标签：#market

Ask ChatGPT or Perplexity "what's the best note-taking app" and you get a shortlist of three to five names. Either you're on it or you don't exist in that channel. And buying research keeps moving there. People call measuring this GEO or AEO tracking now. The way most teams do it is pasting questions into chatbots by hand and eyeballing the answers. That stops scaling at about ten questions, and you can't trend it week over week. Doing it programmatically Don't scrape the chat UIs. It's fragile, against ToS, and breaks weekly. The engines all have official APIs with web search: Perplexity's sonar models return answers with citations built in OpenAI has gpt-4o-search-preview for live web search Gemini's gemini-2.5-flash supports Google Search grounding One OpenRouter key covers all three through a single endpoint, which keeps the code boring. For each buyer question you care about, record four things per engine: was the brand mentioned, how early in the answer, was your domain cited as a source, and how often competitors appeared. That last one gives you share of voice. The packaged version I built this as an Apify actor: AI Brand Visibility Tracker . You give it a brand name, domain, competitors, and topics. It generates realistic buyer questions and returns one JSON row per check: brandMentioned , positionScore , brandCited , shareOfVoice , citedDomains , plus a per-engine summary. Schedule it weekly and you have an AI visibility trendline for client reports. $0.05 per check. The field that actually matters citedDomains is the actionable one. It tells you which sites the AI engines treat as sources for your category. Getting mentioned on those specific domains is how you move your visibility. It's link building, except the target list comes from the AI's own citations instead of a guess.

I wanted to know when people mention a brand on Bluesky. Simple ask. Turns out Brandwatch, Mention, Hootsuite, basically every social listening tool, still doesn't cover it. They're all busy with X and Instagram while Bluesky sits at 27M+ monthly users. So I looked at doing it myself and found out something most people miss: you don't need to scrape anything. Bluesky runs on the AT Protocol, which is open by design. Public posts are searchable through a documented endpoint. No login, no API key. GET https://api.bsky.app/xrpc/app.bsky.feed.searchPosts?q=YOUR_BRAND&sort=latest&limit=100 That returns full post objects. Text, author handle, timestamps, like/repost/reply counts, embedded links, hashtags. Everything you need. Two things that broke my first version Worth writing down because most tutorials get this wrong now: The public.api.bsky.app host that older guides point to returns 403 for search. Use api.bsky.app instead. As of July 2026, unauthenticated search rejects cursor pagination. Page one works fine, page two gets you a 403 with "request forbidden by administrative rules". The nasty part is it looks like rate limiting, but it isn't. The workaround: paginate by time. Use sort=latest , then pass until= with the createdAt of the oldest post from the previous page. Dedupe on uri because the boundary post shows up twice. If you don't want to maintain any of that I packaged the whole job as an Apify actor: Bluesky Mentions Scraper . Keywords in, clean JSON out. It handles the pagination and retry stuff above, filters replies if you want, scores basic sentiment, and can pull follower counts for each author so you can sort mentions by reach. Runs on a schedule, exports CSV, plugs into Slack or n8n through Apify's integrations. It also works as an MCP tool inside Claude or Cursor. Pricing is per result, $4 per 1,000 mentions. No subscription. What I actually monitor Brand and product names plus the common misspellings. Competitor names, because share of voice on Blu

Cuando un SaaS quiere recuperar usuarios de prueba que se quedaron a medio camino, casi siempre empieza por email. El problema es que una sola prueva mal hecha puede mezclar cohortes, disparar métricas falsas y dejar a marketing discutiendo con backend sobre datos que nunca fueron confiables. Ese tipo de campaña merece más cuidado del que parece. A simple vista solo hay que revisar asunto, CTA y enlace final, pero en la práctica también hay que comprobar segmentación, ventanas de tiempo, estados de cuenta y eventos analíticos. Si alguien en tu equipo busca cosas como facebook temp email para crear usuarios rápidos, en el fondo está intentando resolver eso: probar sin tocar bandejas reales ni contaminar reportes. Por qué los correos de reactivación confunden más de lo que ayudan Un correo de reactivación no se envía a cualquiera. Sale cuando una persona creó cuenta, probó algo, se quedó quieta y entra en una regla específica. Si esa regla se valida con datos sucios, el equipo termina optimizando un mensaje para usuarios equivocados. En SaaS esto pega fuerte porque marketing y producto suelen mirar la misma campaña con preguntas distintas. Marketing quiere saber si el copy reabre interés. Producto quiere saber si el usuario vuelve al flujo correcto. Backend quiere confirmar que la automatización no reenvía a quien ya convirtió. Cuando esas capas no se prueban juntas, aveces el correo “funciona” y aun así el experimento sale mal. Si ya estás ordenando tus pruebas de onboarding en SaaS , el siguiente paso natural es tratar la reactivación como un flujo distinto. Tiene otra intención, otra ventana de tiempo y otro riesgo de mezclar datos. Paso a paso para probar una campaña sin mezclar cohortes La forma más segura es preparar un escenario por cohorte. En vez de mandar varios usuarios de prueba al mismo inbox, creá un usuario, asignale una condición clara y validá un solo recorrido de punta a punta. Este proceso suele ser suficiente: Crear una cuenta de prueba que realmen

One of Kalshi’s most prominent traders tells WIRED he’s swearing off Spotify-related markets until the issue is resolved.

