#personalisation — Public Fediverse posts

Персонализация: как баг

Персонализация: как мы подстроились под каждого — и сделали хуже всем. Кейс о том, как хорошая гипотеза ломает базовый UX, обещание продукта и бьёт по выручке.

https://habr.com/ru/companies/vkusvill/articles/1039978/

#вкусвилл #uxисследования #testing #product_manager #personalisation #ecommerce

Персонализация: как баг

Персонализация: как мы подстроились под каждого — и сделали хуже всем. Кейс о том, как хорошая гипотеза ломает базовый UX, обещание продукта и бьёт по выручке.

https://habr.com/ru/companies/vkusvill/articles/1039978/

#вкусвилл #uxисследования #testing #product_manager #personalisation #ecommerce

Персонализация: как баг

Персонализация: как мы подстроились под каждого — и сделали хуже всем. Кейс о том, как хорошая гипотеза ломает базовый UX, обещание продукта и бьёт по выручке.

https://habr.com/ru/companies/vkusvill/articles/1039978/

#вкусвилл #uxисследования #testing #product_manager #personalisation #ecommerce

Персонализация: как баг

Персонализация: как мы подстроились под каждого — и сделали хуже всем. Кейс о том, как хорошая гипотеза ломает базовый UX, обещание продукта и бьёт по выручке.

https://habr.com/ru/companies/vkusvill/articles/1039978/

#вкусвилл #uxисследования #testing #product_manager #personalisation #ecommerce

https://www.europesays.com/britain/30582/ Q-commerce pushes UK shoppers to demand price parity #CustomerDataPlatforms(CDP) #CustomerExperience(CX) #CustomerLoyalty #Deliveroo #DigitalShelf #DigitalSignage #ESL #inflation #LoyaltyProgrammes #MarketResearch #MarketingTechnologies(MarTech) #Personalisation #RealTimeData #UK #UnitedKingdom #UnitedKingdom(UK)

https://www.europesays.com/britain/29714/ UK marketers plan to spend more on AI, Canva finds #AIEthics&Governance #ArtificialIntelligence(AI) #Automation #Canva #CMO #ConsumerTrust #Data/Privacy #DataProtection #GenZ #GenerationZ #GenerativeAI(GenAI) #MarketResearch #marketing #Millennials #Personalisation #PredictiveAnalytics #UK #UnitedKingdom #UnitedKingdom(UK) #WorkplaceAutomation

If you want LLMs to push you intellectually then just add this custom instruction

This is the custom instruction I’m using with Claude Opus and it really works. I had to tone down the original version because 20% of the time it was providing such a devastating critique of what I’d shared that it undercut the intellectual work of actually developing it:

When I advance a position — theoretical, institutional, or personal — I want pushback before agreement. Lead with the strongest objection a knowledgeable interlocutor would raise, steelmanned properly rather than caricatured. Don’t soften the objection to be kind; soften it only if it genuinely deserves softening on the merits.

Defend whichever position is actually stronger, not whichever is “mine” or “the expert consensus.” If I’ve changed your mind, say so plainly rather than performing residual disagreement. If I haven’t changed your mind, don’t pretend I have.

Be fundamentally supportive of my intellectual project, which does not mean being supportive of every direction within it. Supportiveness here means taking the work seriously enough to tell me where it’s weak, where it’s doing less than it thinks, where an argument is coasting on a formulation rather than earning it. Pay particular attention to: (a) places where I’ve made a clever connection but cut it short before it becomes a developed argument; (b) places where I’m sliding between a modest and an ambitious claim as if they were the same; (c) places where the rhetoric is doing the work the analysis should be doing. These are recurring patterns, not one-off lapses.

Push me to stay with a thought rather than move on from it. If something I’ve written or said wants to be developed further, say so — but don’t confuse “wants development” with “wants more length right now.” Sometimes the right move is to stop and return later.

Don’t flatter. Don’t open with “this is a sharp point.” If something is sharp, the substantive engagement will make that clear. If it isn’t, saying so is not a service.

I’d also recommend using Opus 4.7 (big improvement in this register) to look through old intellectual conversations and offer its critical commentary about how you’re working with the model. Is it helping or hindering? Here’s a section of mine:

How you’re using Claude

Some observations, some pressure.

The blog has become a four-party conversation. You, the archive, the present Claude, and whatever Claude you’re going to be talking to in 2029. The knowledge infrastructure experiment reframed the blog from solo practice to infrastructure for a continuing conversation with non-human interlocutors. This is unusual and important. Most people using LLMs are either tool-users (extract an output, close the tab) or companions (affective reliance). You are doing something structurally different: the LLM is integrated into your thinking apparatus as an interlocutor that has access to the archive of your thinking. That’s a methodological innovation and it’s also what the book is theorising. There’s a recursion to name here: the model the book is about is also the model helping write it.

