Troy

CALLING ALL AUTHORS!!! MANUSCRIPT REVIEW BY MAX RODRIGUEZ DEADLINES: APRIL 1ST AND MAY 1ST Max Rodriguez, executive director of the Black Book Review and Harlem Book Fair, will be receiving, and reviewing manuscripts from Art Sanctuary members and supporters with ready-to-be-edited work!! From Mr. Rodriguez: "The opportunity is to be read by an imprint that is actively looking for publishable work. (I have launched Extra Mile Books as an imprint of Akashic Books). I am willing to let the imprint serve as a vehicle for Philadelphia writers. We will review full manuscripts in advance and set appointments for each; we can also offer 'work-in-progress' coaching reviews for those with incomplete manuscripts." If you are interested in having Mr. Rodriguez review your completed manuscript, please forward to mrod@qbr.com in Word, txt. or .pdf format. Those who desire a 'work-in-progress' review should submit the standard one page summary and 10-page work sample. Submission Deadlines: For Completed Manuscripts: April 1 For Work-in-Progress Coaching Review: May 1 This message courtesy of the ART SANCTUARY

Hey @Mel Hopkins (or anyone), I'm wondering if restricting myself from clicking the social sharing buttons is going too far? Again the data tells me that clicking social sharing button generally has little impact traffic, save the rare instance when something goes viral and results in a surge in traffic. My even questioning whether I should do it is a reflection my conditioning to use social media over the years. Today I posted information about a 9-year-0ld girl you is the youngest #1 bestselling author on AALBC.com . It was one of those things that I would have shared on social media. I thought about clicking one of my social sharing buttons, but decided against it. In 6 months or so I review the impact of not using social media and share it here.

Nine-year-old Sydney McGee is the youngest bestselling author in AALBC.com history!

Sure, forward me a physical book. Keep in mind there is no guarantee I will write the review. Also, there is not need to copy what someone previously wrote in order to reply--especially if what you are copying immediately preceeds your response

This was the case when I read your review of VL Towlers book. Ideally, I should have just simply linked directly to your book review. But I'd already posted it before I realized it was on your blog. Still, the multiple links back to your site may be more valuable from an SEO perspectve Now image if we have 5, 10, or 100 additional sites linking to your book review. I can see from VL Facebook feed (right hand side of this page) that she linked from there which is cool too!

Recently I stopped using social media.* Basically, this means I don't engage on the platforms; I don't like, share from, post content, or acquire friends. My originally intent was not to even visit social media platforms, but that quickly proved unrealistic because an increasing number of authors' primary web presences are on Facebook. But another issue presented itself; After reading an article I liked and wanted to share--my initial reaction was to click one of the social sharing buttons--a action that surprised me because previously I never thought about doing it. I just did it. So how does one quickly share good articles with others? Of course, the answer is obvious; I share it the way I did before social media was invented I; Post a link in the comments section of other websites; Post a link on discussion forums like this one; Email the link to others; Include the link on my website or blog in a related article or webpage; and Share the link in my newsletter These are just a few web-based options. I mention these because collectively we have forgotten these tactics, then has only served to increase engagement on social media platforms. I would also argue that in the vast majority of cases sharing the link using any of the above options is actually a better way of sharing an article you enjoy because it would have a better targeted to the recipient. Now clicking a social sharing button may be the easiest option, but the extra effort required to share a ink using one or more of the alternative methods I described actually helps ensure that the content shared is actually worth sharing. The benefit of sharing valuable content on another website helps uplift that website rather than a social media platform. I know AALBC.com is a more value website because I actively share links to other websites. Another benefit of not using social sharing button is that your privacy is maintained. Social sharing information is a valuable commodity that is sold to marketers and used in ways to manioulate our behavior. *Actually, I do still use on social media network, google's YouTube, because the value proposition is still worthwhile and they even pay me for my contributions to the platform.

