metrics. Team X got frustrated and tried to express their concerns to leadership. But despite owning a vital link in Company A's business process, they were only \~50 people in a large 1000 strong technology and operations org, and they were several layers removed from the C-suite, so it was impossible for them to get their voices heard. Meanwhile, the unstoppable director was doing what he did best: Playing corporate politics. Despite how little his team had actually delivered, he had convinced the board that all analysis and optimization tasks should now be migrated to his yet to be delivered ML platform. Since most leaders now knew that there was overlap between team Y and team X's objectives, his pitch was no longer that team Y was going to create a new insight, but that they were going to replace (or modernize) the legacy statistics based on-prem tools with more accurate cloud based ML tools. Never mind that there was no support in the academic literature for the idea that Naive Bayes works better than the Econometric approaches used by team X, let alone the additional wacky idea that Bayesian Optimization would definitely outperform the QP solvers that were running in production. Unbeknownst to team X, the original Bayesian risk analysis project has now grown into a multimillion dollar major overhaul initiative, which included the eventual replacement of all of the tools and functions supported by team X along with the necessary migration to the cloud. The CIO and a couple of business VPs are on now board, and tech leadership is treating it as a done deal. An outside vendor, a startup who nobody had heard of, was contracted to help build the platform, since team Y has no engineering skills. The choice was deliberate, as calling on any of the established consulting or software companies would have eventually led leadership to the conclusion that team X was better suited for a transformation on this scale than team Y. Team Y has no experience with any major ERP deployments, and no domain knowledge, yet they are being tasked with fundamentally changing the business process that is at the core of Company A's business. Their models actually perform worse than those deployed by team X, and their architecture is hopelessly simplistic, compared to what is necessary for running such a solution in production. Ironically, using Bayesian thinking and based on all the evidence, the likelihood that team Y succeeds is close to 0%. At best, the project is going to end up being a write off of 50 million dollars or more. Once the !@#$!@hits the fan, a couple of executive heads are going to role, and dozens of people will get laid off. At worst, given how vital risk analysis and portfolio optimization is to Company A's revenue stream, the failure will eventually sink the whole company. It probably won't go bankrupt, but it will lose a significant portion of its business and work force. Failed ERP implementations can and do sink large companies: Just see what happened to National Grid US, SuperValu or Target Canada. One might argue that this is more about corporate disfunction and bad leadership than about data science and AI. But I disagree. I think the core driver of this debacle is indeed the blind faith in Data Scientists, ML models and the promise of AI, and the overall culture of hype and self promotion that is very common among the ML crowd. We haven't seen the end of this story: I sincerely hope that this ends well for the sake of my colleagues and all involved. Company A is a good company, and both its customers and its employees deserver better. But the chances of that happening are negligible given all the information available, and this failure will hit my company hard.