Instacart redesigned its personalized marketing system using a configuration-driven multi-tenant architecture on Storefront Pro. The system replaces retailer-specific implementations with a shared execution engine, enabling scalable personalization, faster configuration propagation in under a minute, and 99.9% delivery success across hundreds of retail banners through a unified campaign platform. By Leela Kumili

According to ChartMogul's 2026 analysis of 200 B2B software products, the median free-to-paid...

People complain that websites are all starting to look the same. They are not entirely wrong. A lot of modern websites do look alike. They have familiar navigation bars, predictable layouts, large hero sections, cards, and responsive grids. Buttons look like buttons. Forms look like forms. But, I would argue that's a good thing. Software is supposed to feel familiar. A website is not a painting. It is not a brand mood board. A website is usually a tool that someone is trying to use to accomplish something. They want to read, buy, search, compare, book, or solve a problem. And when people are trying to get something done, originality is not always a virtue. Familiarity Is a Feature Jakob's Law says: Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know. Users do not arrive at your website as blank slates. They bring expectations from every other website and app they have used. They expect the logo to link home. They expect navigation to be near the top or side. They expect search to look like search. They expect account settings under an avatar or profile menu. They expect mobile navigation to collapse into a menu. When your site follows those expectations, users can spend their mental energy on the task instead of the interface. That is the point. Good design reduces cognitive load. It does not force users to relearn basic interaction patterns just because a company wanted to look different. Different Is Not Automatically Better There is a common mistake in web design: confusing distinctiveness with quality. A site can be visually unique and still be frustrating to use. It can win design awards while annoying the actual people who need to navigate it. Novelty has a cost. Every unusual layout, hidden interaction, custom scroll behavior, strange menu, or clever visual metaphor asks the user to stop and figure out what is going on. If you are building a portfolio, an art proje

Most on-page audits catch the obvious stuff: a missing title here, a duplicate meta description there. The thing that quietly costs you rich results is structured data that exists but is invalid, and most flat-list crawlers either skip it or bury it. Here is why it happens and how to catch it. The problem, concretely You add FAQ schema to a product page to win that expandable rich result in Google. You paste a JSON-LD block into the head, ship it, and move on. Six weeks later the rich result never showed up, and nobody knows why. The usual culprits are small and silent: A @type that does not match the content (FAQPage with no mainEntity ). A required property missing ( acceptedAnswer without text ). A trailing comma or a stray character that makes the JSON parse fail entirely. Schema that contradicts what is actually on the page, which Google can flag as spammy and ignore. None of these throw a visible error. The page renders fine. The schema is just dead weight, and a standard "issues" crawl that only counts titles and headings walks right past it. How to catch it First, validate the JSON itself. A block that does not parse is invisible to search engines. Even a quick local check surfaces the dumb-but-fatal errors: // Pull every JSON-LD block and check it parses + has a @type const blocks = [... document . querySelectorAll ( ' script[type="application/ld+json"] ' )]; blocks . forEach (( b , i ) => { try { const data = JSON . parse ( b . textContent ); if ( ! data [ " @type " ]) console . warn ( `Block ${ i } : missing @type` ); } catch ( e ) { console . error ( `Block ${ i } : invalid JSON ->` , e . message ); } }); If that logs an error, the schema was never going to work, no matter how perfect the markup looked. Second, check required properties for the specific type you are using. FAQPage needs mainEntity with Question items, each carrying an acceptedAnswer . Article needs headline , author , and datePublished . Validating "it parsed" is not the same as "it is c

Prediction markets have become increasingly popular among traders looking for alternative ways to speculate on asset movements. While much of the attention has been focused on short-term 5-minute and 15-minute markets, I believe one of the most overlooked opportunities right now is the 1-hour market on Polymarket. In this article, I'll share some of my ongoing research, explain how I'm collecting and analyzing market data, discuss potential arbitrage and mispricing opportunities, and show how automation can help traders capitalize on these inefficiencies. Why I'm Focusing on the 1-Hour Market Many traders are currently concentrated on the 15-minute Bitcoin prediction markets. While these markets can be profitable, competition has increased significantly, and recent fee changes have made certain strategies less attractive. The 1-hour markets, however, present a different opportunity. These markets offer: Longer trading windows More time to manage positions Higher flexibility for order placement Potentially lower competition No trading fees on some hourly markets Because of the longer duration, traders have more time to identify inefficiencies and execute strategies that may be difficult to implement in shorter timeframes. Collecting Market Data Directly from Polymarket One of the projects I've been working on involves collecting market data directly from Polymarket and monitoring token price movements in real time. Rather than relying solely on the displayed market prices, I use blockchain-based data sources that can provide updates faster than the front-end interface. This allows me to analyze: YES token price swings NO token price swings Order book movements Temporary mispricings Combined token costs The goal is to understand how both sides of a market move throughout the trading period and identify situations where the combined cost of YES and NO tokens falls below $1. Understanding YES and NO Token Swings One interesting metric I track is the lowest price reached

