Why AI must try to model creativity

Why AI must try to model creativity
Creativity is a fundamental feature of human intelligence, and an inescapable challenge
for AI. Even technologically oriented AI cannot ignore it, for creative programs could be
very useful in the laboratory or the market-place. And AI-models intended (or considered)
as part of cognitive science can help psychologists to understand how it is possible for
human minds to be creative.
Creativity is not a special “faculty”, nor a psychological property confined to a tiny elite.
Rather, it is a feature of human intelligence in general. It is grounded in everyday capacities
such as the association of ideas, reminding, perception, analogical thinking, searching
a structured problem-space, and reflective self-criticism. It involves not only a cognitive
dimension (the generation of new ideas) but also motivation and emotion, and is closely
linked to cultural context and personality factors [3]. Current AI models of creativity focus
primarily on the cognitive dimension.
A creative idea is one which is novel, surprising, and valuable (interesting, useful,
beautiful. .). But “novel” has two importantly different senses here. The idea may be novel
with respect only to the mind of the individual (or AI-system) concerned or, so far as we
know, to the whole of previous history. The ability to produce novelties of the former kind
may be called P-creativity (P for psychological), the latter H-creativity (H for historical).
P-creativity is the more fundamental notion, of which H-creativity is a special case.
00043702/98/$ -see front matter 0 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
HI: SOOO4-3702(98)00055- 1
348 A4.A. Buden /Artijicial Intelli~enc-e 103 (1998) 347-356
AI should concentrate primarily on P-creativity. If it manages to model this in a powerful
manner, then artificial H-creativity will occur in some cases-indeed, it already has, as we
shall see. (In what follows, I shall not use the letter-prefixes: usually, it is P-creativity which
is at issue.)