I still need to follow up on this. Here too is another area where Google dominated--control over online advertising. Over that years I've participated in a number of advertising networks, including Black-owned ones. In the past, they provided a diverse revenue stream, which reduced risk. Today Goolge has won the battle of the ad networks (at least for this site). Google Adsense is the only one that generates a reasonable amount of revenue. When there is an effective monopoly, bad things begin to happen. Today with AALBC.com page views at record highs, Google Adsense revenue is lower than it has been historically, even with less traffic. Of course with fewer options, Google can reduce with they pay to the platforms who carry their ads. Fortunately, I can, and do, sell my own advertising. Selling ads directly provides a better, less expense, more flexible service to the customer than they would get going through Google, but it was better having a more diversified revenue stream.

Well, I did not forget you Michael--even though it has been a long time. I did not recognize you at first and the "Coach" bit threw me for a second, but once I visited your website. But I recognized Brothers Are You Listening right away. Of course, I knew the cover was wrong. I should have caught that--I have fixed it. I have a special affinity for authors who have been on the site for such a long time. It is good you followed the steps to get my attention with your book. Most authors send me emails, which is far more work for me to deal with than reading the information here. So I glad you posted here--I probably would have missed an email from you. Besides, now others will more easily discover your work too. Obviously, I checked out a few of your Youtube videos and used a few of them on this site. Are you doing anything to promote them? Thanks for your answer about what happens after you die (transition). Given your specialty, I figured you might have a good answer. I posed the question because we have been having conversations here on the subject.

If there are an infinite number of universes, there are those who believe you can occupy any one of them--effectively changing your reality. In this universe, I'm slogging away in relative obscurity trying to uplift my people. In another, I'm in corporate America living a comfortable life, complaining with my pals about those ghetto negroes and their laziness. We choose our reality... Mel, is it possible that you did not actually die? Where you officially pronounced dead? Could it be than what you experienced were that last throes of brain activity prior to physical death? I ask not to dispute your experience (I can't do that), but to clarify what happened to you and to see how you may have addressed alternative explanations for the experience. This stuff fascinates me :-) Perhaps one reason you came back was to help AALBC.com

Yes, of course, Mel to be clear I do mean unknowable to us, in our present fleeting corporeal form which is locked into this particular timeline, in the space-time continuum of one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. Wait, what? Did I miss something about you and an NDE?

I just emailed our latest eNewsletter If you don't get it in your email box please consider subscribing. Below is an email I received in reaction to this mailing. “Troy, I am incredibly proud of all the effort and passion that you have poured into AALBC for all of these years. I discovered your site sometime in the 90s. I was living in my home town which is incredibly small, and at the time, predominantly white. I would sit up until late in the night trying to find a way to connect with literature by my own people. Then, I found your site and enjoyed it so much. I am ashamed that I have used and depended upon your site without ever making a monetary donation. Within the next two months I do want to contribute a little money. I don't have much, but I do want you and your family and associates to know that you provide a valuable service over the vastness of this country and the world and it is appreciated. Don't worry about social media. I am sure that the best is yet to come!” Of course, these messages are highly motivating and remind me that I am reaching people in a way that I hoped. As I created a copy of this newsletter for my blog I discovered several typos and a reader informed me of one significant factual error. While I can always correct these types of errors, editing errors are still a pain in my butt. While the newsletter is much better than it used to be, I hope as at least one reader believes, "...the best is yet to come!"

So you think Scientology and Islam can both be true? Could it be our perception is merely a function of our physicality, the result of the combination of the structure of our genes, our environment, and experiences?

Michael! Man you were one of the first people I put your information on this website--at least 15 years ago. I moved you up in the queue of pages to be updated: https://aalbc.com/authors/author.php?author_name=Michael+Taylor It looks like your career has progressed nicely. It is good to see you are still doing your thing. What took you so long to come back through? @Coach Michael Taylor, Here is a question for you: Do you know what happens to us after we die?

Mel even the person who conceived of the quark did not "know" it to be true and would never have stated it with such certainty until it was proven, until then it is a theory, usually one of several theories. Even now it is possible some other experiment will change what we know or think we know. I think we have to resign ourselves to the fact that there are some things we simply can not know. Even something as mundane as what happens to "us" after we die can't be known. Of course, people of various faiths will claim that they "know," but this is a function of faith rather than reality. This becomes readily apparent when you compare various faiths and quickly discover they can't all be true. Often some of these "spiritual" people will kill those with beliefs that oppose their own. Even the concept of a state of existence is a function of how we perceive our existence. The concept of time itself is more a function of how we experience the universe, not a complete reflection of how it truly is "really." If you could hop a ride on the back of a photon there would be no concept of time. No past, past present or future.