#reddit #[discussion]#data

The delicate balance of building an online community business

0

0.895

matthewbarby•This week

The delicate balance of building an online community business

Hey /r/Entrepreneur 👋 Just under two years ago I launched an online community business called Traffic Think Tank with two other co-founders, Nick Eubanks and Ian Howells. As a Traffic Think Tank customer you (currently) pay $119 a month to get access to our online community, which is run through Slack. The community is focused on helping you learn various aspects of marketing, with a particular focus on search engine optimization (SEO). Alongside access to the Slack community, we publish new educational video content from outside experts every week that all customers have access to. At the time of writing, Traffic Think Tank has around 650 members spanning across 17 of the 24 different global time zones. I was on a business trip over in Sydney recently, and during my time there I met up with some of our Australia-based community members. During dinner I was asked by several of them how the idea for Traffic Think Tank came about and what steps we took to validate that the idea was worth pursuing. This is what I told them… How it all began It all started with a personal need. Nick, an already successful entrepreneur and owner of a marketing agency, had tested out an early version Traffic Think Tank in early 2017. He offered real-time consulting for around ten customers that he ran from Slack. He would publish some educational videos and offer his advice on projects that the members were running. The initial test went well, but it was tough to maintain on his own and he had to charge a fairly high price to make it worth his time. That’s when he spoke to me and Ian about turning this idea into something much bigger. Both Ian and I offered something slightly different to Nick. We’ve both spent time in senior positions at marketing agencies, but currently hold senior director positions in 2,000+ public employee companies (HubSpot and LendingTree). Alongside this, as a trio we could really ramp up the quality and quantity of content within the community, spread out the administrative workload and just generally have more resources to throw at getting this thing off the ground. Admittedly, Nick was much more optimistic about the potential of Traffic Think Tank – something I’m very thankful for now – whereas Ian and I were in the camp of “you’re out of your mind if you think hundreds of people are going to pay us to be a part of a Slack channel”. To validate the idea at scale, we decided that we’d get an initial MVP of the community up and running with a goal of reaching 100 paying customers in the first six months. If we achieved that, we’d validated that it was a viable business and we would continue to pursue it. If not, we’d kill it. We spent the next month building out the initial tech stack that enabled us to accept payments, do basic user management to the Slack channel, and get a one-page website up and running with information on what Traffic Think Tank was all about. After this was ready, we doubled down on getting some initial content created for members – I mean, we couldn’t have people just land in an empty Slack channel, could we? We created around ten initial videos, 20 or so articles and then some long threads full of useful information within the Slack channel so that members would have some content to pour into right from the beginning. Then, it was time to go live. The first 100 customers Fortunately, both Nick and I had built a somewhat substantial following in the SEO space over the previous 5-10 years, so we at least had a large email list to tap into (a total of around 40,000 people). We queued up some launch emails, set an initial price of $99 per month and pressed send. [\[LINK\] The launch email I sent to my subscribers announcing Traffic Think Tank](https://mailchi.mp/matthewbarby/future-of-marketing-1128181) What we didn’t expect was to sell all of the initial 100 membership spots in the first 72 hours. “Shit. What do we do now? Are we ready for this many people? Are we providing them with enough value? What if something breaks in our tech stack? What if they don’t like the content? What if everyone hates Slack?” All of these were thoughts running through my head. This brings me to the first great decision we made: we closed down new membership intake for 3 months so that we could focus completely on adding value to the first cohort of users. The right thing at the right time SEO is somewhat of a dark art to many people that are trying to learn about it for the first time. There’s hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of articles and videos online that talk about how to do SEO. Some of it’s good advice; a lot of it is very bad advice. Add to this that the barrier to entry of claiming to be an “expert” in SEO is practically non-existent and you have a recipe for disaster. This is why, for a long time, individuals involved in SEO have flocked in their masses to online communities for information and to bounce ideas off of others in the space. Forums like SEObook, Black Hat World, WickedFire, Inbound.org, /r/BigSEO, and many more have, at one time, been called home by many SEOs. In recent times, these communities have either been closed down or just simply haven’t adapted to the changing needs of the community – one of those needs being real-time feedback on real-world problems. The other big need that we all spotted and personally had was the ability to openly share the things that are working – and the things that aren’t – in SEO within a private forum. Not everyone wanted to share their secret sauce with the world. One of the main reasons we chose Slack as the platform to run our community on was the fact that it solved these two core needs. It gave the ability to communicate in real-time across multiple devices, and all of the information shared within it was outside of the public domain. The other problem that plagued a lot of these early communities was spam. Most of them were web-based forums that were free to access. That meant they became a breeding ground for people trying to either sell their services or promote their own content – neither of which is conducive to building a thriving community. This was our main motivation for charging a monthly fee to access Traffic Think Tank. We spent a lot of time thinking through pricing. It needed to be enough money that people would be motivated to really make use of their membership and act in a way that’s beneficial to the community, but not too much money that it became cost prohibitive to the people that would benefit from it the most. Considering that most of our members would typically spend between $200-800 per month on SEO software, $99 initially felt like the perfect balance. Growing pains The first three months of running the community went by without any major hiccups. Members were incredibly patient with us, gave us great feedback and were incredibly helpful and accommodating to other members. Messages were being posted every day, with Nick, Ian and myself seeding most of the engagement at this stage. With everything going smoothly, we decided that it was time to open the doors to another intake of new members. At this point we’d accumulated a backlog of people on our waiting list, so we knew that simply opening our doors would result in another large intake. Adding more members to a community has a direct impact on the value that each member receives. For Traffic Think Tank in particular, the value for members comes from three areas: The ability to have your questions answered by me, Nick and Ian, as well as other members of the community. The access to a large library of exclusive content. The ability to build connections with the wider community. In the early stages of membership growth, there was a big emphasis on the first of those three points. We didn’t have an enormous content library, nor did we have a particularly large community of members, so a lot of the value came from getting a lot of one-to-one time with the community founders. [\[IMAGE\] Screenshot of engagement within the Traffic Think Tank Slack community](https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/qglossy,retimg,w_1322/https://www.matthewbarby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Community-Engagement-in-Traffic-Think-Tank.png) The good thing about having 100 members was that it was just about feasible to give each and every member some one-to-one time within the month, which really helped us to deliver those moments of delight that the community needed early on. Two-and-a-half months after we launched Traffic Think Tank, we opened the doors to another 250 people, taking our total number of members to 350. This is where we experienced our first growing pains. Our original members had become used to being able to drop us direct messages and expect an almost instant response, but this wasn’t feasible anymore. There were too many people, and we needed to create a shift in behavior. We needed more value to come from the community engaging with one another or we’d never be able to scale beyond this level. We started to really pay attention to engagement metrics; how many people were logging in every day, and of those, how many were actually posting messages within public channels. We asked members that were logging in a lot but weren’t posting (the “lurkers”) why that was the case. We also asked the members that engaged in the community the most what motivated them to post regularly. We learned a lot from doing this. We found that the large majority of highly-engaged members had much more experience in SEO, whereas most of the “lurkers” were beginners. This meant that most of the information being shared in the community was very advanced, with a lot of feedback from the beginners in the group being that they “didn’t want to ask a stupid question”. As managers of the community, we needed to facilitate conversations that catered to all of our members, not just those at a certain level of skill. To tackle this problem, we created a number of new channels that had a much deeper focus on beginner topics so novice members had a safe place to ask questions without judgment. We also started running live video Q&As each month where we’d answer questions submitted by the community. This gave our members one-on-one time with me, Nick and Ian, but spread the value of these conversations across the whole community rather than them being hidden within private messages. As a result of these changes, we found that the more experienced members in the community were really enjoying sharing their knowledge with those with less experience. The number of replies within each question thread was really starting to increase, and the community started to shift away from just being a bunch of threads created by me, Nick and Ian to a thriving forum of diverse topics compiled by a diverse set of individuals. This is what we’d always wanted. A true community. It was starting to happen. [\[IMAGE\] Chart showing community engagement vs individual member value](https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/qglossy,retimg,w_1602/https://www.matthewbarby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Community-Engagement-Balance-Graph.jpg) At the same time, we started to realize that we’ll eventually reach a tipping point where there’ll be too much content for us to manage and our members to engage with. When we reach this point, the community will be tough to follow and the quality of any given post will go down. Not only that, but the community will become increasingly difficult to moderate. We’re not there yet, but we recognize that this will come, and we’ll have to adjust our model again. Advocating advocacy As we started to feel more comfortable about the value that members were receiving, we made the decision to indefinitely open for new members. At the same time, we increased the price of membership (from $99 a month to $119) in a bid to strike the right balance between profitability as a business and to slow down the rate at which we were reaching the tipping point of community size. We also made the decision to repay all of our early adopters by grandfathering them in to the original pricing – and committing to always do this in the future. Despite the price increase, we saw a continued flow of new members come into the community. The craziest part about this was that we were doing practically no marketing activities to encourage new members– this was all coming from word of mouth. Our members were getting enough value from the community that they were recommending it to their friends, colleagues and business partners. The scale at which this was happening really took us by surprise and it told us one thing very clearly: delivering more value to members resulted in more value being delivered to the business. This is a wonderful dynamic to have because it perfectly aligns the incentives on both sides. We’d said from the start that we wouldn’t sacrifice value to members for more revenue – this is something that all three of us felt very strongly about. First and foremost, we wanted to create a community that delivered value to its members and was run in a way that aligned with our values as people. If we could find a way to stimulate brand advocacy, while also tightening the bonds between all of our individual community members, we’d be boosting both customer retention and customer acquisition in the same motion. This became our next big focus. [\[TWEET\] Adam, one of our members wore his Traffic Think Tank t-shirt in the Sahara desert](https://twitter.com/AdamGSteele/status/1130892481099382784) We started with some simple things: We shipped out Traffic Think Tank branded T-shirts to all new members. We’d call out each of the individuals that would submit questions to our live Q&A sessions and thank them live on air. We set up a new channel that was dedicated to sharing a quick introduction to who you are, what you do and where you’re based for all new members. We’d created a jobs channel and a marketplace for selling, buying and trading services with other members. Our monthly “blind dates” calls were started where you’d be randomly grouped with 3-4 other community members so that you could hop on a call to get to know each other better. The Traffic Think Tank In Real Life (IRL)* channel was born, which enabled members to facilitate in-person meetups with each other. In particular, we saw that as members started to meet in person or via calls the community itself was feeling more and more like a family. It became much closer knit and some members started to build up a really positive reputation for being particularly helpful to other members, or for having really strong knowledge in a specific area. [\[TWEET\] Dinner with some of the Traffic Think Tank members in Brighton, UK](https://twitter.com/matthewbarby/status/1117175584080134149) Nick, Ian and I would go out of our way to try and meet with members in real life wherever we could. I was taken aback by how appreciative people were for us doing this, and it also served as an invaluable way to gain honest feedback from members. There was another trend that we’d observed that we didn’t really expect to happen. More and more members were doing business with each another. We’ve had people find new jobs through the community, sell businesses to other members, launch joint ventures together and bring members in as consultants to their business. This has probably been the most rewarding thing to watch, and it was clear that the deeper relationships that our members were forming were resulting in an increased level of trust to work with each other. We wanted to harness this and take it to a new level. This brought us to arguably the best decision we’ve made so far running Traffic Think Tank… we were going to run a big live event for our members. I have no idea what I’m doing It’s the first week of January 2019 and we’re less than three weeks away from Traffic Think Tank LIVE, our first ever in-person event hosting 150 people, most of which are Traffic Think Tank members. It's like an ongoing nightmare I can’t wake up from. That was Nick’s response in our private admin channel to myself and Ian when I asked if they were finding the run-up to the event as stressful as I was. I think that all three of us were riding on such a high from how the community was growing that we felt like we could do anything. Running an event? How hard can it be? Well, turns out it’s really hard. We had seven different speakers flying over from around the world to speak at the event, there was a pre- and after event party, and we’d planned a charity dinner where we would take ten attendees (picked at random via a raffle) out for a fancy meal. Oh, and Nick, Ian and I were hosting a live Q&A session on stage. It wasn’t until precisely 48 hours before the event that we’d realized we didn’t have any microphones, nor had a large amount of the swag we’d ordered arrived. Plus, a giant storm had hit Philly causing a TON of flight cancellations. Perfect. Just perfect. This was honestly the tip of the iceberg. We hadn’t thought about who was going to run the registration desk, who would be taking photos during the event and who would actually field questions from the audience while all three of us sat on stage for our live Q&A panel. Turns out that the answer to all of those questions were my wife, Laura, and Nick’s wife, Kelley. Thankfully, they were on hand to save our asses. The weeks running up to the event were honestly some of the most stressful of my life. We sold around 50% of our ticket allocation within the final two weeks before the event. All of the event organizers told us this would happen, but did we believe them? Hell no! Imagine having two weeks until the big day and as it stood half of the room would be completely empty. I was ready to fly most of my extended family over just to make it look remotely busy. [\[IMAGE\] One of our speakers, Ryan Stewart, presenting at Traffic Think Tank LIVE](https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/qglossy,retimg,w_1920/https://www.matthewbarby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Traffic-Think-Tank-LIVE-Ryan-Presenting.jpg) Thankfully, if all came together. We managed to acquire some microphones, the swag arrived on the morning of the event, all of our speakers were able to make it on time and the weather just about held up so that our entire allocation of ticket holders was able to make it to the event. We pooled together and I’m proud to say that the event was a huge success. While we made a substantial financial loss on the event itself, January saw a huge spike in new members, which more than recouped our losses. Not only that, but we got to hang out with a load of our members all day while they said really nice things about the thing we’d built. It was both exhausting and incredibly rewarding. Bring on Traffic Think Tank LIVE 2020! (This time we’re hiring an event manager...) The road ahead Fast forward to today (August 2019) and Traffic Think Tank has over 650 members. The biggest challenges that we’re tackling right now include making sure the most interesting conversations and best content surfaces to the top of the community, making Slack more searchable (this is ultimately one of its flaws as a platform) and giving members a quicker way to find the exclusive content that we create. You’ll notice there’s a pretty clear theme here. In the past 30 days, 4,566 messages were posted in public channels inside Traffic Think Tank. If you add on any messages posted inside private direct messages, this number rises to 21,612. That’s a lot of messages. To solve these challenges and enable further scale in the future, we’ve invested a bunch of cash and our time into building out a full learning management system (LMS) that all members will get access to alongside the Slack community. The LMS will be a web-based portal that houses all of the video content we produce. It will also provide an account admin section where users can update or change their billing information (they have to email us to do this right now, which isn’t ideal), a list of membership perks and discounts with our partners, and a list of links to some of the best threads within Slack – when clicked, these will drop you directly into Slack. [\[IMAGE\] Designs for the new learning management system (LMS)](https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/qglossy,retimg,w_2378/https://www.matthewbarby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Traffic-Think-Tank-LMS.png) It’s not been easy, but we’re 95% of the way through this and I’m certain that it will have a hugely positive impact on the experience for our members. Alongside this we hired a community manager, Liz, who supports with any questions that our members have, coordinates with external experts to arrange webinars for the community, helps with new member onboarding, and has tightened up some of our processes around billing and general accounts admin. This was a great decision. Finally, we’ve started planning next year’s live event, which we plan to more than double in size to 350 attendees, and we decided to pick a slightly warmer location in Miami this time out. Stay tuned for me to have a complete meltdown 3 weeks from the event. Final thoughts When I look back on the journey we’ve had so far building Traffic Think Tank, there’s one very important piece to this puzzle that’s made all of this work that I’ve failed to mention so far: co-founder alignment. Building a community is a balancing act that relies heavily on those in charge being completely aligned. Nick, Ian and I completely trust each other and more importantly, are philosophically aligned on how we want to run and grow the community. If we didn’t have this, the friction between us could tear apart the entire community. Picking the right people to work with is important in any company, but when your business is literally about bringing people together, there’s no margin for error here. While I’m sure there will be many more challenges ahead, knowing that we all trust each other to make decisions that fall in line with each of our core values makes these challenges dramatically easier to overcome. Finally, I’d like to thank all of our members for making the community what it is today – it’d be nothing without you and I promise that we’ll never take that for granted.  I originally posted this on my blog here. Welcoming all of your thoughts, comments, questions and I'll do my best to answer them :)

#reddit #delicate #balance

How and why does Musk succeed in almost all of his ventures even when the wind is against him ?

0

FreeBirdy00•This week

How and why does Musk succeed in almost all of his ventures even when the wind is against him ?

So I saw this post somewhere and decided to ask this here too. Elon Musk has probably been involved, initiated and successfully executes more ventures in his life than any other tech-billionaire CEO. SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter, PayPal (his company was acquired by PayPal after which it boomed), Neuralink, OpenAI etc. How is it that one single person can find time to do this much in life and succeed in each and every one of them ? It almost seems unreal. And in most of his ventures, he was always very close to being done once and for all and then somehow always finds a way to climb back up ? The SpaceX's 3 failed launches (back to back), Tesla's near death condition when he took over, Twitter's entire drama with lawsuits and big companies leaving the hands etc. These are all examples of near death experiences he must've had during his journey. But how does he always climb back out of it ? Is it because of his "failure's not an option" and "never give up" attitude ? Or does he have some very foolproof strategies ? Also how does one single person do so much in such a short span and yet still have time to shitpost on twitter ? Also just to be clear I am not a Musk fanboy. I respect him for some of his work and at the same time criticize for many of his actions.

Recently hit 6,600,000 monthly organic traffic for a B2C SaaS website. Here's the 40 tips that helped me make that happen.