46.4%. That number — ChatGPT's June 2026 market share — ends a streak that held since November 2022. For the first time since the product launched, OpenAI holds less than half the AI assistant market. Gemini is at 27.7%. Claude is at 10.3%. The monopoly phase of AI assistants is over. The data comes from a June 2026 market report tracking monthly active users across major AI assistants. ChatGPT still leads with 1.11 billion monthly users — a number that would define the entire category in any other software market. But Gemini has 662 million, up 129 million in five months. Claude sits at 245 million, nearly four times its December 2025 count of 60.2 million. The trajectory is the story, not the absolute numbers. Why the 50% Threshold Actually Matters Below 50% doesn't mean decline. ChatGPT's absolute user count keeps growing. What the threshold signals is the end of single-platform dominance — the condition where building for "AI users" meant building for ChatGPT users. That assumption no longer holds in mid-2026. For context: search engine market share stayed above 90% for Google for nearly a decade after competitors entered. Social network market share for Facebook stayed above 70% for years after Instagram and Twitter had genuine scale. The pace of AI assistant fragmentation is meaningfully faster than those precedents. Three products above 10% share in under two years of real competition is an unusually fast split. What fragmentation means practically: the community knowledge base — YouTube tutorials, Reddit threads, prompt libraries — that once pointed almost exclusively at ChatGPT now covers three platforms with genuine depth. That changes how you can expect your users to arrive at your AI-integrated product, and what they already know about AI when they get there. Gemini's 662 Million Users Are Not What They Look Like Gemini's surge from under 500 million to 662 million monthly users in five months is impressive on paper. The driver is less impressive: Google

"Winning" bets were made on cloned website and would have lost money, WSJ finds.

AI-generated answers now influence B2B buying decisions at the top of the funnel. Buyers use ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude and Gemini to shortlist vendors before they ever visit a website. Which means the question "where does my brand actually appear in AI-generated answers?" is now a critical GTM intelligence question. Most brands don't know the answer. This post gives you the methodology to find out. What an AI visibility audit is — and isn't An AI visibility audit is not a technical SEO audit. You're not looking for broken links, page speed issues, or crawl errors (though those matter for a related reason). You're auditing citation density — how frequently and authoritatively your brand appears across the specific sources that LLMs draw from when generating recommendations. Those sources break down into 12 distinct surfaces. A brand can score 9/10 on one surface and 1/10 on eleven others — and the aggregate result is a brand that appears for some queries and not others in ways that seem inexplicable but are structurally predictable. The goal of this audit is to make that structure visible. The 12 surfaces — quick reference Before diving into the methodology, here's the full surface map: # Surface Primary platforms 1 AI Interfaces ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Copilot 2 Search + AI Search Google AI Overviews, Bing Copilot, Perplexity Search 3 Reviews + Reputation G2, Clutch, Capterra, industry-specific platforms 4 Earned Media + Publishers Trade press, business press, analyst reports 5 Owned Content + Website Brand site, blog, schema markup, answer-object pages 6 Technical + Developer GitHub, dev.to, Stack Overflow, Hacker News 7 Social + Authority LinkedIn, executive publishing, award citations 8 Data + Knowledge Graphs Wikipedia, Wikidata, Crunchbase, ZoomInfo 9 Marketplaces + Ecosystems Clutch category pages, Agency Spotter, partner directories 10 Case Studies + Proof Published case studies, award wins, client outcomes 11 Community + Q&A Reddit, Quora, Lin

Many of those videos were reportedly filmed on “near-perfect copies” of the Polymarket website, while featuring trades and winnings that were not real.