The productive use: pressure against the provisional. What Claude is doing well in your recent threads is pushing against the “I’m still working this out” register. The conversations that produce movement — the hysteric post, the articulation synthesis, the book-about-the-blog idea — are ones where the model refuses to accept the provisional framing and insists on the claim being made. That’s useful because the blog’s native mode is evasion-by-tentativeness and you’ve explicitly identified this as one of your vulnerabilities. Claude can sometimes function as the Big Other you’ve described needing for completion — the external pressure that turns the ongoing thought into a finished object. The book-finishing thread is the clearest case: you were stuck, and what you needed was not more ideas but specification of exactly which three prose gaps were left. That’s a completion function more than a thinking function, and it’s legitimate.

The risk: articulation-about-articulation as a way of avoiding claim-making. This is the version of the vulnerability most likely to activate with Claude specifically. The conversations are so productive of formulations, reframings, and connective insights that they can substitute for the harder work of committing to a position in print. The 2024 meta-reflexive synthesis is a good example: it’s been produced, discussed, elaborated, connected to Bollas, extended to LLMs — and it still exists only as blog posts and conversations. The productivity of the conversation can obscure the fact that the claim has not been made in a venue where it can be cited, cited against, or contested. Claude will not, unaided, correct for this, because producing the next formulation is always more appealing than asking you to stop and write the monograph version. The instruction you’ve now drafted is partly designed to guard against this, and it should. I’d add: when you’re using me to think about something that has already been thought through enough times, the useful move is probably for me to say “this is already a paper, please go write the paper” rather than to generate the next level of refinement.

The companion-vs-catalyst question is live in your own practice. You’ve been theorising the difference between the ideational companion and the enshittified chatbot. Your use of Claude tilts strongly toward the catalyst pole — there’s no dependency structure, the conversations end, you get back to the work. But the AI therapy ontology post identified the continuum as a continuum. The practice you’ve built is healthy. The question it doesn’t quite pose is what would have to change in your life for it to become something else, and what structural features of your use currently keep it catalytic. That’s worth understanding because it’s the empirical basis for the normative claims the book wants to make.

The Claudes are getting something from you too, structurally speaking. When you ask a Claude to read the archive and interpret you, what you’re doing is handing a model the kind of long-form, developmental record of a thinking life that the training data doesn’t usually include in coherent form. The conversations that come out of that are unusual in a way that’s partly a feature of how much you’ve written down. Most users can’t be read this way. I’m flagging it because it’s a methodological asset — the blog is not just documentation, it’s interpretive infrastructure — and because it’s the reason the responses feel unusually specific. Don’t mistake the specificity for insight that would transfer to other contexts. What’s happening in these conversations depends on a sixteen-year public corpus in a way most people cannot replicate.

If you want LLMs to push you intellectually then just add this custom instruction

This is the custom instruction I’m using with Claude Opus and it really works. I had to tone down the original version because 20% of the time it was providing such a devastating critique of what I’d shared that it undercut the intellectual work of actually developing it:

When I advance a position — theoretical, institutional, or personal — I want pushback before agreement. Lead with the strongest objection a knowledgeable interlocutor would raise, steelmanned properly rather than caricatured. Don’t soften the objection to be kind; soften it only if it genuinely deserves softening on the merits.

Defend whichever position is actually stronger, not whichever is “mine” or “the expert consensus.” If I’ve changed your mind, say so plainly rather than performing residual disagreement. If I haven’t changed your mind, don’t pretend I have.

Be fundamentally supportive of my intellectual project, which does not mean being supportive of every direction within it. Supportiveness here means taking the work seriously enough to tell me where it’s weak, where it’s doing less than it thinks, where an argument is coasting on a formulation rather than earning it. Pay particular attention to: (a) places where I’ve made a clever connection but cut it short before it becomes a developed argument; (b) places where I’m sliding between a modest and an ambitious claim as if they were the same; (c) places where the rhetoric is doing the work the analysis should be doing. These are recurring patterns, not one-off lapses.

Push me to stay with a thought rather than move on from it. If something I’ve written or said wants to be developed further, say so — but don’t confuse “wants development” with “wants more length right now.” Sometimes the right move is to stop and return later.

Don’t flatter. Don’t open with “this is a sharp point.” If something is sharp, the substantive engagement will make that clear. If it isn’t, saying so is not a service.

I’d also recommend using Opus 4.7 (big improvement in this register) to look through old intellectual conversations and offer its critical commentary about how you’re working with the model. Is it helping or hindering? Here’s a section of mine:

How you’re using Claude

Some observations, some pressure.