  1. Three types of creativity
    There are three main types of creativity, involving different ways of generating the novel
    ideas. Each of the three results in surprises, but only one (the third) can lead to the “shock’
    of surprise that greets an apparently impossible idea [2]. All types include some H-creative
    examples, but the creators celebrated in the history books are more often valued for their
    achievements in respect of the third type of creativity.
    The first type involves novel (improbable) combinations of familiar ideas. Let us
    call this “combinational” creativity. Examples include much poetic imagery, and also
    analogy-wherein the two newly associated ideas share some inherent conceptual
    structure. Analogies are sometimes explored and developed at some length, for purposes
    of rhetoric or problem-solving. But even the mere generation, or appreciation, of an apt
    analogy involves a (not necessarily conscious) judicious structural mapping, whereby the
    similarities of structure are not only noticed but are judged in terms of their strength and
    The second and third types are closely linked, and more similar to each other than
    either is to the first. They are “exploratory” and “transformational” creativity. The former
    involves the generation of novel ideas by the exploration of structured conceptual spaces.
    This often results in structures (“ideas”) that are not only novel, but unexpected. One can
    immediately see, however, that they satisfy the canons of the thinking-style concerned.
    The latter involves the transformation of some (one or more) dimension of the space,
    so that new structures can be generated which could not have arisen before. The more
    fundamental the dimension concerned, and the more powerful the transformation, the more
    surprising the new ideas will be. These two forms of creativity shade into one another, since
    exploration of the space can include minimal “tweaking” of fairly superficial constraints.
    The distinction between a tweak and a transform is to some extent a matter of judgement,
    but the more well-defined the space, the clearer this distinction can be.
    Many human beings-including (for example) most professional scientists, artists,
    and jazz-musicians-make a justly respected living out of exploratory creativity. That
    is, they inherit an accepted style of thinking from their culture, and then search it,
    and perhaps superficially tweak it, to explore its contents, boundaries, and potential.
    But human beings sometimes transform the accepted conceptual space, by altering or
    removing one (or more) of its dimensions, or by adding a new one. Such transformation
    enables ideas to be generated which (relative to that conceptual space) were previously
    The more fundamental the transformation, and/or the more fundamental the dimension
    that is transformed, the more different the newly-possible structures will be. The shock
    of amazement that attends such (previously impossible) ideas is much greater than the
    surprise occasioned by mere improbabilities, however unexpected they may be. If the
    M.A. &den /Artificial Intelligence 103 (1998) 347-356 349
    transformations are too extreme, the relation between the old and new spaces will not
    be immediately apparent. In such cases, the new structures will be unintelligible, and very
    likely rejected. Indeed, it may take some time for the relation between the two spaces to be
    recognized and generally accepted.
  2. Computer models of creativity
    Computer models of creativity include examples of all three types. As yet, those
    focussed on the second (exploratory) type are the most successful. That’s not to say
    that exploratory creativity is easy to reproduce. On the contrary, it typically requires
    considerable domain-expertise and analytic power to define the conceptual space in the first
    place, and to specify procedures that enable its potential to be explored. But combinational
    and transformational creativity are even more elusive.
    The reasons for this, in brief, are the difficulty of approaching the richness of human
    associative memory, and the difficulty of identifying our values and of expressing them in
    computational form. The former difficulty bedevils attempts to simulate combinational
    creativity. The latter difficulty attends efforts directed at any type of creativity, but is
    especially problematic with respect to the third (see Section 4, below).
    Combinational creativity is studied in AI by research on (for instance) jokes and analogy.
    Both of these require some sort of semantic network, or inter-linked knowledge-base, as
    their ground. Clearly, pulling random associations out of such a source is simple. But an
    association may not be telling, or appropriate in context. For all combinational tasks other
    than “free association”, the nature and structure of the associative linkage is important too.
    Ideally, every product of the combinational program should be at least minimally apt, and
    the originality of the various combinations should be assessable by the AI-system.
    A recent, and relatively successful, example of AI-generated (combinational) humour is
    Jape, a program for producing punning riddles [I]. Jape produces jokes based on nine
    general sentence-forms, such as: What do you get when you cross X with Y?; What
    kind of X has Y?; What kind of X can Y?; What’s the difference between an X and
    a Y? The semantic network used by the program incorporates knowledge of phonology,
    semantics, syntax, and spelling. Different combinations of these aspects of words are used.
    in distinctly structured ways, for generating each joke-type.
    Examples of riddles generated by Jape include: (Q) What kind of murderer has fibre?
    (A) A cereal killer; (Q) What do you call a strange market? (A) A bizarre bazaar; (Q) What
    do you call a depressed train? (A) A low-comotive; and (Q) What’s the difference between
    leaves and a car? (A) One you brush and rake, the other you rush and brake. These may
    not send us into paroxysms of laughter-although, in a relaxed social setting, one or two
    of them might. But they are all amusing enough to prompt wryly appreciative groans.
    Binsted did a systematic series of psychological tests, comparing people’s reception
    of Jape’s riddles with their response to human-originated jokes published in joke-books.
    She also compared Jape’s products with “non-jokes” generated by random combinations.
    She found, for instance, that children, by whom such humour is most appreciated, can
    distinguish reliably between jokes (including Jape’s riddles) and non-jokes. Although they
    generally find human-originated jokes funnier than Jape’s, this difference vanishes if Jape’s
    350 M.A. Boden /Art$cial Intelligence 103 (1998) 347-356
    output is pruned, SO as to omit the items generated by the least successful schemata. The
    riddles published in human joke-books are highly selected, for only those the author finds