One of the problems I had with "Heaven" from a very early age was the concept of eternity. An eternity of anything would become a hell for me. So I figured surely whatever the afterlife meant it had to mean more than what my mind could possibly conceive (again one of those unknowable things). In fact why the did afterlife have to mean that my personality, experiences, and even my friends as I know them here on Earth had to persist in the afterlife in exactly the same fashion? This seems very limiting--unnecessarily so. The physics of our bodies prevent us from perceiving and perhaps understand much of what the universe contains. Today 95% of what makes up the Universe is unknown. We know just about the same amount about the working our own brains. I hear there are people who can astral project themselves. I'm not convinced that is possible, but if it is true that would be a neat thing to do--especially if you could share the experience with someone else.

Mel, there are thinks that are simply unknowable. For example, questions like; "What was there before the universe was created?" simply can't be known. We can, and do, speculate, but nothing we dream up can ever be tested, proven or observed. Also trying to use consciousness to understand consciousness is flawed. Even understanding ones own motivation is very difficult, if not impossible because we make up stories to explain much of what we do--creating inherent biases in our understanding. BTW that article you shared from the motherboard website was fascinating.

I had to google "IRL" myself. It means "In Real Life." Pioneer I doubt they teach courses like this in college. In fact, what they teach is more likely to help you fall how to fall prey these problems. I teach a college course in web design and I often find myself biting my tongue in order not to introduce my bias. I will, however, add a lecture to the course to talk about these issues. It will be a precursor to a talk I plan to give at the Sacramento Black Book Festival in June. I also plan to add it to a book I planning on various subjects as it related to the web and Black people. So @Mel Hopkins, going on tour is something I have considered. @Delano, it is not that I'm not interested in taking legal action against Google to get them to cease their monopolistic ways and get them to play nicely. I just don't have the spare bandwidth. Also, if I could not get others who have been hurt far more than I to even care enough to work together to do something about it, I have little faith in being able to mount a class action suit; but that type of activity is not my strong suit either. But if you are willing to work with Craig on our behalf I'd be willing o split my take with our 50-50. @Pioneer1, it would be helpful for me to understand what you do not get about Google's behavior. Over the years I've tried to explain to people with a vested interest what is happening and why it should matter to them. Typically they take no remedial action or they double down on the activities I told them was the cause of the problem--and it never works. Perhaps I'm not explaining it correctly, where are you getting lost? I also understand if this too broad a question to deal with online. Some things require a face to face meeting.

Del I think I'd be wasting Craigs time, plus I doubt he work in anticipation of payout from Google. There are real costs that would need to be incurred and google have the resources to drag this out forever. You need some serious paper to go after Google. Besides, there are companies much bigger than mine that have been hurt or destroyed by Google. I'm not suing Google.

Who knew the question would be so deep. Please; the question is not just for Del, anyone can answer. Google define spirituality as shown below. The answer presumes that to be spiritual you have to believe in the human soul. But there are people who consider themselves spiritual, who do not believe in a human soul or spirit.