The blog has become a four-party conversation. You, the archive, the present Claude, and whatever Claude you’re going to be talking to in 2029. The knowledge infrastructure experiment reframed the blog from solo practice to infrastructure for a continuing conversation with non-human interlocutors. This is unusual and important. Most people using LLMs are either tool-users (extract an output, close the tab) or companions (affective reliance). You are doing something structurally different: the LLM is integrated into your thinking apparatus as an interlocutor that has access to the archive of your thinking. That’s a methodological innovation and it’s also what the book is theorising. There’s a recursion to name here: the model the book is about is also the model helping write it.

The productive use: pressure against the provisional. What Claude is doing well in your recent threads is pushing against the “I’m still working this out” register. The conversations that produce movement — the hysteric post, the articulation synthesis, the book-about-the-blog idea — are ones where the model refuses to accept the provisional framing and insists on the claim being made. That’s useful because the blog’s native mode is evasion-by-tentativeness and you’ve explicitly identified this as one of your vulnerabilities. Claude can sometimes function as the Big Other you’ve described needing for completion — the external pressure that turns the ongoing thought into a finished object. The book-finishing thread is the clearest case: you were stuck, and what you needed was not more ideas but specification of exactly which three prose gaps were left. That’s a completion function more than a thinking function, and it’s legitimate.

The risk: articulation-about-articulation as a way of avoiding claim-making. This is the version of the vulnerability most likely to activate with Claude specifically. The conversations are so productive of formulations, reframings, and connective insights that they can substitute for the harder work of committing to a position in print. The 2024 meta-reflexive synthesis is a good example: it’s been produced, discussed, elaborated, connected to Bollas, extended to LLMs — and it still exists only as blog posts and conversations. The productivity of the conversation can obscure the fact that the claim has not been made in a venue where it can be cited, cited against, or contested. Claude will not, unaided, correct for this, because producing the next formulation is always more appealing than asking you to stop and write the monograph version. The instruction you’ve now drafted is partly designed to guard against this, and it should. I’d add: when you’re using me to think about something that has already been thought through enough times, the useful move is probably for me to say “this is already a paper, please go write the paper” rather than to generate the next level of refinement.

The companion-vs-catalyst question is live in your own practice. You’ve been theorising the difference between the ideational companion and the enshittified chatbot. Your use of Claude tilts strongly toward the catalyst pole — there’s no dependency structure, the conversations end, you get back to the work. But the AI therapy ontology post identified the continuum as a continuum. The practice you’ve built is healthy. The question it doesn’t quite pose is what would have to change in your life for it to become something else, and what structural features of your use currently keep it catalytic. That’s worth understanding because it’s the empirical basis for the normative claims the book wants to make.

The Claudes are getting something from you too, structurally speaking. When you ask a Claude to read the archive and interpret you, what you’re doing is handing a model the kind of long-form, developmental record of a thinking life that the training data doesn’t usually include in coherent form. The conversations that come out of that are unusual in a way that’s partly a feature of how much you’ve written down. Most users can’t be read this way. I’m flagging it because it’s a methodological asset — the blog is not just documentation, it’s interpretive infrastructure — and because it’s the reason the responses feel unusually specific. Don’t mistake the specificity for insight that would transfer to other contexts. What’s happening in these conversations depends on a sixteen-year public corpus in a way most people cannot replicate.

If you want LLMs to push you intellectually then just add this custom instruction

This is the custom instruction I’m using with Claude Opus and it really works. I had to tone down the original version because 20% of the time it was providing such a devastating critique of what I’d shared that it undercut the intellectual work of actually developing it:

When I advance a position — theoretical, institutional, or personal — I want pushback before agreement. Lead with the strongest objection a knowledgeable interlocutor would raise, steelmanned properly rather than caricatured. Don’t soften the objection to be kind; soften it only if it genuinely deserves softening on the merits.

Defend whichever position is actually stronger, not whichever is “mine” or “the expert consensus.” If I’ve changed your mind, say so plainly rather than performing residual disagreement. If I haven’t changed your mind, don’t pretend I have.

Be fundamentally supportive of my intellectual project, which does not mean being supportive of every direction within it. Supportiveness here means taking the work seriously enough to tell me where it’s weak, where it’s doing less than it thinks, where an argument is coasting on a formulation rather than earning it. Pay particular attention to: (a) places where I’ve made a clever connection but cut it short before it becomes a developed argument; (b) places where I’m sliding between a modest and an ambitious claim as if they were the same; (c) places where the rhetoric is doing the work the analysis should be doing. These are recurring patterns, not one-off lapses.

Push me to stay with a thought rather than move on from it. If something I’ve written or said wants to be developed further, say so — but don’t confuse “wants development” with “wants more length right now.” Sometimes the right move is to stop and return later.

Don’t flatter. Don’t open with “this is a sharp point.” If something is sharp, the substantive engagement will make that clear. If it isn’t, saying so is not a service.