Hey guys! So as title says, we recently hit 6,600,000 monthly organic traffic / month for a B2C SaaS website (screenshot. Can't give name publicly, but can show testimonial to a mod). Here's 40 tips that "helped" me make this happen. If you get some value of the post, I write an SEO tip every other day on /r/seogrowth. There's around 10 more tips already up there other than the ones I mention here. If you want to give back for all my walls of text, I'd appreciate a sub <3 Also, there are a bunch of free stuff I mention in the article: content outline, writer guidelines, SEO checklist, and other stuff. Here's the Google Doc with all that! Tip #1. Take SEO With a Grain of Salt A lot of the SEO advice and best practices on the internet are based on 2 things: Personal experiences and case studies of companies that managed to make SEO work for them. Google or John Mueller (Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst). And, unfortunately, neither of these sources are always accurate. Personal SEO accounts are simply about what worked for specific companies. Sometimes, what worked for others, won’t work for you. For example, you might find a company that managed to rank with zero link-building because their website already had a very strong backlink profile. If you’re starting with a fresh website, chances are, you won’t be able to get the same results. At the same time, information from Google or John Mueller is also not 100% accurate. For example, they’ve said that guest posting is against Google’s guidelines and doesn’t work… But practically, guest posting is a very effective link-building strategy. So the takeaway is this: Take all information you read about SEO with a grain of salt. Analyze the information yourself, and make your conclusions. SEO Tip #2. SEO Takes Time You’ve already heard this one before, but considering how many people keep asking, thought I'd include this anyway. On average, it’s going to take you 6 months to 2 years to get SEO results, depending on the following factors: Your backlink profile. The more quality backlinks you have (or build), the faster you’ll rank. Age of your website. If your website is older (or you purchased an aged website), you can expect your content to rank faster. Amount of content published. The more quality content you publish on your website, the more “authoritative” it is in the eyes of Google, and thus more likely to rank faster. SEO work done on the website. If a lot of your pages are already ranking on Google (page 2-3), it’s easier to get them to page #1 than if you just published the content piece. Local VS global SEO. Ranking locally is (sometimes) easier and faster than ranking globally. That said, some marketing agencies can use “SEO takes time” as an excuse for not driving results. Well, fortunately, there is a way to track SEO results from month #2 - #3 of work. Simply check if your new content pieces/pages are getting more and more impressions on Google Search Console month-to-month. While your content won’t be driving traffic for a while after being published, they’ll still have a growing number of impressions from month #2 or #3 since publication. SEO Tip #3. SEO Might Not Be The Best Channel For You In theory, SEO sounds like the best marketing channel ever. You manage to rank on Google and your marketing seemingly goes on auto-pilot - you’re driving new leads every day from existing content without having to lift a finger… And yet, SEO is not for everyone. Avoid SEO as a marketing channel if: You’re just getting started with your business and need to start driving revenue tomorrow (and not in 1-2 years). If this is you, try Google ads, Facebook ads, or organic marketing. Your target audience is pretty small. If you’re selling enterprise B2B software and have around 2,000 prospects in total worldwide, then it’s simply easier to directly reach out to these prospects. Your product type is brand-new. If customers don’t know your product exists, they probably won’t be Googling it. SEO Tip #4. Traffic Can Be a Vanity Metric I've seen hundreds of websites that drive 6-7 digits of traffic but generate only 200-300 USD per month from those numbers. “What’s the deal?” You might be thinking. “How can you fail to monetize that much traffic?” Well, that brings us to today’s tip: traffic can be a vanity metric. See, not all traffic is created equal. Ranking for “hormone balance supplement” is a lot more valuable than ranking for “Madagascar character names.” The person Googling the first keyword is an adult ready to buy your product. Someone Googling the latter, on the other hand, is a child with zero purchasing power. So, when deciding on which keywords to pursue, always keep in mind the buyer intent behind and don’t go after rankings or traffic just because 6-digit traffic numbers look good. SEO Tip #5. Push Content Fast Whenever you publish a piece of content, you can expect it to rank within 6 months to a year (potentially less if you’re an authority in your niche). So, the faster you publish your content, the faster they’re going to age, and, as such, the faster they’ll rank on Google. On average, I recommend you publish a minimum of 10,000 words of content per month and 20,000 to 30,000 optimally. If you’re not doing link-building for your website, then I’d recommend pushing for even more content. Sometimes, content velocity can compensate for the lack of backlinks. SEO Tip #6. Use Backlink Data to Prioritize Content You might be tempted to go for that juicy, 6-digit traffic cornerstone keyword right from the get-go... But I'd recommend doing the opposite. More often than not, to rank for more competitive, cornerstone keywords, you’ll need to have a ton of supporting content, high-quality backlinks, website authority, and so on. Instead, it’s a lot more reasonable to first focus on the less competitive keywords and then, once you’ve covered those, move on to the rest. Now, as for how to check keyword competitiveness, here are 2 options: Use Mozbar to see the number of backlinks for top-ranking pages, as well as their Domain Authority (DA). If all the pages ranking on page #1 have <5 backlinks and DA of 20 - 40, it’s a good opportunity. Use SEMrush or Ahrefs to sort your keywords by difficulty, and focus on the less difficult keywords first. Now, that said, keep in mind that both of these metrics are third-party, and hence not always accurate. SEO Tip #7. Always Start With Competitive Analysis When doing keyword research, the easiest way to get started is via competitive analysis. Chances are, whatever niche you’re in, there’s a competitor that is doing great with SEO. So, instead of having to do all the work from scratch, run their website through SEMrush or Ahrefs and steal their keyword ideas. But don’t just stop there - once you’ve borrowed keyword ideas from all your competitors, run the seed keywords through a keyword research tool such as UberSuggest or SEMrush Keyword Magic Tool. This should give you dozens of new ideas that your competitors might’ve missed. Finally, don’t just stop at borrowing your competitor’s keyword ideas. You can also borrow some inspiration on: The types of graphics and images you can create to supplement your blog content. The tone and style you can use in your articles. The type of information you can include in specific content pieces. SEO Tip #8. Source a LOT of Writers Content writing is one of those professions that has a very low barrier to entry. Anyone can take a writing course, claim to be a writer, and create an UpWork account… This is why 99% of the writers you’ll have to apply for your gigs are going to be, well, horrible. As such, if you want to produce a lot of content on the reg, you’ll need to source a LOT of writers. Let’s do the math: If, by posting a job ad, you source 100 writers, you’ll see that only 5 of them are a good fit. Out of the 5 writers, 1 has a very high rate, so they drop out. Another doesn’t reply back to your communication, which leaves you with 3 writers. You get the 3 writers to do a trial task, and only one turns out to be a good fit for your team. Now, since the writer is freelance, the best they can do is 4 articles per month for a total of 5,000-words (which, for most niches, ain’t all that much). So, what we’re getting at here is, to hire quality writers, you should source a LOT of them. SEO Tip #9. Create a Process for Filtering Writers If you follow the previous tip, you'll end up with a huge database of hundreds of writers. This creates a whole new problem: You now have a database of 500+ writers waiting for you to sift through them and decide which ones are worth the hire. It would take you 2-3 days of intense work to go through all these writers and vet them yourself. Let’s be real - you don’t have time for that. Here’s what you can do instead: When sourcing writers, always get them to fill in a Google form (instead of DMing or emailing you). In this form, make sure to ask for 3 relevant written samples, a link to the writer’s portfolio page, and the writer’s rate per word. Create a SOP for evaluating writers. The criteria for evaluation should be: Level of English. Does the writer’s sample have any English mistakes? If so, they’re not a good fit. Quality of Samples. Are the samples long-form and engaging content or are they boring 500-word copy-pastes? Technical Knowledge. Has the writer written about a hard-to-explain topic before? Anyone can write about simple topics like traveling—you want to look for someone who knows how to research a new topic and explain it in a simple and easy-to-read way. If someone’s written about how to create a perfect cover letter, they can probably write about traveling, but the opposite isn’t true. Get your VA to evaluate the writer’s samples as per the criteria above and short-list writers that seem competent. If you sourced 500 writers, the end result of this process should be around 50 writers. You or your editor goes through the short-list of 50 writers and invites 5-10 for a (paid) trial task. The trial task is very important - you’ll sometimes find that the samples provided by the writer don’t match their writing level. SEO Tip #10. Use the Right Websites to Find Writers Not sure where to source your writers? Here are some ideas: ProBlogger \- Our #1 choice - a lot of quality writers frequent this website. LinkedIn \- You can headhunt content writers in specific locations. Upwork \- If you post a content gig, most writers are going to be awful. Instead, I recommend headhunting top writers instead. WeWorkRemotely \- Good if you’re looking to make a full-time remote hire. Facebook \- There are a ton of quality Facebook groups for writers. Some of our faves are Cult of Copy Job Board and Content Marketing Lounge. SEO Tip #11. Always Use Content Outlines When giving tasks to your writing team, you need to be very specific about the instructions you give them. Don’t just provide a keyword and tell them to “knock themselves out.” The writer isn’t a SEO expert; chances are, they’re going to mess it up big-time and talk about topics that aren’t related to the keyword you’re targeting. Instead, when giving tasks to writers, do it through content outlines. A content outline, in a nutshell, is a skeleton of the article they’re supposed to write. It includes information on: Target word count (aim for the same or 50% more the word count than that of the competition). Article title. Article structure (which sections should be mentioned and in what order). Related topics of keywords that need to be mentioned in the article. Content outline example in the URL in the post intro. SEO Tip #12. Focus on One Niche at a Time I used to work with this one client that had a SaaS consisting of a mixture of CRM, Accounting Software, and HRS. I had to pick whether we were going to focus on topics for one of these 3 niches or focus on all of them at the same