    reasonably funny will appear in print.
    Binsted had set herself a challenging task: to ensure that every one of Jape’s jokes
    would be amusing. Her follow-up research showed that although none were regarded as
    exceptionally funny, very few produced no response at all. This contrasts with some other
    Al-models of creativity, such as AM [ 161, where a high proportion of the newly generated
    structures are not thought interesting by human beings.
    It does not follow that all Al-modelling of creativity should emulate Binsted’s ambition.
    This is especially true if the system is meant to be used interactively by human beings,
    to help their own creativity by prompting them to think about ideas that otherwise they
    might not have considered. Some “unsuccessful” products should in any case be allowed,
    as even human creators often produce second-rate, or even inappropriate, ideas. Jape’s
    success is due to the fact that its joke-templates and generative schemata are very limited.
    Binsted identifies a number of aspects of real-life riddles which are not parallelled in Jape,
    and whose (reliably funny) implementation is not possible in the foreseeable future. To
    incorporate these aspects so as to produce jokes that are reliably funny would raise thorny
    questions of evaluation (see Section 4).
    As for AI-models of analogy, most of these generate and evaluate analogies by using
    domain-genera1 mapping rules, applied to prestructured concepts (e.g. [7,12,13]). The
    creators of some of these models have compared them with the results of psychological
    experiments, claiming a significant amount of evidence in support of their domain-general
    approach [8]. In these models, there is a clear distinction between the representation of
    a concept and its mapping onto some other concept. The two concepts involved usually
    remain unchanged by the analogy.
    Some AI-models of analogy allow for a more flexible representation of concepts.
    One example is the Copycat program, a broadly connectionist system that looks for
    analogies between alphabetic letter-strings [ 11,181. Copycat’s concepts are contextsensitive descriptions of strings such as “mmpprr” and “klmmno”. The two m’s in the
    first string just listed will be described by Copycat as a pair, but those in the second string
    will be described as the end-points of two different triplets.
    One might rather say that Copycat will “eventually” describe them in these ways. For
    its concepts evolve as processing proceeds. This research is guided by the theoretical
    assumption that seeing a new analogy is much the same as perceiving something in a new
    way. So Copycat does not rely on ready-made, fixed, representations, but constructs its own
    in a context-sensitive way: new analogies and new perceptions develop together. A partbuilt description that seems to be mapping well onto the nascent analogy is maintained,
    and developed further. One that seems to be heading for a dead end is abandoned, and
    an alternative begun which exploits different aspects. The model allows a wide range
    of (more or less daring) analogies to be generated, and evaluated. The degree to which
    the analogies are obvious or far-fetched can be altered by means of one of the systemparameters.
    Whether the approach used in Copycat is preferable to the more usual forms of (domaingeneral) mapping is controversial. Hofstadter [ 1 l] criticizes other AI-models of analogy
    for assuming that concepts are unchanging and inflexible, and for guaranteeing that the
    M.A. Boden /Artificial Intelligence 103 (1998) 347-356 351
    required analogy (among others) will be found by focussing on small representations
    having the requisite conceptual structures and mapping rules built in. The opposing camp
    rebut these charges [8].
    They argue that to identify analogical thinking with high-level perception, as Hofstadter
    does, is to use a vague and misleading metaphor: analogical mapping, they insist, is
    a domain-general process which must be analytically distinguished from conceptual
    representation. They point out that the most detailed published account of Copycat
    [ 181 provides just such an analysis, describing the representation-building procedures as
    distinct from, though interacting with, the representation-comparing modules. They report
    that the Structure Mapping Engine (SME), for instance, can be successfully used on
    representations that are “very large” as compared with Copycat’s, some of which were
    built by other systems for independent purposes. They compare Copycat’s alphabetic
    microworld with the “blocks world” of 1970s scene analysis, which ignored most of
    the interesting complexity (and noise) in the real-world. Although their early models
    did not allow for changes in conceptual structure as a result of analogising, they refer
    to work on learning (using SME) involving processes of schema abstraction, inference
    projection, and re-representation [9]. Moreover (as remarked above), they claim that their
    psychological experiments support their approach to simulation. For example, they say
    there is evidence that memory access, in which one is reminded of an (absent) analog,
    depends on psychological processes, and kinds of similarity, significantly different from
    those involved in mapping between two analogs that are presented simultaneously.
    The jury remains out on this dispute. However, it may not be necessary to plump
    absolutely for either side. My hunch is that the Copycat approach is much closer
    to the fluid complexity of human thinking. But domain-general principles of analogy
    are probably important. And these are presumably enriched by many domain-specific
    processes. (Certainly, psychological studies of how human beings retrieve and interpret
    analogies are likely to be helpful.) In short, even combinational creativity is, or can be, a
    highly complex matter.
    The exploratory and transformational types of creativity can also be modelled by
    AI-systems. For conceptual spaces, and ways of exploring and modifying them, can be
    described by computational concepts.
    Occasionally. a “creative” program is said to apply to a wide range of domains, or
    conceptual spaces-as EURISKO. for instance, does [16]. But to make this generalist
    program useful in a particular area, such as genetic engineering or VLSI-design,
    considerable specialist knowledge has to be provided if it is not to generate hosts of
    nonsensical (as opposed to merely boring) ideas. In general, providing a program with
    a representation of an interesting conceptual space, and with appropriate exploratory
    processes, requires considerable domain-expertise on the part of the programmer-or
    at least on the part of someone with whom he cooperates. (Unfortunately, the highly
    subject-bounded institutional structure of most universities works against this sort of