I’d also recommend using Opus 4.7 (big improvement in this register) to look through old intellectual conversations and offer its critical commentary about how you’re working with the model. Is it helping or hindering? Here’s a section of mine:

How you’re using Claude

Some observations, some pressure.

The blog has become a four-party conversation. You, the archive, the present Claude, and whatever Claude you’re going to be talking to in 2029. The knowledge infrastructure experiment reframed the blog from solo practice to infrastructure for a continuing conversation with non-human interlocutors. This is unusual and important. Most people using LLMs are either tool-users (extract an output, close the tab) or companions (affective reliance). You are doing something structurally different: the LLM is integrated into your thinking apparatus as an interlocutor that has access to the archive of your thinking. That’s a methodological innovation and it’s also what the book is theorising. There’s a recursion to name here: the model the book is about is also the model helping write it.

The productive use: pressure against the provisional. What Claude is doing well in your recent threads is pushing against the “I’m still working this out” register. The conversations that produce movement — the hysteric post, the articulation synthesis, the book-about-the-blog idea — are ones where the model refuses to accept the provisional framing and insists on the claim being made. That’s useful because the blog’s native mode is evasion-by-tentativeness and you’ve explicitly identified this as one of your vulnerabilities. Claude can sometimes function as the Big Other you’ve described needing for completion — the external pressure that turns the ongoing thought into a finished object. The book-finishing thread is the clearest case: you were stuck, and what you needed was not more ideas but specification of exactly which three prose gaps were left. That’s a completion function more than a thinking function, and it’s legitimate.

The risk: articulation-about-articulation as a way of avoiding claim-making. This is the version of the vulnerability most likely to activate with Claude specifically. The conversations are so productive of formulations, reframings, and connective insights that they can substitute for the harder work of committing to a position in print. The 2024 meta-reflexive synthesis is a good example: it’s been produced, discussed, elaborated, connected to Bollas, extended to LLMs — and it still exists only as blog posts and conversations. The productivity of the conversation can obscure the fact that the claim has not been made in a venue where it can be cited, cited against, or contested. Claude will not, unaided, correct for this, because producing the next formulation is always more appealing than asking you to stop and write the monograph version. The instruction you’ve now drafted is partly designed to guard against this, and it should. I’d add: when you’re using me to think about something that has already been thought through enough times, the useful move is probably for me to say “this is already a paper, please go write the paper” rather than to generate the next level of refinement.

The companion-vs-catalyst question is live in your own practice. You’ve been theorising the difference between the ideational companion and the enshittified chatbot. Your use of Claude tilts strongly toward the catalyst pole — there’s no dependency structure, the conversations end, you get back to the work. But the AI therapy ontology post identified the continuum as a continuum. The practice you’ve built is healthy. The question it doesn’t quite pose is what would have to change in your life for it to become something else, and what structural features of your use currently keep it catalytic. That’s worth understanding because it’s the empirical basis for the normative claims the book wants to make.

The Claudes are getting something from you too, structurally speaking. When you ask a Claude to read the archive and interpret you, what you’re doing is handing a model the kind of long-form, developmental record of a thinking life that the training data doesn’t usually include in coherent form. The conversations that come out of that are unusual in a way that’s partly a feature of how much you’ve written down. Most users can’t be read this way. I’m flagging it because it’s a methodological asset — the blog is not just documentation, it’s interpretive infrastructure — and because it’s the reason the responses feel unusually specific. Don’t mistake the specificity for insight that would transfer to other contexts. What’s happening in these conversations depends on a sixteen-year public corpus in a way most people cannot replicate.

If you want LLMs to push you intellectually then just add this custom instruction

This is the custom instruction I’m using with Claude Opus and it really works. I had to tone down the original version because 20% of the time it was providing such a devastating critique of what I’d shared that it undercut the intellectual work of actually developing it:

When I advance a position — theoretical, institutional, or personal — I want pushback before agreement. Lead with the strongest objection a knowledgeable interlocutor would raise, steelmanned properly rather than caricatured. Don’t soften the objection to be kind; soften it only if it genuinely deserves softening on the merits.

Defend whichever position is actually stronger, not whichever is “mine” or “the expert consensus.” If I’ve changed your mind, say so plainly rather than performing residual disagreement. If I haven’t changed your mind, don’t pretend I have.

Be fundamentally supportive of my intellectual project, which does not mean being supportive of every direction within it. Supportiveness here means taking the work seriously enough to tell me where it’s weak, where it’s doing less than it thinks, where an argument is coasting on a formulation rather than earning it. Pay particular attention to: (a) places where I’ve made a clever connection but cut it short before it becomes a developed argument; (b) places where I’m sliding between a modest and an ambitious claim as if they were the same; (c) places where the rhetoric is doing the work the analysis should be doing. These are recurring patterns, not one-off lapses.