time. I decided to do the former. Here’s why: When evaluating what to rank, Google considers the authority of your website. If you have 60 articles about accounting (most of which link to each other), you’re probably an authority in the niche and are more likely to get good rankings. If you have 20 sales, 20 HR, and 20 accounting articles, though, none of these categories are going to rank as well. It always makes more sense to first focus on a single niche (the one that generates the best ROI for your business), and then move on to the rest. This also makes it easier to hire writers - you hire writers specialized in accounting, instead of having to find writers who can pull off 3 unrelated topics. SEO Tip #13. Just Hire a VA Already It’s 2021 already guys—unless you have a virtual assistant, you’re missing out big-time. Since a lot of SEO tasks are very time-consuming, it really helps to have a VA around to take over. As long as you have solid SOPs in place, you can hire a virtual assistant, train them, and use them to free up your time. Some SEO tasks virtual assistants can help with are: Internal linking. Going through all your blog content and ensuring that they link to each other. Backlink prospecting. Going through hundreds of websites daily to find link opportunities. Uploading content on WordPress and ensuring that the content is optimized well for on-page SEO. SEO Tip #14. Use WordPress (And Make Your Life Easier) Not sure which CMS platform to use? 99% of the time, you’re better off with WordPress. It has a TON of plugins that will make your life easier. Want a drag & drop builder? Use Elementor. It’s cheap, efficient, extremely easy to learn, and comes jam-packed with different plugins and features. Wix, SiteGround, and similar drag & drops are pure meh. SEO Tip #15. Use These Nifty WordPress Plugins There are a lot of really cool WordPress plugins that can make your (SEO) life so much easier. Some of our favorites include: RankMath. A more slick alternative to YoastSEO. Useful for on-page SEO. Smush. App that helps you losslessly compress all images on your website, as well as enables lazy loading. WP Rocket. This plugin helps speed up your website pretty significantly. Elementor. Not a techie? This drag & drop plugin makes it significantly easier to manage your website. WP Forms. Very simple form builder. Akismet Spam Protection. Probably the most popular anti-spam WP plugin. Mammoth Docx. A plugin that uploads your content from a Google doc directly to WordPress. SEO Tip #16. No, Voice Search Is Still Not Relevant Voice search is not and will not be relevant (no matter what sensationalist articles might say). Sure, it does have its application (“Alexa, order me toilet paper please”), but it’s pretty niche and not relevant to most SEOs. After all, you wouldn’t use voice search for bigger purchases (“Alexa, order me a new laptop please”) or informational queries (“Alexa, teach me how to do accounting, thanks”). SEO Tip #17. SEO Is Obviously Not Dead I see these articles every year - “SEO is dead because I failed to make it work.” SEO is not dead and as long as there are people looking up for information/things online, it never will be. And no, SEO is not just for large corporations with huge budgets, either. Some niches are hypercompetitive and require a huge link-building budget (CBD, fitness, VPN, etc.), but they’re more of an exception instead of the rule. SEO Tip #18. Doing Local SEO? Focus on Service Pages If you’re doing local SEO, you’re better off focusing on local service pages than blog content. E.g. if you’re an accounting firm based in Boston, you can make a landing page about /accounting-firm-boston/, /tax-accounting-boston/, /cpa-boston/, and so on. Or alternatively, if you’re a personal injury law firm, you’d want to create pages like /car-accident-law-firm/, /truck-accident-law-firm/, /wrongful-death-law-firm/, and the like. Thing is, you don’t really need to rank on global search terms—you just won’t get leads from there. Even if you ranked on the term “financial accounting,” it wouldn’t really matter for your bottom line that much. SEO Tip #19. Engage With the SEO Community The SEO community is (for the most part) composed of extremely helpful and friendly people. There are a lot of online communities (including this sub) where you can ask for help, tips, case studies, and so on. Some of our faves are: This sub :) SEO Signals Lab (FB Group) Fat Graph Content Ops (FB Group) Proper SEO Group (FB Group) BigSEO Subreddit SEO Tip #20. Test Keywords Before Pursuing Them You can use Google ads to test how profitable any given keyword is before you start trying to rank for it. The process here is: Create a Google Ads account. Pick a keyword you want to test. Create a landing page that corresponds to the search intent behind the keyword. Allocate an appropriate budget. E.g. if you assume a conversion rate of 2%, you’d want to buy 100+ clicks. If the CPC is 2 USD, then the right budget would be 200 USD plus. Run the ads! If you don’t have the budget for this, you can still use the average CPC for the keyword to estimate how well it’s going to convert. If someone is willing to bid 10 USD to rank for a certain keyword, it means that the keyword is most probably generating pretty good revenue/conversions. SEO Tip #21. Test & Improve SEO Headlines Sometimes, you’ll see that you’re ranking in the top 3 positions for your search query, but you’re still not driving that much traffic. “What’s the deal?” you might be asking. Chances are, your headline is not clickable enough. Every 3-4 months, go through your Google Search Console and check for articles that are ranking well but not driving enough traffic. Then, create a Google sheet and include the following data: Targeted keyword Page link CTR (for the last 28 days) Date when you implemented the new title Old title New title New CTR (for the month after the CTR change was implemented) From then on, implement the new headline and track changes in the CTR. If you don’t reach your desired result, you can always test another headline. SEO Tip #22. Longer Content Isn’t Always Better Content You’ve probably heard that long-form content is where it’s at in 2021. Well, this isn’t always the case. Rather, this mostly depends on the keyword you’re targeting. If, for example, you’re targeting the keyword “how to tie a tie,” you don’t need a long-ass 5,000-word mega-guide. In such a case, the reader is looking for something that can be explained in 200-300 words and if your article fails to do this, the reader will bounce off and open a different page. On the other hand, if you’re targeting the keyword “how to write a CV,” you’ll need around 4,000 to 5,000 words to adequately explain the topic and, chances are, you won’t rank with less. SEO Tip #23. SEO is Not All About Written Content More often than not, when people talk about SEO they talk about written blog content creation. It’s very important not to forget, though, that blog content is not end-all-be-all for SEO. Certain keywords do significantly better with video content. For example, if the keyword is “how to do a deadlift,” video content is going to perform significantly better than blog content. Or, if the keyword is “CV template,” you’ll see that a big chunk of the rankings are images of the templates. So, the lesson here is, don’t laser-focus on written content—keep other content mediums in mind, too. SEO Tip #24. Write For Your Audience It’s very important that your content resonates well with your target audience. If, for example, you’re covering the keyword “skateboard tricks,” you can be very casual with your language. Heck, it’s even encouraged! Your readers are Googling the keyword in their free time and are most likely teens or in their early 20s. Meaning, you can use informal language, include pop culture references, and avoid complicated language. Now, on the other hand, if you’re writing about high-level investment advice, your audience probably consists of 40-something suit-and-ties. If you include Rick & Morty references in your article, you'll most likely lose credibility and the Googler, who will go to another website. Some of our best tips on writing for your audience include: Define your audience. Who’s the person you’re writing for? Are they reading the content at work or in their free time? Keep your reader’s level of knowledge in mind. If you’re covering an accounting 101 topic, you want to cover the topic’s basics, as the reader is probably a student. If you’re writing about high-level finance, though, you don’t have to teach the reader what a balance sheet is. More often than not, avoid complicated language. The best practice is to write on a 6th-grade level, as it’s understandable for anyone. Plus, no one wants to read Shakespeare when Googling info online (unless they’re looking for Shakespeare's work, of course). SEO Tip #25. Create Compelling Headlines Want to drive clicks to your articles? You’ll need compelling headlines. Compare the following headline: 101 Productivity Tips \[To Get Things Done in 2021\] With this one: Productivity Tips Guide Which one would you click? Data says it’s the first! To create clickable headlines, I recommend you include the following elements: Keyword. This one’s non-negotiable - you need to include the target keyword in the headline. Numbers. If Buzzfeed taught us anything, it’s that people like to click articles with numbers in their titles. Results. If I read your article, what’s going to be the end result? E.g. “X Resume tips (to land the job)”.* Year (If Relevant). Adding a year to your title shows that the article is recent (which is relevant for some specific topics). E.g. If the keyword is “Marketing Trends,” I want to know marketing trends in 2021, not in 2001. So, adding a year in the title makes the headline more clickable. SEO Tip #26. Make Your Content Visual How good your content looks matters, especially if you're in a competitive niche. Here are some tips on how to make your content as visual as possible: Aim for 2-4 sentences per paragraph. Avoid huge blocks of text. Apply a 60-65% content width to your blog pages. Pick a good-looking font. I’d recommend Montserrat, PT Sans, and Roboto. Alternatively, you can also check out your favorite blogs, see which fonts they’re using, and do the same. Use a reasonable font size. Most top blogs use font sizes ranging from 16 pt to 22 pt. Add images when possible. Avoid stock photos, though. No one wants to see random “office people smiling” scattered around your blog posts. Use content boxes to help convey information better. Content boxes example in the URL in the intro of the post. SEO Tip #27. Ditch the Skyscraper Technique Already Brian Dean’s skyscraper technique is awesome and all, but the following bit really got old: “Hey \[name\], I saw you wrote an article. I, too, wrote an article. Please link to you?” The theory here is, if your content is good, the person will be compelled to link to it. In practice, though, the person really, really doesn’t care. At the end of the day, there’s no real incentive for the person to link to your content. They have to take time out of their day to head over to their website, log in to WordPress, find the article you mentioned, and add a link... Just because some stranger on the internet asked them to. Here’s something that works much better: Instead of fake compliments, be very straightforward about what you can offer them in exchange for that link. Some things you can offer are: A free version of your SaaS. Free product delivered to their doorstep. Backlink exchange. A free backlink from your other website. Sharing their content to your social media following. Money. SEO Tip #28. Get the URL Slug Right for Seasonal Content If you want to rank on a seasonal keyword, there are 2 ways to do this. If you want your article to be evergreen (i.e. you