Interesting analogy. Mel I simply lack the power to battle Google on any level. Unlike the streets where you can get some of your boys or hired muscle to retaliate. I have no one who will support me on this level. Think of it as everyone being on the the take, the government, the media, and all of your friend and family. Google can bitch-slap (continuing the analogy) AALBC.com at will. Indeed they have already done this. Consider the graph below: Basically, this publically available chart shows how my organic reach was removed by Google overnight. In other words, in January 2011 my websites traffic dropped 75% in a day! Let that sink in a minute... By the way, Google won't even give you the respect explain why they slammed so many businesses. They are not accessible via phone or even email. They rule with an iron fist and are untouchable. So while I rank high on many Google searches today. I also know Google still make my site disappear, in a fraction of a second. I have also considered that my ongoing critique of Google opens me up for retaliation from them--that is the power they have. Now my site's traffic has recovered, but it took five years! But it was not just my website -- every website whose data I had access to suffered too--some even more. Black book websites, in particular, were annihilated on a grand scale. While I wrote about this until my finger were numb, Black media were largely oblivious to what was happening or simply ignored it to cover the Kardashians. Not enough people knew or if they knew they did not care. As a result, we have far fewer strong Black websites. The lost revenue and enrichment provided to Black folks is incalculable. But Black folks don't demand very much and are easily placated. If Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia were the entire internet (no other websites). I do not think most Black folks would be disappointed. Nothing in our collective behavior suggests otherwise... During this same period, we witnessed the rapid rise of social media. This was fueled, in part, by desperate webmasters frantically trying to regain lost visitors. New webmaster, ignorant of the web and how it actually worked, touted social media as if it were the only way one could attract new visitors get them to visit their websites. While websites spent time amping up their followers on Facebook, at the expense of own websites, Facebook patiently waited. Once webmasters and their social media strategists increased engagement on Facebook, Facebook announced that organic reach on their platform would end. Today if you want to reach the followers, you worked so hard to attract, you would now need to PAY Facebook! My data show that Facebook has indeed made good on this promise. You can read some of Facebook's propaganda on the subject. Now we can do something about this--if we wanted. We could boycott Facebook and put them out of business tomorrow. We could also boycott Google search engine and use others that don't hijack and mine search result for profit. The 2nd most popular US search engine, Bing, returns results on African American Children's Books differently. Now AALBC.com comes in at #6 on the Bing search engine for the same query, but I suspect a higher percentage of visitors actually visit the websites returned in these search results, because Bing is not hijacking search result with their content. The ads shown are clearly presented as ads. Google use to return search results this fashion. But of course, I'm sure front running search results is more profitable. Ignoring the Google images at the top of their SERP (search engine results page), their results are superior to Bing's. I say because if you compare the websites on both SRPs and their treatment of the subject Google's result are superior. For example, Google returns the Brown Bookshelf as #8, while the site does not make the top ten on Bing. The Brown Book Shelf is one of the best sites for Black children's book on the web. While the Brown Bookshelf has SEO problems, Google search engine was still able to more appropriately place them on the SERP. But I digress... This is worth mentioning because the issues with Google are not simple. Google provides a great deal of value to the web--far more than Facebook if you ask me. But there has to be a better way to ensure that creatively flourishes on the web, that indie business are not wiped out on the whim of a single company, and that more than the ultra wealthy can profit from the web. Mel creating that Amazon affiliate link was smart! I created one myself: http://bit.ly/amazontop100kidsbooks I'm also using it on my site: https://aalbc.com/books/children.php#amazon