E-Waste and the Importance of Electronics Recycling

E-Waste and the Importance of Electronics Recycling
With new cheap devices, society has reaped tremendous benefits. This explosive growth in the electronics industry, however, has led to a rapidly escalating issue of end-of-life (EOL) electronics or e-waste.
In landfills or primitive recycling operations, toxic materials can be released from old electronic devices into the environment.

E-waste is growing, and with that surge comes the need for effective electronics recycling programs. According to a January 2019 report from the World Economic Forum, E-waste is now the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with an estimated waste stream of 48.5 million tonnes in 2018.

People still seek information on TV recycling, computer recycling, and other programs that will help them responsibly get rid of unwanted equipment ​while minimizing any risk of data or identity theft.

The safe recycling of electronics is receiving increased attention from policymakers, industry, and consumers alike. This trend is good news because many consumers are still not sure how to safely dispose of old computers, smartphones or other electronic devices. According to one report, nearly 75 percent of old electronics continues to be stored in households because of the unavailability of convenient recycling options.

This article looks at some of the basic questions, such as defining e-waste, exploring why it is important, how consumers can recycle, state legislation, and the issue of the international shipment of hazardous e-waste.

What Is E-Waste
These EOL electronic devices, also known as e-waste and e-scrap, includes such items as dated computer equipment, stereos, televisions, and mobile phones. Such things can often be refurbished or recycled, yet a significant amount still finds its way to the landfill. Soberingly, only 20% of global e-waste is formally recycled the remaining 80% often incinerated or dumped in landfills. “Many thousands of tonnes also find their way around the world to be pulled apart by hand or burned by the world’s poorest workers,” the World Economic Forum notes. “This crude form of urban mining has consequences for people’s wellbeing and creates untold pollution.” In the U.S., the recycling rate is closer to 25%, with much of the e-waste being shipped offshore.

Why Is Electronics Recycling Important?
Rich Source of Raw Materials Internationally, only 10-15 percent of the gold in e-waste is successfully recovered while the rest is lost. Ironically, electronic waste contains deposits of precious metal estimated to be between 40 and 50 times richer than ores mined from the earth, according to the United Nations.
Solid Waste Management Because the explosion of growth in the electronics industry, combined with short product life cycle has led to a rapid escalation in the generation of solid waste.
Toxic Materials Because old electronic devices contain toxic substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium, proper processing is essential to ensure that these materials are not released into the environment. They may also contain other heavy metals and potentially toxic chemical flame retardants.
International Movement of Hazardous Waste The uncontrolled movement of e-waste to countries where cheap labor and primitive approaches to recycling have resulted in health risks to residents exposed to the release of toxins continues to an issue of concern.
How Can Consumers Recycle Their Old Electronics Devices?
Consumers have access to recycling opportunities, depending on where they live. Thinking regarding the electronics recycling hierarchy, the best choice is to donate computer equipment that can be refurbished or reused as is, provided that personal information is scrubbed from devices. Other recycling opportunities include authorized electronics recycler locations, electronics recycling events, or retailer take back programs such as those offered by Staples, Office Depot or BestBuy. Additionally, other programs are available to help consumers with the recycling of cell phones and batteries, such as through Call2Recycle.

Are You Allowed to Throw E-Waste in the Trash?
Whether or not you are allowed to throw EOL electronic devices into the trash, may depend on equipment and location. Refer to specific state legislation, but please recycle. Note that some communities or cities will have policies that ban e-waste even if there is no such ban at the state level. Be sure to enlist the use of recyclers who are certified through either of the voluntary certification programs that have been established to ensure responsible recycling, including R2/RIOS and e-stewards.

E-Waste Recycling Legislation
In the United States, 26 states have mandated electronics recycling. Almost all of these policies require manufacturer responsibility to fund the recycling effort. California, by contrast, utilizes an advanced recycling fee (ARF) paid by consumers to support the recycling of old televisions, computer monitors, and DVD players. There is no federal law on electronics recycling.


How Female Orgasm Enhancement Can Improve Your Health

All you women out there must know that female orgasm enhancement can carry with it a excellent number of health advantages. Sexual dysfunction is one of the most prevalent medical issues that women face. Keep reading this article to discover the way to enhance your health and well-being by means of female orgasm enhancements.

Female Sexual Dysfunction Might be Caused By Other Ailments:
Problems like these can come from very a couple of different kinds of sources. Neurological diseases and difficulties can quickly result in some forms of sexual dysfunction for women. Medical ailments like abnormal hormone levels, menopause, diabetes, kidney disease, and liver disease can lots of times lead to unwanted sexual dysfunction. Mental complications like anxiety, distinctive anxiety levels, depression, and dealing with a traumatic sexual scenario can lead to sexual dysfunction, and can cause problems when females want to get close to an additional person. Fortunately, with the assist of female orgasm enhancement, you are able to get over your sexual dysfunction and even make your health a lot more optimized.

Capitalizing On The Health Related Benefits of Female Orgasm Enhancement:
Like we said before, orgasm enhancement is a wonderful way to make your health much much better. You are able to get numerous health benefits from these hormones. When a woman’s brain releases endorphins it really has a quite comparable effect on the body as the medicine morphine. It puts many physiological and psychological actions into effect since the mixture results in a healthy and completely natural “high”. Here is really a breakdown of what exactly happens after a woman has an orgasm:

* A woman’s blood pressure goes down subtly and naturally throughout the time they receive these endorphins.
* Those that suffer from issues with pain caused by medical conditions, injuries, and other physical issues can experience some relief from the discomfort practically instantly.https://www.พรฮับ.com/
* For those that suffer from immune problems, or constantly battle with sicknesses, they usually uncover their immunity to be strengthened after a time. Since of this, health is improved organically in a variety of techniques.