update it every year with new information), then your URL should not contain the year. E.g. your URL would be /saas-trends/, and you simply update the article’s contents+headline each year to keep it timely. If you’re planning on publishing a new trends report annually, though, then you can add a year to the URL. E.g. /saas-trends-2020/ instead of /saas-trends/. SEO Tip #29. AI Content Tools Are a Mixed Bag Lots of people are talking about AI content tools these days. Usually, they’re either saying: “AI content tools are garbage and the output is horrible,” Or: “AI content tools are a game-changer!” So which one is it? The truth is somewhere in-between. In 2021, AI content writing tools are pretty bad. The output you’re going to get is far from something you can publish on your website. That said, some SEOs use such tools to get a very, very rough draft of the article written, and then they do intense surgery on it to make it usable. Should you use AI content writing tools? If you ask me, no - it’s easier to hire a proficient content writer than spend hours salvaging AI-written content. That said, I do believe that such tools are going to get much better years down the line. This one was, clearly, more of a personal opinion than a fact. I’d love to hear YOUR opinion on AI content tools! Are they a fad, or are they the future of content creation? Let me know in the comments. SEO Tip #30. Don’t Overdo it With SEO Tools There are a lot of SEO tools out there for pretty much any SEO function. Keyword research, link-building, on-page, outreach, technical SEO, you name it! If you were to buy most of these tools for your business, you’d easily spend 4-figures on SEO tools per month. Luckily, though, you don’t actually need most of them. At the end of the day, the only must-have SEO tools are: An SEO Suite (Paid). Basically SEMrush or Ahrefs. Both of these tools offer an insane number of features - backlink analysis, keyword research, and a ton of other stuff. Yes, 99 USD a month is expensive for a tool. But then again, if you value your time 20 USD/hour and this tool saves you 6 hours, it's obviously worth it, right? On-Page SEO Tool (Free). RankMath or Yoast. Basically, a tool that's going to help you optimize web pages or blog posts as per SEO best practices. Technical SEO Tool (Freemium). You can use ScreamingFrog to crawl your entire website and find technical SEO problems. There are probably other tools that also do this, but ScreamingFrog is the most popular option. The freemium version of the tool only crawls a limited number of pages (500 URLs, to be exact), so if your website is relatively big, you'll need to pay for the tool. Analytics (Free). Obviously, you'll need Google Analytics (to track website traffic) and Google Search Console (to track organic traffic, specifically) set up on your website. Optionally, you can also use Google Track Manager to better track how your website visitors interact with the site. MozBar (Free). Chrome toolbar that lets you simply track the number of backlinks on Google Search Queries, Domain Authority, and a bunch of other stuff. Website Speed Analysis (Free). You can use Google Page Speed Insights to track how fast your website loads, as well as how mobile-friendly it is. Outreach Tool (Paid). Tool for reaching out to prospects for link-building, guest posting, etc. There are about a dozen good options for this. Personally, I like to use Snov for this. Optimized GMB Profile (Free). Not a tool per se, but if you're a local business, you need to have a well-optimized Google My Business profile. Google Keyword Planner (Free). This gives you the most reliable search volume data of all the tools. So, when doing keyword research, grab the search volume from here. Tool for Storing Keyword Research (Free). You can use Google Sheets or AirTable to store your keyword research and, at the same time, use it as a content calendar. Hemingway App (Free). Helps keep your SEO content easy to read. Spots passive voice, complicated words, etc. Email Finder (Freemium). You can use a tool like Hunter to find the email address of basically anyone on the internet (for link-building or guest posting purposes). Most of the tools that don’t fit into these categories are 100% optional. SEO Tip #31. Hiring an SEO? Here’s How to Vet Them Unless you’re an SEO pro yourself, hiring one is going to be far from easy. There’s a reason there are so many “SEO experts” out there - for the layman, it’s very hard to differentiate between someone who knows their salt and a newbie who took an SEO course, like, last week. Here’s how you can vet both freelance and full-time SEOs: Ask for concrete traffic numbers. The SEO pro should give you the exact numbers on how they’ve grown a website in the past - “100% SEO growth in 1 year” doesn’t mean much if the growth is from 10 monthly traffic to 20. “1,000 to 30,000” traffic, on the other hand, is much better. Ask for client names. While some clients ask their SEOs to sign an NDA and not disclose their collaboration, most don’t. If an SEO can’t name a single client they’ve worked with in the past, that’s a red flag. Make sure they have the right experience. Global and local SEO have very different processes. Make sure that the SEO has experience with the type of SEO you need. Make sure you’re looking for the right candidate. SEO pros can be content writers, link-builders, web developers, or all of the above simultaneously. Make sure you understand which one you need before making the hire. If you’re looking for someone to oversee your content ops, you shouldn’t hire a technical SEO expert. Look for SEO pros in the right places. Conventional job boards are overrated. Post your job ads on SEO communities instead. E.g. this sub, bigseo, SEO Signals Facebook group, etc. SEO Tip #32. Blog Post Not Ranking? Follow This Checklist I wanted to format the post natively for Reddit, but it’s just SO much better on Notion. Tl;dr, the checklist covers every reason your post might not be ranking: Search intent mismatch. Inferior content. Lack of internal linking. Lack of backlinks. And the like. Checklist URL at the intro of the post. SEO Tip #33. Avoid BS Link-Building Tactics The only type of link-building that works is building proper, quality links from websites with a good backlink profile and decent organic traffic. Here’s what DOESN’T work: Blog comment links Forum spam links Drive-by Reddit comment/post links Web 2.0 links Fiverr “100 links for 10 bucks” bs If your “SEO agency” says they’re doing any of the above instead of actually trying to build you links from quality websites, you’re being scammed. SEO Tip #34. Know When to Use 301 and 302 Redirects When doing redirects, it’s very important to know the distinction between these two. 301 is a permanent page redirect and passes on link juice. If you’re killing off a page that has backlinks, it’s better to 301 it to your homepage so that you don’t lose the link juice. If you simply delete a page, it’s going to be a 404, and the backlink juice is lost forever. 302 is a temporary page redirect and doesn’t pass on link juice. If the redirect is temporary, you do a 302. E.g. you want to test how well a new page is going to perform w/ your audience. SEO Tip #35. Social Signals Matter (But Not How You Think) Social signals are NOT a ranking factor. And yet, they can help your content rank on Google’s front page. Wondering what the hell am I talking about? Here’s what’s up: As I said, social signals are not a ranking factor. It’s not something Google takes into consideration to decide whether your article should rank or not. That said, social signals CAN lead to your article ranking better. Let’s say your article goes viral and gets around 20k views within a week. A chunk of these viewers are going to forget your domain/link and they’re going to look up the topic on Google via your chosen keyword + your brand name. The amount of people looking for YOUR keyword and exclusively picking your result over others is going to make Google think that your content is satisfying search intent better than the rest, and thus, reward you with better ranking. SEO Tip #36. Run Remarketing Ads to Lift Organic Traffic Conversions Not satisfied with your conversion rates? You can use Facebook ads to help increase them. Facebook allows you to do something called “remarketing.” This means you can target anyone that visited a certain page (or multiple pages) on your website and serve them ads on Facebook. There are a TON of ways you can take advantage of this. For example, you can target anyone that landed on a high buyer intent page and serve them ads pitching your product or a special offer. Alternatively, you can target people who landed on an educational blog post and offer them something to drive them down the funnel. E.g. free e-book or white paper to teach them more about your product or service. SEO Tip #37. Doing Local SEO? Follow These Tips Local SEO is significantly different from global SEO. Here’s how the two differ (and what you need to do to drive local SEO results): You don’t need to publish content. For 95% of local businesses, you only want to rank for keywords related to your services/products, you don’t actually need to create educational content. You need to focus more on reviews and citation-building. One of Google Maps’ biggest ranking factors is the of reviews your business has. Encourage your customers to leave a review if they enjoyed your product/service through email or real-life communication. You need to create service pages for each location. As a local business, your #1 priority is to rank for keywords around your service. E.g. If you're a personal injury law firm, you want to optimize your homepage for “personal injury law firm” and then create separate pages for each service you provide, e.g. “car accident lawyer,” “motorcycle injury law firm,” etc. Focus on building citations. Being listed on business directories makes your business more trustworthy for Google. BrightLocal is a good service for this. You don’t need to focus as much on link-building. As local SEO is less competitive than global, you don’t have to focus nearly as much on building links. You can, in a lot of cases, rank with the right service pages and citations. SEO Tip #38. Stop Ignoring the Outreach Emails You’re Getting (And Use Them to Build Your Own Links) Got a ton of people emailing you asking for links? You might be tempted to just send them all straight to spam, and I don’t blame you. Outreach messages like “Hey Dr Jigsaw, your article is A+++ amazing! ...can I get a backlink?” can get hella annoying. That said, there IS a better way to deal with these emails: Reply and ask for a link back. Most of the time, people who send such outreach emails are also doing heavy guest posting. So, you can ask for a backlink from a 3rd-party website in exchange for you mentioning their link in your article. Win-win! SEO Tip #39. Doing Internal Linking for a Large Website? This’ll Help Internal linking can get super grueling once you have hundreds of articles on your website. Want to make the process easier? Do this: Pick an article you want to interlink on your website. For the sake of the example, let’s say it’s about “business process improvement.” Go on Google and look up variations of this keyword mentioned on your website. For example: Site:\[yourwebsite\] “improve business process” Site:\[yourwebsite\] “improve process” Site:\[yourwebsite\] “process improvement” The above queries will find you the EXACT articles where these keywords are mentioned. Then, all you have to do is go through them and include the links. SEO Tip #40. Got a Competitor Copying Your Content? File a DMCA Notice Fun fact - if your competitors are copying your website, you can file a DMCA notice with Google. That said, keep in mind that there are consequences for filing a fake notice.