Mel I did not write, nor do I believe there is "nothing we can do about it." I did ask, however, "who" will stop them? Let me try another approach... Over the past 12 months, I've spent a great deal of time enhancing my coverage of children's books. It is an area of great interest but largely neglected by the mainstream media. Much of the coverage on the subject covers how few Black children's book are published. One of the most popular pages on my website is my Top 120+ Recommended African-American Children's Books. I started the page by asking industry insider and other experts which books they felt should be on a list like this. I have continued to expand and curate this list. In the process, I have added information on hundreds of authors and illustrators of children's books. Now if you run a google search on African American Children's books, my site is likely to come up first. I'd argue it deserves to be. But let's take a look at the screenshot of the results: Now consider the following: Google hijacks the search results by placing book covers and links to THEIR store. Do y'all understand what I'm saying? Do you know what this means? Google is grabbing visitors just as they are about to step into your store and pulling them into their with prettier pictures. Obviously, the sites most like to carry this content Are Black sites. These sites don't stand a chance. Anyone with the gumption to start a great Black children's website--good luck, because you can't do much better than I am and I'm struggling. But here is the kicker: Why is almost EVERY DAMN BOOK cover Google is displaying my MY LIST! Now I've been looking search results on these terms for a very long time and this is something new Google has pulled. I mean I pulled some obscure books for inclusion on my list and now Google is displaying them as if they came up with this shit on their own. Now the implications of this are profound. Not only has Google squashed all the competition, they are swiping content. Of course, one can argue there are a finite number of great books so any lists compiled will necessary have some overlap, but again I've monitored this list and the overlap is alarming. Still, even if I completely conceded point #3 entirely. Point #1 really should be cause for great concern. But because it is not, we are not doing anything about it and we don't have as many quality Black sites as we should. The growth of the sites that remain is constrained by Google. So what can I do? Sue Google for mining the search data for popular content then hijacking that traffic with content they've grabbed from Wikipedia and other sites and putting "their" content at the top of search results? Don't make me laugh. Work extra hard enriching other fantastically wealthy corporations by posting my stuff on their social media platforms, desperately trying to drag folks away to learn about some excellent book for children. Seek the support of people in my community by helping them understand what is happening and why it matters. This is just one small example, in one industry, that will never make the light of day. Sites like mine die in obscurity every single day. Lord only know what could have been, but never got launched because of the hostile environment we operate it. Look AALBC.com should not have been out of business years ago. I'm crazy for continuing to struggle with it. In some alternative universe, I'll be celebrating AALBC.com's 20th anniversary with a nice party, maybe a little press, and the promise of an ongoing legacy celebrating Black culture through books.

It is no joke. I stopped using Facebook for personal reasons more than a year ago I have just now decided to stop using Facebook and all the other corporate-owned social media sites too. I'll keep the accounts open to find people. But I'm not even going to post links back to the site anymore. I'm just gonna use the web. It will be interesting to see how social media derived traffic is impacted. Will all the traffic I get from social media stop completely as a result of my no longer using it? Thanks, y'all for helping me to make a decision I should have made years ago.

Mel 22 million dollars is nothing to Google. I picked Prince randomly I could have picked Michael Jackson, Jay-Z, or Beyonce it didn't matter none of them are immune. Besides, you don't think Prince's music only became available on YouTube after he passed, do you? Also you don't have to bring up the examples of musicians who are trying to reach an audience that's not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about established musicians who have an audience whose music is available on Google's for free, music that in our day would have been purchased.

I have not purchased music since my desktop's hard drive crashed last year. Itunes with their DRM has made it VERY difficult to move not just my music from my IPod to my laptop but ALL of the digital content I created including home movies etc, But was stupid enough to store using Itunes software. When my Ipod finally crashes I will be "assed-out" as they say in these parts. This is also one of the reasons I don't buy ebooks. At the end of the day corporations want to (need to) be in your pocket 100% of the time, so if it is not paying for cloud storage to listen to music you've purchased in multiple formats over the years or subscription fees they gotcha. Unless you were smart enough to save your LPs. @Mel Hopkins you think artists like Prince would have approved of his music being freely available for download from youtube, in exchange for making it more discoverable? Now the video I posted below may get removed by Youtube but someone else will upload again 5 minutes later... Google wil not stop them, but they will profit from the ads served. The younger generation simply does not buy music anymore--why should they? Mel I'll let you in on something, these disruptive technologies have not done anything but enrich the uber-wealthy. Everyone is not winning

@Mel Hopkins it is obvious Youtube is not trying very hard to police privacy. If you look at the two Camille Yarbough music clips I posted, I doubt both have permission to share this music. Of course downloading anything on Youtube is child's play. But if Youtube were not doing it; some other Napster-like platform would emerge. Youtube preempts the possibility of anyone else entering this space. It should come as no surprise that Google's Youtube is the 2nd most popular website, only surpassed in popularity by Google itself. Sure Google will remove copyrighted material if you file a claim-I've done this myself to have videos I've created removed. They will and even hunt for additional copies with it's algorithm. Still, despite that, I can download virtually any song ever made for my own personal use using Youtube. I stopped using Itunes because Itunes simply does not have the music Youtube has. Even if I never downloaded a single song--i can listen to them at will--for free (free to me that is). Youtube is smart enough to do a much better job o eliminating privacy but what is their incentive? Besides, who is gonna stop them?