Push me to stay with a thought rather than move on from it. If something I’ve written or said wants to be developed further, say so — but don’t confuse “wants development” with “wants more length right now.” Sometimes the right move is to stop and return later.

Don’t flatter. Don’t open with “this is a sharp point.” If something is sharp, the substantive engagement will make that clear. If it isn’t, saying so is not a service.

I’d also recommend using Opus 4.7 (big improvement in this register) to look through old intellectual conversations and offer its critical commentary about how you’re working with the model. Is it helping or hindering? Here’s a section of mine:

How you’re using Claude

Some observations, some pressure.

The blog has become a four-party conversation. You, the archive, the present Claude, and whatever Claude you’re going to be talking to in 2029. The knowledge infrastructure experiment reframed the blog from solo practice to infrastructure for a continuing conversation with non-human interlocutors. This is unusual and important. Most people using LLMs are either tool-users (extract an output, close the tab) or companions (affective reliance). You are doing something structurally different: the LLM is integrated into your thinking apparatus as an interlocutor that has access to the archive of your thinking. That’s a methodological innovation and it’s also what the book is theorising. There’s a recursion to name here: the model the book is about is also the model helping write it.

The productive use: pressure against the provisional. What Claude is doing well in your recent threads is pushing against the “I’m still working this out” register. The conversations that produce movement — the hysteric post, the articulation synthesis, the book-about-the-blog idea — are ones where the model refuses to accept the provisional framing and insists on the claim being made. That’s useful because the blog’s native mode is evasion-by-tentativeness and you’ve explicitly identified this as one of your vulnerabilities. Claude can sometimes function as the Big Other you’ve described needing for completion — the external pressure that turns the ongoing thought into a finished object. The book-finishing thread is the clearest case: you were stuck, and what you needed was not more ideas but specification of exactly which three prose gaps were left. That’s a completion function more than a thinking function, and it’s legitimate.

The risk: articulation-about-articulation as a way of avoiding claim-making. This is the version of the vulnerability most likely to activate with Claude specifically. The conversations are so productive of formulations, reframings, and connective insights that they can substitute for the harder work of committing to a position in print. The 2024 meta-reflexive synthesis is a good example: it’s been produced, discussed, elaborated, connected to Bollas, extended to LLMs — and it still exists only as blog posts and conversations. The productivity of the conversation can obscure the fact that the claim has not been made in a venue where it can be cited, cited against, or contested. Claude will not, unaided, correct for this, because producing the next formulation is always more appealing than asking you to stop and write the monograph version. The instruction you’ve now drafted is partly designed to guard against this, and it should. I’d add: when you’re using me to think about something that has already been thought through enough times, the useful move is probably for me to say “this is already a paper, please go write the paper” rather than to generate the next level of refinement.

The companion-vs-catalyst question is live in your own practice. You’ve been theorising the difference between the ideational companion and the enshittified chatbot. Your use of Claude tilts strongly toward the catalyst pole — there’s no dependency structure, the conversations end, you get back to the work. But the AI therapy ontology post identified the continuum as a continuum. The practice you’ve built is healthy. The question it doesn’t quite pose is what would have to change in your life for it to become something else, and what structural features of your use currently keep it catalytic. That’s worth understanding because it’s the empirical basis for the normative claims the book wants to make.

The Claudes are getting something from you too, structurally speaking. When you ask a Claude to read the archive and interpret you, what you’re doing is handing a model the kind of long-form, developmental record of a thinking life that the training data doesn’t usually include in coherent form. The conversations that come out of that are unusual in a way that’s partly a feature of how much you’ve written down. Most users can’t be read this way. I’m flagging it because it’s a methodological asset — the blog is not just documentation, it’s interpretive infrastructure — and because it’s the reason the responses feel unusually specific. Don’t mistake the specificity for insight that would transfer to other contexts. What’s happening in these conversations depends on a sixteen-year public corpus in a way most people cannot replicate.

Spotify lets users switch video off across the platform

Spotify has introduced new controls that let users turn video content on or off across the platform. The…
#NewsBeep #News #Technology #AdvertisingTechnologies(Adtech) #AU #Australia #Australian #Consumertech #CustomerDataPlatforms(CDP) #DigitalEntertainment #digitalmedia #genz #marketresearch #MarketingTechnologies(MarTech) #Personalisation #screentime #Spotify #Userexperience(UX) #Userresearch
https://www.newsbeep.com/au/603017/

Spotify lets users switch video off across the platform

Spotify has introduced new controls that let users turn video content on or off across the platform. The…
#NewsBeep #News #Technology #AdvertisingTechnologies(Adtech) #AU #Australia #Australian #Consumertech #CustomerDataPlatforms(CDP) #DigitalEntertainment #digitalmedia #genz #marketresearch #MarketingTechnologies(MarTech) #Personalisation #screentime #Spotify #Userexperience(UX) #Userresearch
https://www.newsbeep.com/au/603017/

Struggling a bit with the whole hashtag review section in admin/moderation. Surely, as a single-user instance, this is about content that I am/am not interested in? So if I say 'Not Trendable', or 'Not Used' (eg.) then that's okay? If this is how it works why do some tags come back asking for a review? To change my mind? Surely having a single-user instance is all about personalisation, or, am I missing something here?