#reddit #recently #6,600,000

Started a content marketing agency 8 years ago - $0 to $7,863,052 (2025 update)

0

0.882

mr_t_forhire•This week

Started a content marketing agency 8 years ago - $0 to $7,863,052 (2025 update)

Hey friends, My name is Tyler and for the past 8 years, I’ve been documenting my experience building a content marketing agency called Optimist. Year 1 — 0 to $500k ARR Year 2 — $500k to $1MM ARR Year 3 — $1MM ARR to $1.5MM(ish) ARR Year 4 — $3,333,686 Revenue Year 5 — $4,539,659 Revenue Year 6 — $5,974,324 Revenue Year 7 - $6,815,503 Revenue (Edit: Seems like links are banned now. You can check my post history for all of my previous updates with lessons and learnings.) How Optimist Works First, an overview/recap of the Optimist business model: We operate as a “collective” of full time/professional freelancers Everyone aside from me is a contractor Entirely remote/distributed team We pay freelancers a flat fee for most work, working out to roughly $65-100/hour. Clients pay us a flat monthly fee for full-service content marketing (research, strategy, writing, editing, design/photography, reporting and analytics, targeted linkbuilding, and more)\ Packages range in price from \~$10-20k/mo \This is something we are revisiting now* The Financials In 2024, we posted $1,032,035.34 in revenue. This brings our lifetime revenue to $7,863,052. Here’s our monthly revenue from January 2017 to December of 2024. (Edit: Seems like I'm not allowed to link to the chart.) The good news: Revenue is up 23% YoY. EBITDA in Q4 trending up 1-2 points. We hosted our first retreat in 4 years, going to Ireland with about half the team. The bad news: Our revenue is still historically low. At $1MM for the year, we’re down about 33% from our previous years over $1.5MM. Revenue has been rocky. It doesn’t feel like we’ve really “recovered” from the bumps last year. The trend doesn’t really look great. Even though, anecdotally, it feels like we are moving in a good direction. EBITDA is still hovering at around 7%. Would love to get that closer to 20%. (For those who may ask: I’m calculating EBITDA after paying taxes and W2 portion of my income.) — Almost every year, my update starts the same way: This has been a year of growth and change. Both for my business—and me personally. 2024 was no different. I guess that tells you something about entrepreneurship. It’s a lot more like sailing a ship than driving a car. You’re constantly adapting, tides are shifting, and any blip of calm is usually just a moment before the next storm. As with past years, there’s a lot to unpack from the last 12 months. Here we go again. Everything is Burning In the last 2 years, everything has turned upside down in the world of content and SEO. Back in 2020, we made a big decision to re-position the agency. (See post history) We decided to narrow our focus to our most successful, profitable, and consistent segment of clients and re-work our entire operation to focus on serving them. We defined our ICP as: \~Series A ($10mm+ funding) with 6-12 months runway to scale organic as a channel Product-led company with “simple” sales cycle involving fewer stakeholders Demonstrable opportunity to use SEO to drive business growth Our services: Content focused on growing organic search (SEO) Full-service engagements that included research, planning, writing, design, reporting And our engagement structure: Engaged directly with an executive; ownership over strategy and day-to-day execution 1-2 points of contact or stakeholders Strategic partner that drives business growth (not a service vendor who makes content) Most importantly, we decided that we were no longer going to offer a broader range of content that we used to sell. That included everything from thought leadership content to case studies and ebooks. We doubled-down on “SEO content” for product-led SaaS companies. And this worked phenomenally for us. We started bringing on more clients than ever. We developed a lot of internal system and processes that helped us scale and take on more work than we’ve ever had and drive great outcomes for our ideal clients. But in 2023 and 2024, things started going awry. One big change, of course, was the rise of AI. Many companies and executives (and writers) feel that AI can write content just as well as an agency like ours. That made it a lot harder to sell a $10,000 per month engagement when they feel like the bulk of the work could be “done for free.” (Lots of thoughts on this if you want my opinions.) But it wasn’t just that. Google also started tinkering with their algorithm, introducing new features like AI Overviews, and generally changing the rules of the game. This created 3 big shifts in our world: The perceived value of content (especially “SEO content”) dropped dramatically in many people’s minds because of AI’s writing capabilities SEO became less predictable as a source of traffic and revenue It’s harder than ever for startups and smaller companies to rank for valuable keywords (let alone generate any meaningful traffic or revenue from them) The effect? The middle of the content market has hollowed out. People—like us—providing good, human-crafted content aimed on driving SEO growth saw a dramatic decline in demand. We felt it all year. Fewer and fewer leads. The leads we did see usually scoffed at our prices. They were indexing us against the cost of content mills and mass-produced AI articles. It was a time of soul-searching and looking for a way forward. I spent the first half of the year convinced that the only way to survive was to run toward the fire. We have to build our own AI workflows. We have to cut our rates internally. We have to get faster and cheaper to stay competitive with the agencies offering the same number of deliverables for a fraction of our rates. It’s the only way forward. But then I asked myself a question… Is this the game I actually want to play? As an entrepreneur, do I want to run a business where I’m competing mostly on price and efficiency rather than quality and value? Do I want to hop into a race toward cheaper and cheaper content? Do I want to help people chase a dwindling amount of organic traffic that’s shrinking in value? No. That’s not the game I want to play. That’s not a business I want to run. I don’t want to be in the content mill business. So I decided to turn the wheel—again. Repositioning Part II: Electric Boogaloo What do you do when the whole world shifts around you and the things that used to work aren’t working anymore? You pivot. You re-position the business and move in another direction. So that’s what we decided to do. Again. There was only one problem: I honestly wasn’t sure what opportunities existed in the content marketing industry outside of what we were already doing. We lived in a little echo chamber of startups and SEO. It felt like the whole market was on fire and I had fight through the smoke to find an escape hatch. So I started making calls. Good ol’ fashioned market research. I reached out to a few dozen marketing and content leaders at a bunch of different companies. I got on the phone and just asked lots of questions about their content programs, their goals, and their pain points. I wanted to understand what was happening in the market and how we could be valuable. And, luckily, this process really paid off. I learned a lot about the fragmentation happening across content and how views were shifting. I noticed key trends and how our old target market really wasn’t buying what we were selling. Startups and small companies are no longer willing to invest in an agency like ours. If they were doing content and SEO at all, they were focused entirely on using AI to scale output and minimize costs. VC money is still scarce and venture-backed companies are more focused on profitability than pure growth and raising another round. Larger companies (\~500+ employees) are doing more content than ever and drowning in content production. They want to focus on strategy but can barely tread water keeping up with content requests from sales, demand gen, the CEO, and everyone else. Many of the companies still investing in content are looking at channels and formats outside of SEO. Things like thought leadership, data reports, interview-driven content, and more. They see it as a way to stand out from the crowd of “bland SEO content.” Content needs are constantly in flux. They range from data reports and blog posts to product one-pagers. The idea of a fixed-scope retainer is a total mismatch for the needs of most companies. All of this led to the logical conclusion: We were talking to the wrong people about the wrong things\.\ Many companies came to one of two logical conclusions: SEO is a risky bet, so it’s gotta be a moonshot—super-low cost with a possibility for a big upside (i.e., use AI to crank out lots of content. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then at least we aren’t out much money.) SEO is a risky bet, so we should diversify into other strategies and channels to drive growth (i.e., shift our budget from SEO and keyword-focused content to video, podcasts, thought leadership, social, etc) Unless we were going to lean into AI and dramatically cut our costs and rates, our old buyers weren’t interested. And the segment of the market that needs our help most are looking primarily for production support across a big range of content types. They’re not looking for a team to run a full-blown program focused entirely on SEO. So we had to go back to the drawing board. I’ve written before about our basic approach to repositioning the business. But, ultimately it comes down to identifying our unique strengths as a team and then connecting them to needs in the market. After reviewing the insights from my discussions and taking another hard look at our business and our strengths, I decided on a new direction: Move upmarket: Serve mid-size to enterprise businesses with \~500-5,000 employees instead of startups Focus on content that supports a broader range of business goals instead of solely on SEO and organic growth (e.g., sales, demand gen, brand, etc) Shift back to our broader playbook of content deliverables, including thought leadership, data studies, and more Focus on content execution and production to support an internally-directed content strategy across multiple functions In a way, it’s sort of a reverse-niche move. Rather than zooming in specifically on driving organic growth for startups, we want to be more of an end-to-end content production partner that solves issues of execution and operations for all kinds of content teams. It’s early days, but the response here has been promising. We’ve seen an uptick in leads through Q4. And more companies in our pipeline fit the new ICP. They’re bigger, often have more budget. (But they move more slowly). We should know by the end of the quarter if this maneuver is truly paying off. Hopefully, this will work out. Hopefully our research and strategy are right and we’ll find a soft landing serving a different type of client. If it doesn’t? Then it will be time to make some harder decisions. As I already mentioned, I’m not interested in the race to the bottom of AI content. And if that’s the only game left in town, then it might be time to think hard about a much bigger change. — To be done: Build new content playbooks for expanded deliverables Build new showcase page for expanded deliverables Retooling the Operation It’s easy to say we’re doing something new. It’s a lot harder to actually do it—and do it well. Beyond just changing our positioning, we have to do open-heart surgery on the entire content operation behind the scenes. We need to create new systems that work for a broader range of content types, formats, and goals. Here’s the first rub: All of our workflows are tooled specifically for SEO-focused content. Every template, worksheet, and process that we’ve built and scaled in the last 5 years assumes that the primary goal of every piece of content is SEO. Even something as simple as requiring a target keyword is a blocker in a world where we’re not entirely focused on SEO. This is relatively easy to fix, but it requires several key changes: Update content calendars to make keywords optional Update workflows to determine whether we need an optimization report for each deliverable Next, we need to break down the deliverables into parts rather than a single line item. In our old system, we would plan content as a single row in a Content Calendar spreadsheet. It was a really wide sheet with lots of fields where we’d define the dimensions of each individual article. This was very efficient and simple to follow. But every article had the same overall scope when it came to the workflow. In Asana (our project management tool), all of the steps in the creation were strung together in a single task. We would create a few basic templates for each client, and then each piece would flow through the same steps: Briefing Writing Editing Design etc. If we had anything that didn’t fit into the “standard” workflow, we’d just tag it in the calendar with an unofficial notation \[USING BRACKETS\]. It worked. But it wasn’t ideal. Now we need the steps to be more modular. Imagine, for example, a client asks us to create a mix of deliverables: 1 article with writing + design 1 content brief 1 long-form ebook with an interview + writing + design Each of these would require its own steps and its own workflow. We need to break down the work to accommodate for a wider variety of workflows and variables. This means we need to update the fields and structure of our calendar to accommodate for the new dimensions—while also keeping the planning process simple and manageable. This leads to the next challenge: The number of “products” that we’re offering could be almost infinite. Just looking at the example scope above, you can mix and match all of these different building blocks to create a huge variety of different types of work, each requiring its own workflow. This is part of the reason we pivoted away from this model to focus on a productized, SEO-focused content service back in 2020. Take something as simple as a case study. On the surface, it seems like one deliverable that can be easily scoped and priced, right? Well, unpack what goes into a case study: Is there already source material from the customer or do we need to conduct an interview? How long is it? Is it a short overview case study or a long-form narrative? Does it need images and graphics? How many? Each of these variables opens up 2-3 possibilities. And when you combine them, we end up with something like 10 possible permutations for this single type of deliverable. It gets a bit messy. But not only do we have to figure out how to scope and price all for all of these variables, we also have to figure out how to account for these variables in the execution. We have to specify—for every deliverable—what type it is, how long, which steps are involved and not involved, the timeline for delivery, and all of the other factors. We’re approaching infinite complexity, here. We have to figure out a system that allows for a high level of flexibility to serve the diverse needs of our clients but is also productized enough that we can build workflows, process, and templates to deliver the work. I’ve spent the last few months designing that system. Failed Attempt #1: Ultra-Productization In my first pass, I tried to make it as straight forward as possible. Just sit down, make a list of all of the possible deliverables we could provide and then assign them specific scopes and services. Want a case study? Okay that’ll include an interview, up to 2,000 words of content, and 5 custom graphics. It costs $X. But this solution quickly fell apart when we started testing it against real-world scenarios. What if the client provided the brief instead of us creating one? What if they didn’t want graphics? What if this particular case study really needs to be 3,000 words but all of the others should be 2,000? In order for this system to work, we’d need to individual scope and price all of these permutations of each productized service. Then we’d need to somehow keep track of all of these and make sure that we accurately scope, price, and deliver them across dozens of clients. It’s sort of like a restaurant handling food allergies by creating separate versions of every single dish to account for every individual type of allergy. Most restaurants have figured out that it makes way more sense to have a “standard” and an “allergy-free” version. Then you only need 2 options to cover 100% of the cases. Onto the next option. Failed Attempt #2: Deliverable-Agnostic Services Next, I sat down with my head of Ops, Katy, to try to map it out. We took a big step back and said: Why does the deliverable itself even matter? At the end of the day, what we’re selling is just a few types of work (research, writing, editing, design, etc) that can be packaged up in an infinite number of ways. Rather than try to define deliverables, shouldn’t we leave it open ended for maximum flexibility? From there, we decided to break down everything into ultra-modular building blocks. We started working on this super complex system of modular deliverables where we would have services like writing, design, editing, etc—plus a sliding scale for different scopes like the length of writing or the number of images. In theory, it would allow us to mix and match any