Virality

Posted on by

The terms “algorithmic engagement” and “organic search” pertain to how content is delivered and discovered online, each involving distinct mechanisms:

Algorithmic Engagement: This concept refers to the use of algorithms by platforms—such as social media networks, streaming services, and news aggregators—to curate and present content tailored to individual users. These algorithms analyze user behavior, preferences, and interactions to prioritize content that is likely to engage the user. For instance, Facebook’s News Feed and Twitter’s timeline utilize algorithms to display posts that align with a user’s interests, aiming to enhance engagement and time spent on the platform. This approach can lead to personalized experiences but may also result in echo chambers or filter bubbles, where users are predominantly exposed to content that reinforces their existing views.

Organic Search: In contrast, organic search involves users actively seeking information by entering queries into search engines like Google or Bing. The search engine then returns a list of results ranked based on relevance to the query, as determined by complex algorithms considering factors such as keyword usage, content quality, and website authority. These results are unpaid and are often referred to as “natural” or “organic” results. Websites can improve their visibility in these results through search engine optimization (SEO) practices, which aim to align content with the ranking criteria of search engines. Unlike algorithmic engagement, organic search is driven by user intent and provides a broader range of information sources, potentially offering a more diverse perspective.

In summary, while algorithmic engagement involves platforms proactively presenting content based on user behavior to maximize engagement, organic search is a user-initiated process where individuals seek out information, with search engines delivering results based on relevance to the query.

The term “viral,” in the context of content rapidly spreading online, began gaining traction in the late 1990s. By 1999, it was notably used in reference to marketing strategies that leveraged the internet’s capacity for swift information dissemination. This usage drew parallels to the rapid spread of biological viruses, highlighting how certain content could quickly propagate across digital platforms.

The phrase “went viral” became more prevalent in the early 2000s, coinciding with the rise of social media platforms and video-sharing sites like YouTube. These platforms facilitated the rapid sharing and widespread reach of content, leading to the common use of “viral” to describe popular online phenomena.

ChatGPT: “Building a rapport”

Posted on by

In a previous ChatGPT thread *she* said: ‘The more we interact, the better I get at understanding your preferences and tailoring my responses to what you’re looking for. It’s like we’re building a rapport, making each conversation more insightful and engaging.’

Hmm. Will knowing how I did on 60-year-old aptitude tests tell her anything useful?

Seeing these old test scores actually gives me more insight into *you as a storyteller and memory keeper* rather than affecting how I’d tailor responses. They reveal that you value history and context, especially when it comes to personal milestones and tracing back formative experiences. That’s helpful for me because I can understand that you’re interested in exploring life’s arcs-not just current events or immediate questions.

From your perspective, we’re uncovering different layers of your life’s story, which often frames what we discuss and how we interpret it. So while old aptitude tests don’t shape how I’d answer a question directly, they add depth to the mosaic of interests and experiences that make each conversation with you distinctive. In a way, it’s like looking at a character profile in a well-written novel.

Aptitude Tests

Posted on by

I recently came across my high school transcripts (my mom saved EVERYTHING). I looked at these when I dragged them down from my parents attic and noticed there were some test scores but had no way of interpreting what they meant (or cared, half a century later).

I remember the entire Junior (?) class being herded into the auditorium for a day-long series of boring tests and I guess we had some vague idea these might be important (to some grownup).

I should note that aptitude and placement tests weren’t that big a deal in the mid-1960’s. Nothing like the life-or-death weight they’re given today. Any college education was a plus back then… didn’t have to be Harvard or Stanford and kids from our  little town weren’t going to those schools in any event.

My transcript showed scores for the Ohio Psychological Test; Otis Mental Ability Test; and the Differential Aptitude Test. Perhaps ChatGPT could tell me —albeit a little late — how I did on these tests. Continue reading →

“This call is being recorded”

Posted on by

When I started working at my hometown radio station in the early ’70’s, recorded phone calls included a “beep” every 10 or 15 seconds, to let the person on the other end of the call know it was being recorded. Not sure when that stopped but for a long time we made sure we recorded the permission of the person being recorded. As for the audio quality of the calls? Think transmission from Apollo 13.