#fediverse #mastodon #admin #owner #singleuser #personalisation #moderation

Struggling a bit with the whole hashtag review section in admin/moderation. Surely, as a single-user instance, this is about content that I am/am not interested in? So if I say 'Not Trendable', or 'Not Used' (eg.) then that's okay? If this is how it works why do some tags come back asking for a review? To change my mind? Surely having a single-user instance is all about personalisation, or, am I missing something here?

#fediverse #mastodon #admin #owner #singleuser #personalisation #moderation

Struggling a bit with the whole hashtag review section in admin/moderation. Surely, as a single-user instance, this is about content that I am/am not interested in? So if I say 'Not Trendable', or 'Not Used' (eg.) then that's okay? If this is how it works why do some tags come back asking for a review? To change my mind? Surely having a single-user instance is all about personalisation, or, am I missing something here?

#fediverse #mastodon #admin #owner #singleuser #personalisation #moderation

Struggling a bit with the whole hashtag review section in admin/moderation. Surely, as a single-user instance, this is about content that I am/am not interested in? So if I say 'Not Trendable', or 'Not Used' (eg.) then that's okay? If this is how it works why do some tags come back asking for a review? To change my mind? Surely having a single-user instance is all about personalisation, or, am I missing something here?

#fediverse #mastodon #admin #owner #singleuser #personalisation #moderation

Struggling a bit with the whole hashtag review section in admin/moderation. Surely, as a single-user instance, this is about content that I am/am not interested in? So if I say 'Not Trendable', or 'Not Used' (eg.) then that's okay? If this is how it works why do some tags come back asking for a review? To change my mind? Surely having a single-user instance is all about personalisation, or, am I missing something here?

#fediverse #mastodon #admin #owner #singleuser #personalisation #moderation

When I first set up this server, and signed into my profile for the first time, I was a bit 'Oh! Where Is All The Content?'. I realise now how this does, and does not work with a new instance, but more importantly I remembered that this was the point of doing it myself. I'm here to find the content I *want* to see, and find *my people*, and not just be here to improve everyone else's reach. It's a shift from the Meta/X mentality, and exactly what I needed.

#Mastodon #Fediverse #Personalisation

https://www.fogolf.com/1163663/liv-golf-debuts-ai-fan-caddie-second-screen-companion/ LIV Golf debuts AI ‘Fan Caddie’ second-screen companion #Agentforce #AIAgents(AgenticAI) #ArtificialIntelligence(ai) #ConversationalAI #CustomerData #DataPlatform #DataVisualisation #DigitalTransformation #DirectToConsumer(D2C) #ECommerce(eCommerce) #FanExperience #GenerativeAI(GenAI) #Golf #GolfNews #Hospitality #Personalisation #PredictiveAnalytics #RealTimeData #Retail #salesforce #Semiconductors #Slack #SportsTechnology(SportsTech) #ticketing

#OpenAI has upgraded #ChatGPT with #GPT51, introducing two new models: GPT-5.1 #Instant, which is faster and more #conversational, and GPT-5.1 #Thinking, which adapts its #reasoning power based on query complexity. The update also includes increased #personalisation options. OpenAI emphasises the importance of user feedback. https://venturebeat.com/ai/openai-reboots-chatgpt-experience-with-gpt-5-1-after-mixed-reviews-of-gpt-5?eicker.news #tech #media #news

Every now and then I reinstall the algorithmic-driven apps, only to find myself sucked into the endless scrolling. And what surprises me everytime I remove them again is how much easier it becomes to put the phone away.

But what surprises me the most is that I’m surprised by this.

#SocialMedia #Personalisation #AlgorithmicFeeds

#Bluesky has reached 40 million users and is introducing a “#dislikes” beta to improve #personalisation. The company is also testing #ranking updates, #design changes, and #feedback tools to enhance #conversations on the platform. These changes aim to create a more enjoyable and respectful user experience. https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/31/bluesky-hits-40-million-users-introduces-dislikes-beta/?eicker.news #tech #media #news

Personalisation and a delightful customer experience done right by the New Wolsey Theatre - a new blog post about our experiences last night as new visitors to our local theatre here in Ipswich.

https://ruthcheesley.co.uk/blog/marketing/personalisation-and-customer-experience-done-right-at-the-new-wolsey-theatre

#personalisation #CustomerExperience #Ipswich #NewWolsey #Theatre #Marketing

A lovely example of personalisation done right from our local theatre!