combination of services to create custom deliverables for the client. In fact, we wanted the work to be deliverable-agnostic. That way we could mold it to fit any client’s needs and deliver any type of content, regardless of the format or goal. Want a 5,000-word case study with 15 custom graphics? That’ll be $X. Want a 2,000-word blog post with an interview and no visuals? $Y. Just want us to create 10 briefs, you handle the writing, and we do design? It’s $Z. Again, this feels like a reasonable solution. But it quickly spiraled out of amuck. (That’s an Office reference.) For this to work, we need to have incredibly precise scoping process for every single deliverable. Before we can begin work (or even quote a price), we need to know pretty much the exact word count of the final article, for example. In the real world? This almost never happens. The content is as long as the content needs to be. Clients rarely know if the blog post should be 2,000 words or 3,000 words. They just want good content. We have a general ballpark, but we can rarely dial it in within just 1,000 words until we’ve done enough research to create the brief. Plus, from a packaging and pricing perspective, it introduces all kind of weird scenarios where clients will owe exactly $10,321 for this ultra-specific combination of services. We were building an open system that could accommodate any and all types of potential deliverables. On the face that seems great because it makes us incredibly flexible. In reality, the ambiguity actually works against us. It makes it harder for us to communicate to clients clearly about what they’ll get, how much it will cost, and how long it will take. That, of course, also means that it hurts our client relationships. (This actually kind of goes back to my personal learnings, which I’ll mention in a bit. I tend to be a “let’s leave things vague so we don’t have to limit our options” kind of person. But I’m working on fixing this to be more precise, specific, and clear in everything that we do.) Dialing It In: Building a Closed System We were trying to build an open system. We need to build a closed system. We need to force clarity and get specific about what we do, what we don’t do, and how much it all costs. Then we need a system to expand on that closed system—add new types of deliverables, new content playbooks, and new workflows if and when the need arises. With that in mind, we can start by mapping out the key dimensions of any type of deliverable that we would ever want to deliver. These are the universal dimensions that determine the scope, workflow, and price of any deliverable—regardless of the specific type output. Dimensions are: Brief scope Writing + editing scope Design scope Interview scope Revision (rounds) Scope, essentially, just tells us how many words, graphics, interviews, etc are required for the content we’re creating. In our first crack at the system, we got super granular with these scopes. But to help force a more manageable system, we realized that we didn’t need tiny increments for most of this work. Instead, we just need boundaries—you pay $X for up to Y words. We still need some variability around the scope of these articles. Obviously, most clients won’t be willing to pay the same price for a 1,000-word article as a 10,000-word article. But we can be smarter about the realistic break points. We boiled it down to the most common ranges: (Up to) 250 words 1,000 words 3,000 words 6,000 words 10,000 words This gives us a much more manageable number of variables. But we still haven’t exactly closed the system. We need one final dimension: Deliverable type. This tells us what we’re actually building with these building blocks. This is how we’ll put a cap on the potentially infinite number of combinations we could offer. The deliverable type will define what the final product should look like (e.g., blog post, case study, ebook, etc). And it will also give us a way to put standards and expectations around different types of deliverables that we want to offer. Then we can expand on this list of deliverables to offer new services. In the mean time, only the deliverables that we have already defined are, “on the menu,” so to speak. If a client comes to us and asks for something like a podcast summary article (which we don’t currently offer), we’ll have to either say we can’t provide that work or create a new deliverable type and define the dimensions of that specific piece. But here’s the kicker: No matter the deliverable type, it has to still fit within the scopes we’ve already defined. And the pricing will be the same. This means that if you’re looking for our team to write up to 1,000 words of content, it costs the same amount—whether it’s a blog post, an ebook, a LinkedIn post, or anything else. Rather than trying to retool our entire system to offer this new podcast summary article deliverable, we’ll just create the new deliverable type, add it to the list of options, and it’s ready to sell with the pre-defined dimensions we’ve already identified. To do: Update onboarding workflow Update contracts and scope documents Dial in new briefing process Know Thyself For the last year, I’ve been going through personal therapy. (Huge shout out to my wife, Laura, for her support and encouragement throughout the process.) It’s taught me a lot about myself and my tendencies. It’s helped me find some of my weaknesses and think about how I can improve as a person, as a partner, and as an entrepreneur. And it’s forced me to face a lot of hard truths. For example, consider some of the critical decisions I’ve made for my business: Unconventional freelance “collective” model No formal management structure Open-ended retainers with near-infinite flexibility General contracts without defined scope “Take it or leave it” approach to sales and marketing Over the years, I’ve talked about almost everything on this list as a huge advantage. I saw these things as a reflection of how I wanted to do things differently and better than other companies. But now, I see them more as a reflection of my fears and insecurities. Why did I design my business like this? Why do I want so much “flexibility” and why do I want things left open-ended rather than clearly defined? One reason that could clearly explain it: I’m avoidant. If you’re not steeped in the world of therapy, this basically means that my fight or flight response gets turned all the way to “flight.” If I’m unhappy or uncomfortable, my gut reaction is usually to withdraw from the situation. I see commitment and specificity as a prelude to future conflict. And I avoid conflict whenever possible. So I built my business to minimize it. If I don’t have a specific schedule of work that I’m accountable for delivering, then we can fudge the numbers a bit and hope they even out in the end. If I don’t set a specific standard for the length of an article, then I don’t have to let the client know when their request exceeds that limit. Conflict….avoided? Now, that’s not to say that everything I’ve built was wrong or bad. There is a lot of value in having flexibility in your business. For example, I would say that our flexible retainers are, overall, an advantage. Clients have changing needs. Having flexibility to quickly adapt to those needs can be a huge value add. And not everything can be clearly defined upfront (at least not without a massive amount of time and work just to decide how long to write an article). Overly-rigid structures and processes can be just as problematic as loosey-goosey ones. But, on the whole, I realized that my avoidant tendencies and laissez faire approach to management have left a vacuum in many areas. The places where I avoided specificity were often the places where there was the most confusion, uncertainty, and frustration from the team and from clients. People simply didn’t know what to expect or what was expected of them. Ironically, this often creates the conflict I’m trying to avoid. For example, if I don’t give feedback to people on my team, then they feel uneasy about their work. Or they make assumptions about expectations that don’t match what I’m actually expecting. Then the client might get upset, I might get upset, and our team members may be upset. Conflict definitely not avoided. This happens on the client side, too. If we don’t define a specific timeline when something will be delivered, the client might expect it sooner than we can deliver—creating frustration when we don’t meet their expectation. This conflict actually would have been avoided if we set clearer expectations upfront. But we didn’t do that. I didn’t do that. So it’s time to step up and close the gaps. Stepping Up and Closing the Gaps If I’m going to address these gaps and create more clarity and stability, I have to step up. Both personally and professionally. I have to actually face the fear and uncertainty that drives me to be avoidant. And then apply that to my business in meaningful ways that aren’t cop-out ways of kinda-sorta providing structure without really doing it. I’ve gotta be all in. This means: Fill the gaps where I rely on other people to do things that aren’t really their job but I haven’t put someone in place to do it Set and maintain expectations about our internal work processes, policies, and standards Define clear boundaries on things like roles, timelines, budgets, and scopes Now, this isn’t going to happen overnight. And just because I say that I need to step up to close these gaps doesn’t mean that I need to be the one who’s responsible for them (at least not forever). It just means that, as the business leader, I need to make sure the gaps get filled—by me or by someone else who has been specifically charged with owning that part of the operation. So, this is probably my #1 focus over the coming quarter. And it starts by identifying the gaps that exist. Then, step into those gaps myself, pay someone else to fill that role, or figure out how to eliminate the gap another way. This means going all the way back to the most basic decisions in our business. One of the foundational things about Optimist is being a “different kind” of agency. I always wanted to build something that solved for the bureaucracy, hierarchy, and siloed structure of agencies. If a client has feedback, they should be able to talk directly to the person doing the work rather than going through 3 layers of account management and creative directors. So I tried to be clever. I tried to design all kinds of systems and processes that eliminated these middle rungs. (In retrospect, what I was actually doing was designing a system that played into my avoidant tendencies and made it easy to abdicate responsibility for lots of things.) Since we didn’t want to create hierarchy, we never implemented things like Junior and Senior roles. We never hired someone to manage or direct the individual creatives. We didn’t have Directors or VPs. (Hell, we barely had a project manager for the first several years of existence.) This aversion to hierarchy aligned with our values around elevating ownership and collective contribution. I still believe in the value a flat structure. But a flat structure doesn’t eliminate the complexity of a growing business. No one to review writers and give them 1:1 feedback? I guess I’ll just have to do that….when I have some spare time. No Content Director? Okay, well someone needs to manage our content playbooks and roll out new ones. Just add it to my task list. Our flat structure didn’t eliminate the need for these roles. It just eliminated the people to do them. All of those unfilled roles ultimately fell back on me or our ops person, Katy. Of course, this isn’t the first time we’ve recognized this. We’ve known there were growing holes in our business as it’s gotten bigger and more complex. Over the years, we’ve experimented with different ways to solve for it. The Old Solution: Distributed Ops One system we designed was a “distributed ops” framework. Basically, we had one person who was the head of ops (at the time, we considered anything that was non-client-facing to be “ops”). They’d plan and organize all of the various things that needed to happen around Optimist. Then they’d assign out the work to whoever was able to help. We had a whole system for tying this into the our profit share and even gave people “Partner” status based on their contributions to ops. It worked—kinda. One big downfall is that all of the tasks and projects were ad hoc. People would pick up jobs, but they didn’t have much context or expertise to apply. So the output often varied. Since we were trying to maintain a flat structure, there was minimal oversight or management of the work. In other words, we didn’t always get the best results. But, more importantly, we still didn’t close all of the gaps entirely. Because everything was an ad-hoc list of tasks and projects, we never really had the “big picture” view of everything that needed to be done across the business. This also meant we rarely had clarity on what was important, what was trivial, and what was critical. We need a better system. Stop Reinventing the Wheel (And Create a Damn Org Chart) It’s time to get serious about filling the gaps in our business. It can’t be a half-fix or an ad hoc set of projects and tasks. We need clarity on the roles that need to be filled and then fill them. The first step here is to create an org chart. A real one. Map out all of the jobs that need to be done for Optimist to be successful besides just writers and designers. Roles like: Content director Design director SEO manager Reporting Finance Account management Business development Sales Marketing Project management It feels a bit laughable listing all of these roles. Because most are either empty or have my name attached to them. And that’s the problem. I can’t do everything. And all of the empty roles are gaps in our structure—places where people aren’t getting the direction, feedback, or guidance they need to do their best work. Or where things just aren’t being done consistently. Content director, for example, should be responsible for steering the output of our content strategists, writers, and editors. They’re not micromanaging every deliverable. But they give feedback, set overall policy, and help our team identify opportunities to get better. Right now we don’t have anyone in that role. Which means it’s my job—when I have time. Looking at the org chart (a real org chart that I actually built to help with this), it’s plain as day how many roles look like this. Even if we aren’t going to implement a traditional agency structure and a strict hierarchy, we still need to address these gaps. And the only way for that to happen is face the reality and then create a plan to close the gaps. Now that we have a list of theoretical roles, we need to clearly define the responsibilities and boundaries of those roles to make sure they cover everything that actually needs to happen. Then we can begin the process of delegating, assigning, hiring, and otherwise addressing each one. So that’s what I need to do. To be done: Create job descriptions for all of the roles we need to fill Hire Biz Dev role Hire Account Lead role(s) Hire Head of Content Playing Offense As we move into Q1 of 2025 and I reflect on the tumultuous few years we’ve had, one thought keeps running through my head. We need to play offense. Most of the last 1-2 years was reacting to changes that were happening around us. Trying to make sense and chart a new path forward. Reeling. But what I really want—as a person and as an entrepreneur—is to be proactive. I want to think and plan ahead. Figure out where we want to go before we’re forced to change course by something that’s out of our control. So my overarching focus for Q1 is playing offense. Thinking longer term. Getting ahead of the daily deluge and creating space to be more proactive, innovative, and forward thinking. To do: Pilot new content formats Audit and update our own content strategy Improve feedback workflows Build out long-term roadmap for 1-2 years for Optimist Final Note on Follow-Through and Cadence In my reflection this year, one of the things I’ve realized is how helpful these posts are for me. I process by writing. So I actually end up making a lot of decisions and seeing things more clearly each time I sit down to reflect and write my yearly recap. It also gives me a space to hold myself accountable for the things I said I would do. So, I’m doing two things a bit differently from here on out. First: I’m identifying clear action items that I’m holding myself accountable for getting done in the next 3 months (listed in the above sections). In each future update, I’ll do an accounting of what I got done and what wasn’t finished (and why). Second: I’m going to start writing shorter quarterly updates. This will gives me more chances each year to reflect, process, and make decisions. Plus it gives me a shorter feedback loop for the action items that I identified above. (See—playing offense.) — Okay friends, enemies, and frenemies. This is my first update for 2025. Glad to share with y’all. And thanks to everyone who’s read, commented, reached out, and shared their own experiences over the years. We are all the accumulation of our connections and our experiences. As always, I will pop in to respond to comments and answer questions. Feel free to share your thoughts, questions, and general disdain down below. Cheers, Tyler

