Is Your Post Really The Best Ultimate Complete Definitive Whatever?

Hilarious! You're the Best Chris, I'll have to do a lot of research to determine what you're the Best at, but I'll just throw it out there because well it's an attention grabber!

What's this Chris? I DON'T have all the answers to selling? Who told you that! I've already been told by some since I'm not a professional writer I shouldn't be posting articles on Pulse....I ignored them, BUT I am going to watch my titles from now on...I know you're watching!

I spent 6.5 years interogating data from a previous 6.5-year research project. If anybody is able to compact 13 years of complex research into a 5-best-way list, it's me. So I resent your insinuation that it might be even slightly lacking in depth or rigour, that anybody other than me can give such insighful advice on the topic, or that my ideas and opinions might possibly be wrong. That the topic is only of interest to me is completely irrelevant. I have the right to trick people into reading it in any way I choose, so shall liberally add phrases such as "Beer: It's the new black", "Kardashian New Baby: It's actually triplets", "Brad leaves Angelina for George" and "How to lose weight and/or gain muscle without dieting or exercising" into my blog titles. Neither you nor anybody else is going to stop me!

My posts are always the bestest at what I want them to be. The problem is what I want them to be. I'm kind of eccentric, so sometimes I actually do try for dorky and roll-your-eyes posts. Other times, I go so completely meta that people tend to go "Uh, okay..." and move on. Mostly, I do this because it amuses me to do so, but also because I've done enough playing around with Eliza, Cleverbot, and various similar text parsing conversation simulators that I could make a reasonable case that I can't be certain any given person I'm talking to through text is actually a person. There are clues, but... when I'm having a... "debate" *cough* with some proponent of an extremist viewpoint, I often find myself wondering if I'm actually talking to a bot, given the tendency to misunderstand, focus on keywords over meaning, and supply your side of the conversation for you (also known as straw man arguments). In that respect, there are actually chat bots online now that are *better* at making arguments than many extremists, but the Dunning-Kruger Effect is so rarely understood by those who suffer from it that there's no point in bringing it up. The point of all this? There isn't one. I did say I was a bit eccentric, and it's Saturday, so I think I can let that flag fly. ;)

I read posts with content that is written in a way that portrays a writer with similar values to mine. These get my attention! Not hype or buzz words or corporate jargon which I find offensive. These posts can be about new ideas I know nothing about but are well explained or experiences that I have not had or about concepts I have never considered. The best are challenging not trite! But Overall I do not read posts that * contain numbers, "best" * are boring and short on substance but seem to appeal to lots of others * are inflammatory or derogatory or rude * the writer doesn't reply to any or many of the comments * that are thinly or not at all disguised advertising I must confess that I also like to challenge some of the comments that do not seem to have similar values to mine. I don't like discrimination or bullying or sledging. I don't like trolls or dating messages. I have a list of writers that I like that I check regularly. Once I characterise a writer as what I don't like, I don't look at their posts again. I'd rather spend my time reading a new writer that I am not familiar with. I think there is a respectful and intelligent way of getting reader's attention. ??????????????? Louise ??????????????? P.S, I tried to write the most proficient, unsurpassed, consummate, focused inimitable, matchless, ultimate, esteemed and venerated comments above.