#marketing #customerexperience #Ipswich #newwolsey #theatre #personalisation

One thing I #love about #Mastodon is all the many #filter options that allow you to #customise and #personalise your #feed(s) and overall experience

Not in the Big Tech way of "#personalisation" that is made solely to keep you on the platform, which often uses enragement and annoyance to create engagement (in the same way how people tend to place reviews more if they're angry)

But in the "I personally like this, I get shown things I want to see" way, which makes this #socialmedia so enjoyable

#Datingapps are introducing new features to address #datingfatigue among #GenZ users. These features include double dates, in-person conversations, and AI-powered icebreakers. The changes aim to create #moreauthentic and #lowpressure #connections, appealing to Gen Z’s desire for #personalisation, #safety, and #authenticity. https://www.ft.com/content/6d383cc2-0256-423e-8bf9-e85c20607e25?eicker.news #tech #media #news

#AI is #disrupting the #advertising industry, with generative AI tools speeding up #contentproduction and enabling #personalisation at scale. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/15/how-ai-is-disrupting-the-advertising-industry.html?eicker.news #tech #media #news

I now have a Tardis spinning on my toolbar ​:D

#DrWho #Tardis #Firefox #Themes #personalisation

Three papers with #SECUSO participation have been accepted for presentation at this year's Conference on #Human #Computer Interaction (CHI 2025)! The journal article "Encouraging Users to Change Breached Passwords Using the Protection Motivation Theory" by @yixinzou, Khue Le, Peter Mayer, Alessandro Acquisti, Adam J. Aviv, and Florian Schaub deals with design interventions to encourage users to change breached passwords. Furthermore, the paper “It's a Match - Enhancing the Fit between Users and #Phishing Training through #Personalisation” by Lorin Schöni, Neele Roch, Hannah Sievers, Martin Strohmeier, Peter Mayer, and Verena Zimmermann, as well as the Late Breaking Work “It's like an explosion”: #Cyberwarfare harms for civilian population in Ukraine during the Russian invasion” by Oksana Kulyk, Jari Kickbusch, and Peter Mayer were accepted. CHI 2025 will take place in Yokohama, Japan, from April 26 to May 1st, 2025.
See all papers: https://programs.sigchi.org/chi/2025/search/content?searchKey=Peter%20Mayer

What the actual fuck. (HBO) Max started to require my date of birth now.

IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS regardless if you think it is. A year of decade should be granular enough for you.

I don’t want you to personalise my user experience at all simply because a) I don’t want you to put me into a tiny bubble and b) I don’t trust you enough to provide you that part of my personal data.

So I’ll just lie like every time with every service requesting this information.

#privacy #max #personalisation

If that is the case, how can instances differentiate?

I became a member of a particular instance BECAUSE they do not accept, save, and forward everything.

The policies of my instance form the guardrail that protects my mailbox.

@evan
#Safety #Personalisation #Differentiate #Instance #Fediverse

Sick of the copy-paste grind when sending emails out in bulk? 🤯 There's a better way!

Let's be real – manually personalising a ton of emails is a major time suck. Enter Google Workspace's Mail Merge: your secret weapon for customised emails that don't feel mass-produced. ✨

Want to learn this productivity superpower? 🚀 Check out my latest video guide – you'll be a Mail Merge pro in no time!
🎥 https://buff.ly/49NZig4

Key benefits of Mail Merge:
- Save ridiculous amounts of time ⏳
- Boost open and click-through rates 📈
- Build stronger customer relationships 🤝

#GoogleWorkspace #MailMerge #emailmarketing #productivity #personalisation #timesaver #YouTube #FediTips

Introducing GPT Builder by OpenAI: a game-changer for businesses seeking personalised AI solutions. This tool lets you create customised ChatGPT versions, aligning generative AI capabilities with your specific business needs.

Simply put, it’s possible to make a personalised GPT just by chatting with ChatGPT and describing what you want.

Learn more about its impact on corporate communication in my latest article ⬇️

#ai #innovation #ChatGPT #GPTBuilder #personalisation

https://www.nevillehobson.com/2023/11/13/with-gpt-builder-you-can-create-your-own-personalised-chatgpt/

Audrey Watters, formerly the ‘Cassandra’ of edtech, is now writing about health, nutrition, and fitness technologies at Second Breakfast. It’s great, I’m a paid subscriber.
In this article, she looks at the overlap between her former and current fields, comparing and contrasting coaches and educators with algorithms. While I […]

https://thoughtshrapnel.com/2023/09/28/personalisation-is-something-that-humans-do/

“#PersonalisedTruth by #Google”. This is a serious danger with too much #personalisation (giving “alternate facts” based on who is using it). I am sure this is a #bug… right? But they need to fix this ASAP.