#reddit #started #content

youtube

0.379

0.77

Fireship•Mar 26, 2025

The "vibe coding" mind virus explained…

Sign up and download Grammarly for FREE: http://grammarly.com/fireship Let’s take a look at the latest craze in the programming world known as "vibe coding". Learn how to vibe code properly and look into the pros and cons of AI coding techniques. #programming #ai #thecodereport #grammarly 💬 Chat with Me on Discord https://discord.gg/fireship 🔗 Resources Vibe Coding Failure https://www.reddit.com/r/csMajors/comments/1jg39g2/lookslikevibecodingfailed_him/ Git Full Course https://fireship.io/courses/git/ Claude Code First Look https://youtu.be/x2WtHZciC74 🔥 Get More Content - Upgrade to PRO Upgrade at https://fireship.io/pro Use code YT25 for 25% off PRO access 🎨 My Editor Settings Atom One Dark vscode-icons Fira Code Font 🔖 Topics Covered What is Vibe Coding? Best AI tools for coding Who invented vibe coding? Tips for coding with AI for beginners

#programming #ai #thecodereport

business-document-processing

Python Client Library for the SAP AI Business Services: Document Classification and Document Information Extraction This repository contains the source code of a Python client library to facilitate the use of the SAP AI Business Services: Document Classification and Document Information Extraction. The client library provides two API Client classes that contain convenient methods to access these services and issue calls to the Document Classification REST API and Document Information Extraction REST API respectively. To use the library you need to have access to SAP Business Technology Platform. Check out the usage examples, they are very useful to get started with the services. Have a look at API documentation in order to use the library. Notes for users of the sap-document-classification-client library This library includes all the capabilities of the sap-document-classification-client, which will not be developed further. However, the code is still available here. If you want to switch to this library, you have to be aware of the following changes: The DCApiClient can now be imported directly from the top module via: The functions , , now return an iterator instead of a list. You can either analyze individual results using with within a try-catch block (e.g. to handle each failed document) or use to turn it to a list. The latter will raise an error if at least one document failed. The function now returns a list which is the "dataset" part of the API response json. (You just need to delete the \["dataset"\] from the response to work with it as until now) The function now returns a list which is the "results" part of the API response json. The function now returns a list which is the "models" part of the API response json. The function now returns a list which is the "deployments" part of the API response json. The library now raises the following custom exceptions: BDPApiException: Base exception for all exceptions of this library. Raise when no other exception is applicable. BDPClientException: Raised when an HTTP response with status code between 400 and 500 is returned. Usually means incorrect user input. (Replaces some HTTPErrors) BDPServerException: Raised when an HTTP response with status code between 500 and 600 is returned. Usually means that the server had some internal error. (Replaces some HTTPErrors) BDPUnauthorizedException: Raised when an HTTP response with status code 401 is returned. Usually means that a wrong OAuth credentials were provided. BDPFailedAsynchronousOperationException: Raised when an asynchronous job failed during processing. (Replaces FailedCallException) BDPPollingTimeoutException: Raised when an asynchronous job exceeds the set pollingmaxattempts. (Replaces PollingTimeoutException) The function now doesnt expect an 'url' and 'payload' parameters, but 'path' and 'json' parameters instead. Requirements This library requires properly setup Python 3.6 (or higher version) environment. Download and Installation This Python library should be consumed in the standard way by running or adding the library as a dependency of your code in requirements.txt` file. Demo usage Prerequisites: Get a Free Account on SAP BTP Trial Create Service Instance for Document Classification with Trial Account Create Service Instance for Document Information Extraction Document Classification To try out the Document classification service using the document classification client library you can also run the two demo links below: Try out classification using default model demo Try out training and classification using custom model demo (requires an enterprise account, trial account is not sufficient) Document Information Extraction Try out the Document Information Extraction service with this showcase Exercises Exercise 1 - Set up Document Information Extraction Service and UI Exercise 2 - Upload a document for extraction using UI application Exercise 3 - Visualize, correct extraction results and confirm document using UI application Exercise 4 - Get Auth token to use Document Information Extraction Rest API Exercise 5 - Get extraction results of document using Rest API Exercise 6 - Upload supplier Data for matching Exercise 7 - Upload document through Rest API to enrich the extraction Results with supplier data Known Issues Please see the issues section. How to obtain support In case you would like to contribute to this project, ask any questions or get support, please open an issue containing the description of your question or planned contribution in GitHub and we will get in touch. Licensing Please see our LICENSE for copyright and license information. Detailed information including third-party components and their licensing/copyright information is available via the REUSE tool.

#github #business-document-processing

YT_Emerging_Technologies_Introduction_to_AI

YT_Emerging_Technologies_Introduction_to_AI

YouTube Channel: Emerging Technologies Playlist: Introduction to AI Instructor: Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani Dear Students, I have uploaded all relevant material here for your quick access and learning. I hope you will find it beneficiary Yours Truly, Zeeshan =========================================== Video title: Resources Books to Order: Artificial Intelligence by Zeeshan Usmani - https://gufhtugu.com/artificial-intelligence Artificial Intelligence by Baqir Naqvi - https://gufhtugu.com/masnoi-zahanat/ Recommended Books • Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter A classic, poetic, philosophical defense of AI. • Machines Who Think by Pamela McCorduck. A good review of early AI history. • Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind by Hans P. Moravec Somewhat hyped book by a CMU robotics researcher. • Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us by Rodney Allen Brooks Reasonably decent book by MIT's leading robotics researcher. • Wired for War by Peter Warren Singer Reviews growing use of robots and unmanned vehicles in warfare. • Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer That Defeated the World Chess Champion by Feng-Hsiung Hsu Autobiographical book on the development of a history making game-playing system. Interesting personal story of the hard engineering work that went into the system, with a few interesting facts on the technical aspects. • The Age of Spiritual Machines : When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence by Ray Kurzweil A recent view by an AI entrepreneur that has content if you ignore all the hype and overly-optimistic trust that Moore's law will magically solve all of the major problems. • Hal's Legacy : 2001's Computer As Dream and Reality An interesting collection of edited articles written to celebrate the fictional birthday of a famous intelligent computer who's true birthday must unfortunately be delayed, pending AI's inevitable progress. • The Sciences of the Artificial by Herbert Simon AI as science by one of its founders. • Models of My Life by Herbert Simon. An autobiography of one of AI's founders who's intellectual contributions also include fundamental contributions to economics (for which he won the Nobel prize), cognitive psychology, and computer science (such as co-inventing the linked list in the 1950's). • Alan Turing: The Enigma by Alan Hodges. A biography of one of the founders of CS and originator of the Turing test. Also a testimony to the tragic implications of homophobia. • The Emperor's New Mind : Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics and Shadows of the Mind : A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind by Roger Penrose A completely bogus argument against AI by a hopelessly Platonic mathematician. The last book contains an appended article by Stephen Hawking (a colleague of Penrose's) who of course doesn't buy his bogus argument. • The Mind's New Science : A History of the Cognitive Revolution by Howard Gardner A nice history of the development of cognitive science. • How the Mind Works , The Language Instinct , and Words and Rules : The Ingredients of Language by Steven Pinker Fun reading on lots of interesting issues in modern Cognitive Science and Linguistics if you don't take his exaggerated beliefs in nativism and evolutionary psychology too seriously. • Bots : The Origin of New Species by Andrew Leonard A light, somewhat hyped book on on Internet agents, chatterbots, etc. with a few funny stories. • Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline A very nice book on the failed enterprise of using logic to build a firm foundation for infallible mathematics and the role of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in the philosophy of mathematics. • Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel by Rebecca Goldstein An interesting biography of Kurt Gödel. Too bad he was such a Platonist that, unlike Turing, he did not understand the true implications of his own theorems (interesting author connection: Goldstein is Pinker's wife). Links: • AAAI AI Topics Basic info on AI from the American Association for Artificial Intelligence: http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/welcome.html • Loebner Prize for limited Turing test: http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html • IBM's Deep Blue Page: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/ • Robocup: Robotic Soccer Competition: http://www.robocup.org/ • NY Times Article on Proof of the Robbins Theorem: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html • NY Times article on Bayes Nets at Microsoft Research: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/articles/17lab.html =========================================== Video title: Numbers Infinity Video Link - •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlXHwMgS06c https://www.cbs.com/shows/numb3rs/ http://numb3rs.wolfram.com/ =========================================== Video title: 20 Hours Rule and Assisgnemnt Assignment - https://www.urdufake2020.cicling.org/ =========================================== Video title: Assignments – P1 Mostly Human - https://money.cnn.com/mostly-human =========================================== Video title: Assignments – P2 Assignment – 2 - https://replika.ai/ Assignment – 3 – Teachable Machines https://teachablemachine.withgoogle.com/ Assignment – 4 – Tensor Flow Playground https://playground.tensorflow.org Assignment – 5 – GPT-3 Paper (175B Parameters) https://debuild.co/ Assignment – 6 - Image GPT-3 https://openai.com/blog/image-gpt/ =========================================== Video title: Create your own Deep Fake 1.https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1mGg_fmvhTpvkPkclw2yKkhALVzmawfvT?usp=sharing 2.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wW1bxRV2S7Ce8gc3VDTzMQABE3-WCc_Y?usp=sharing •go into you gdrive > find cloned folder and ensure that this folder must have: vox-adv-cpk.pth.tar & vox-cpk.pth.tar failes •Aliaksandr Siarohin : https://github.com/AliaksandrSiarohin/first-order-model

#github #yt_emerging_technologies_introduction_to_ai