Articles about what actually works in search, advertising and software — including the parts of this industry that are guesswork sold as fact.
Short answer
Insights is the writing section of asifali.in, covering SEO, AI search, Google and
Meta advertising, lead generation, web and software development. Every article
carries a named author and review date, states its sources, and says plainly when
a figure is not publicly verifiable rather than inventing one.
No invented statistics Named author and review date Sources stated
This is the single most common technical misunderstanding in AI search right now,
and acting on it incorrectly can remove a business from Google Search altogether.
Almost every argument about generative engine optimisation comes from conflating
two completely different things: what a model learned when it was built, and
what it fetches when it answers.
Almost every underperforming account I open has the same three problems. None of
them are exotic, all of them are visible within an hour, and fixing them usually
matters more than any bid strategy.
Businesses complain about Meta lead quality more than any other channel. A large
share of the time the leads were fine and the process around them was not.
Halving your cost per lead while losing half your leads to slow follow-up leaves
you exactly where you started — and the second half is far cheaper to fix.
Google indexes and scores the mobile version of your site. Desktop figures flatter
almost every site, which is why so many businesses believe their speed is fine.
Off-the-shelf software spreads its development cost across thousands of customers.
Any argument for building has to beat that, and frequently it does not.
These articles are written to be checked rather than skimmed. If something here is
wrong, out of date, or missing a source, I would genuinely rather know.