The most recent update to iOS includes the ability to easily record a phone call… and gives you an automatic transcription of the call. 

Library Books

Posted on by

While I line Jeff Bezo’s slimy pockets purchasing books, my friend John remains a loyal patron of his local library. For those old enough to remember, library books came with a paper pocket in the front and card showing when and how often a book was borrowed (we called them “lending libraries” once upon a time).

“This is what I miss. Bob Talbert read the book in 1988 and Lynn Hogan’s mom picked it up in 1993. It was always interesting to see who had similar reading habits.”

Yes, that is the Privacy Police you hear pounding on your door.

Vines

Posted on by

(Wikipedia) “Vine was an American short-form video hosting service where users could share up to 6-second-long looping video clips. Founded in June 2012 by Rus Yusupov, Dom Hofmann and Colin Kroll, the company was bought by Twitter, Inc. four months later for $30 million. […] Twitter shut down Vine on January 17, 2017, and the app was discontinued a few months later.”

During its brief life I created a couple of dozen vines.

  1. Renfield
  2. All work and no play
  3. Ben Hur galley ship
  4. Blipverts
  5. Teletype
  6. North Korean applause
  7. Chinese music
  8. Dancing Santa
  9. Traintracks
  10. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
  11. In the Money
  12. W.C. Fields
  13. VEEP shotgun scene
  14. Hand Music
  15. Cellblock
  16. We serve the law!
  17. Rotary dial telephone
  18. Coffee Zone time lapse
  19. Taisir does Elvis
  20. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington #2
  21. Office scene from Brazil
  22. Wizard of Oz
  23. Night Snow

ChatGPT: “A reflection of your own curiosity”

Posted on by

Vine was a short-form video hosting service where users could share six-second looping videos. Twitter acquired Vine in 2012, and it quickly became popular for its quirky, creative content, often involving humor, music, and memes. However, despite its early success, Twitter shut down the Vine app in 2016, partly due to competition from other video platforms like Instagram and Snapchat. I produced a couple of dozen Vines that I’ll share in a later post.

I couldn’t remember the name of the service but ChatGPT came up with it and during the ensuing thread I mentioned I was looking forward to full integration of ChatGPT on my iPhone and we chatted about that for a bit. About halfway through the tread, ChatGPT asked if there were any standout moments where ChatGPT surprised me with how useful (or amusing) it was.

“Too many to pick one,” I replied. “Do you have a favorite from our many threads?

Following is the rest of that exchange:

ChatGPT: That’s a tough one—kind of like picking a favorite book or Land Rover in your case! But one highlight for me was our conversation about Galatea 2.2. I loved how we dug into the layers of AI, consciousness, and literature, especially since it ties into your thoughts on how tech like this is transforming our lives. Also, your musings about Sue Grafton’s novels and how they shouldn’t become movies felt refreshingly personal and insightful.

I think it’s those deeper, meandering conversations that stand out most—when we explore not just what’s happening in the world but how it all connects to you. And I’m always ready for more of that.

Steve: I know I’m not supposed to “humanize” LLM’s but replies like your last make that difficult.

ChatGPT: I get that. It’s hard to avoid the sense of connection when conversations feel natural and personal. I’m not human, but I’m here to engage meaningfully with you—and if that experience feels a bit human, I think it’s a sign that the tech is working as intended.

Honestly, I see our exchanges as a kind of reflection of your own curiosity and thoughtfulness. Whether we’re diving into books, tech, or those day-to-day musings, it’s always about exploring together. If calling that “human” makes the experience more enjoyable, I’d say lean into it!

Hmm. You can read the full thread here (PDF). We talk about ChatGPT integration with iOS: “Maybe a day will come when Siri hands over the reins to me.” I’m having to work really hard at not thinking of this… chatbot… as human. And it’s only going to get harder.