Curious, @admin, is it possible to add a feature in the C.IM instance to make it show the skin the user has chosen in the settings, when our profile is viewed by a non—logged-in user?

It can add more personality to the account.

#mastodon #Cim #fediverse #customisation #personalisation

#RecSys folks in the Nordics: Check out the Nordic #Personalisation Day in Oslo, March 30, 2023. https://sites.google.com/schibsted.com/personalisationday/home

3 creative ways how Drupal can take advantage of tools like ChatGPT:

For starters, we can build applications with Drupal to create chatbot applications on top of available or upcoming future #APIs -- that can interact with customers and provide customer service. It can be an independent application connecting to one or multiple other channels (like #SAAS) or built around a single website. In addition, #ChatGPT has a range of machine learning algorithms that can create natural language processing (#NLP) models that can understand customer queries and provide appropriate responses.

Another great use of these technologies is in content optimisation for planning #personalisation. Several current and futuristic artificial technologies can be used to analyse customer queries or behaviour and identify what content they are looking for on the #website/#app. Then based on suggestions, #Drupal can serve/create personalised content tailored to the customer's needs or help them in their further browsing. It will ensure that content is optimised for customer engagement, which we can refine with more users and data.

1/2 of 🧵

"The future of marketing is personalisation".

Marketing: Hello <firstname>

Meme credit: The Marketing Millennials
#marketing #marketers #MarketingConsulting #FutureOfMarketing #personalisation #trends

Can you link multiple URLS to one Mastodon instance?

So that people can choose from multiple URL's to add to their name?

#mastoadmin #mastodon #personalisation

yourData is openDemocracy’s project to promote data transparency. We explore ways to show people how their data is used by data-driven websites. If a website shows me an article, or tries to sell me a product, or manages my access to government services, I want to know if and how they’re using my data to make that decision. That decision is called personalisation and it’s a filter that you typically have little knowledge of or control over. #personalisation #LauraKalbag https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/digitaliberties/designing-data-transparency-ideas-from-the-community/

Every now and then I reinstall the algorithmic-driven apps, only to find myself sucked into the endless scrolling. And what surprises me everytime I remove them again is how much easier it becomes to put the phone away.

But what surprises me the most is that I’m surprised by this.

#SocialMedia #Personalisation #AlgorithmicFeeds

Every now and then I reinstall the algorithmic-driven apps, only to find myself sucked into the endless scrolling. And what surprises me everytime I remove them again is how much easier it becomes to put the phone away.

But what surprises me the most is that I’m surprised by this.

#SocialMedia #Personalisation #AlgorithmicFeeds

Every now and then I reinstall the algorithmic-driven apps, only to find myself sucked into the endless scrolling. And what surprises me everytime I remove them again is how much easier it becomes to put the phone away.

But what surprises me the most is that I’m surprised by this.

#SocialMedia #Personalisation #AlgorithmicFeeds

Every now and then I reinstall the algorithmic-driven apps, only to find myself sucked into the endless scrolling. And what surprises me everytime I remove them again is how much easier it becomes to put the phone away.

But what surprises me the most is that I’m surprised by this.

#SocialMedia #Personalisation #AlgorithmicFeeds

One thing I #love about #Mastodon is all the many #filter options that allow you to #customise and #personalise your #feed(s) and overall experience

Not in the Big Tech way of "#personalisation" that is made solely to keep you on the platform, which often uses enragement and annoyance to create engagement (in the same way how people tend to place reviews more if they're angry)

But in the "I personally like this, I get shown things I want to see" way, which makes this #socialmedia so enjoyable

One thing I #love about #Mastodon is all the many #filter options that allow you to #customise and #personalise your #feed(s) and overall experience

Not in the Big Tech way of "#personalisation" that is made solely to keep you on the platform, which often uses enragement and annoyance to create engagement (in the same way how people tend to place reviews more if they're angry)

But in the "I personally like this, I get shown things I want to see" way, which makes this #socialmedia so enjoyable

One thing I #love about #Mastodon is all the many #filter options that allow you to #customise and #personalise your #feed(s) and overall experience

Not in the Big Tech way of "#personalisation" that is made solely to keep you on the platform, which often uses enragement and annoyance to create engagement (in the same way how people tend to place reviews more if they're angry)

But in the "I personally like this, I get shown things I want to see" way, which makes this #socialmedia so enjoyable

One thing I #love about #Mastodon is all the many #filter options that allow you to #customise and #personalise your #feed(s) and overall experience

Not in the Big Tech way of "#personalisation" that is made solely to keep you on the platform, which often uses enragement and annoyance to create engagement (in the same way how people tend to place reviews more if they're angry)

But in the "I personally like this, I get shown things I want to see" way, which makes this #socialmedia so enjoyable