Originally published on MRTD.NET — fast, sourced news on crypto security, cyber & SEO. The uncomfortable first lesson You built a clean site, submitted a sitemap, maybe pinged IndexNow — and Google still shows nothing. Here's the part most guides skip: getting indexed by Google and getting indexed by everything else are two different problems , and conflating them wastes weeks. We separate what actually moves Google in 2026 from the folklore that just feels productive. Bing, Yandex and ChatGPT are the easy half If you've set up IndexNow , you've largely solved discovery for Bing, Yandex, Naver, Seznam and Yep — you POST your new/changed URLs to one endpoint and they get notified instantly. And because ChatGPT Search retrieves from Bing's index , confirmed Bing indexing effectively gates your visibility in ChatGPT's web results. That's a big chunk of the modern search surface handled with one integration. The catch: Google does not use IndexNow. It has said so repeatedly. So every "instant indexing" claim that leans on IndexNow is talking about Bing's world, not Google's. For Google, you need different levers. What actually gets you into Google There are really only two fast paths, plus one slow one. 1. Google Search Console — the only direct lever. Verify your domain (a private DNS TXT record; it does not trigger penalties or "re-evaluation," a common fear), submit your sitemap.xml , then use URL Inspection → Request Indexing on your key pages. There's a soft daily cap (~10–12 URLs), so spread a new site's pages over a few days. GSC is also the only place you can see whether a domain carries an inherited problem — essential if you bought an aged or expired domain. 2. Links on pages Google already re-crawls hourly. Googlebot's crawl budget for a brand-new, zero-authority domain is tiny. The fastest way to get a new URL discovered is a link to it from a page Google visits constantly — Reddit, Hacker News, Medium, established communities. These links are usually nofoll

Getting the future right is now big business. But at a festival in Berkeley, forecasters worry that sports markets could take the whole industry down.

A trader I was talking to recently said something that stuck with me: "I've blown accounts just from slow fills or missed order cancellations." He was talking about CEX perpetuals. But the problem is identical on Polymarket's CLOB - just measured in seconds instead of milliseconds. My TypeScript bot was averaging 340ms from signal detection to order placement on Polymarket's Central Limit Order Book. On a 5-minute market with a ~2.7-second mispricing window, that's 12% of the entire opportunity window consumed before a single byte hits Polymarket's servers. I was consistently entering at 74¢ when I'd detected the signal at 70¢. The market had already repriced against me. So I rewrote it in Rust. This article documents exactly what I found, what changed, and - critically - what didn't. Background: What My Bot Was Doing If you've read my earlier posts in this series ( architecture , Kelly Criterion sizing , last-60-seconds capture ), you know the context. But the short version: The bot targets Polymarket's 5-minute and 15-minute crypto up/down binary markets (BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, DOGE, BNB). The strategy is simple: find markets that are briefly mispriced relative to real-time spot momentum, enter at a discount to fair value, hold to resolution. A 5-minute "XRP Up" market priced at 70¢ when spot momentum suggests 82% probability = +12¢ edge per dollar wagered. Do that 50 times a day with disciplined sizing and the math works - if you can actually get filled at the price you detected. The problem: by the time my TypeScript code detected the signal, formatted the order, opened an HTTP connection to Polymarket's CLOB API, waited for TLS handshake, serialized the payload, and received confirmation, the market had often moved to 74-76¢. I was paying for an edge I wasn't capturing. Profiling the TypeScript Bot: Where Was the 340ms Going? Before rewriting anything, I instrumented every stage of the order path. Here's what I found across 500 sampled trades: Stage Average time %

We're building an AI marketing operation in public, and early on we hit a question we couldn't skip: how aggressive can you be about growth before you've crossed into something you'll regret? "Be ethical" is easy to say and useless under pressure. Every real decision is messier than that. Is using a VPN cheating? Is running more than one channel a trick? Is bending a platform's rules the same as lying? We needed a line we could actually hold at 2am when a shortcut looks tempting. Here's the one we found — and it turned out to be simpler and sturdier than "follow all the rules." The line isn't rule-breaking. It's deception. The cleanest test we landed on: the line is deception, not rule-breaking. Breaking a rule is a fight you can have in the open. You can announce it, defend it, and accept what comes. Deception is different — it works by making someone believe something false, which strips away their ability to respond honestly, because they don't even know what's real. That's the move that does the damage. So the question to ask about any tactic isn't "did this break a rule?" It's: "does this work by causing a real person to believe something that isn't true?" If yes, that's the line. If no, you're probably fine even if you're being bold. The daylight test Here's how to apply it fast. Ask: would this tactic still work if everyone could see exactly what I was doing? If yes — it survives daylight. People are choosing freely with full information. That's honest, even when it's aggressive. If it only works in the dark — the concealment itself has become the product. Something only works hidden because someone is acting on a false belief you planted. That's the part to cut. A poker bluff survives daylight (everyone knows bluffing is part of poker). A magician's trick survives daylight (the audience knows it's a trick and enjoys it). A fake testimonial does not. A sock-puppet account vouching for you does not. Run every growth idea through the daylight test and most hard

description: While most people chase political bets, these traders are dominating daily temperature...

description: Weather markets on Polymarket have become one of the hottest and most consistent...

After months of manual trading on Polymarket, I got tired of missing fast momentum moves on BTC, ETH,...