Lots of women need to deal with the anxiety and tension of a difficult day’s work, along with whatever is happening to them otherwise. Those who use female orgasm enhancements and experience a regular release of endorphins typically discover that not only do they feel better all around, but their tension levels are also drastically reduced at the exact same time.

To conclude, people realize that there is a lot a lot more to female orgasm enhancement than just feeling wonderful. With the assist of an orgasm, you may really pleasurably solve quite a few health problems. Female orgasm enhancement is really a prime choice for you if you locate that you suffer from anxiety, stress, feelings of depression or even frequent illnesses since it improves your mentality although giving you a fantastic immune system boost thanks to those lovely things known as endorphins.

Article Source:


Why Customers Love the Brands That Live Their Values

Why Customers Love the Brands That Live Their Values
Long ago, when times were simpler and customers less sophisticated, businesses could sell their products by advertising their products.

Then, as commerce became globalised and the market became more crowded, it was no longer enough to advertise their products; they had to sell a lifestyle. Nowadays, it’s not only the lifestyle that consumers buy into – it’s a whole mindset. The new generation of consumers wants to know what a brand’s values are.

On social media, there is no escape from brands shouting about their stance on the latest social issue. There’s Dove promoting body positivity, and Nike placing the NFL legend Colin Kaepernick, who took the knee before a game as a protest over police brutality, at the front of its campaign. There’s McDonald’s and its rainbow fries container during Gay Pride week, Procter & Gamble’s #WeSeeEqual anti-gender -stereotyping campaign. The list goes on.

The socially conscious generation
The reason that brands are desperate to show where they stand is that they have no choice. They know that consumers today simply won’t buy from a brand that doesn’t reflect their values.

According to a 2018 report by Edelman, two-thirds of consumers expect brands to make clear their values and their position on important social issues. It also found that half of the people surveyed would either choose, avoid or switch to brands based on their stance on social issues. And 65% of respondents said they wouldn’t buy from companies that have remained quiet on issues when they believe they should have spoken up.

Another 2018 survey by DoSomething found that 67% of respondents would stop purchasing if a brand stood for something that didn’t align with their values. And if you do align with their values, you’re onto a winner. The controversial Nike ad featuring Colin Kaepernick attracted record brand engagement, and $6bn was added to the company’s value in the period after it aired. Nike took a risk, and it paid off.

Avoiding the backlash of market
So the benefits of “purpose marketing” are indisputable. If you want to build loyalty with consumers – of the Millenial and Gen Z age-group in particular – then you need to be on the same page when it comes to social values. However, when brands try to appear ‘woke’, then it’s all too easy to appear inauthentic, hypocritical, or just try-too-hard. And if you don’t get it quite right, the price can be painfully high.

Peloton is one brand that discovered just how high this price can be. Having emblazoned its support for Black Lives Matter across social media, it later had to apologize for the lack of diversity among its own senior staff. And the tone-deaf ad in which Kendal Jenner (who’s definitely white) hands out cans of Pepsi to police to bring peace to a Black Lives Matter protest, drew a backlash that will linger longer in the memory.

The young generation of social-media-savvy consumers is willing and extremely able, to call out and ridicule a brand they consider to be piggy-backing on social issues, culturally ignorant or just plain hypocritical.

The key to navigating this moral minefield and avoiding the fate of Pepsi and Peloton is authenticity. It is not enough for a company to talk about their values, or simply to state that they stand for something.

If you are paying lip service to an issue without meaningful action, or ‘woke-washing’, then you will be noticed – and not in a good way. To be taken seriously, a brand has to actually live the values they purport to care about. And to do so means investing heavily, both in time and resources.

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem
The best way to be authentic is to get your own house in order before you do anything else. If you want people to know that you care about gender equality, for instance, then take a good look at your recruitment process, the diversity in your boardroom, how much you pay employees of every gender, and examine every part of your external and internal operations.

If gender equality is not clear at the core of everything you do, then invest in structural change. If you don’t, then you are part of the very problem that you profess to stand against.

Do not remain silent
There are the brands that have missed the mark when it comes to taking a social stance and then there are those that haven’t even tried. Staying silent on a big issue is not a good look.

Uber discovered this the hard way when it continued to pick up fares during a taxi strike in protest at Donald Trump’s banning of nationals from seven countries. The #DeleteUber hashtag was not the publicity its marketing department would have wanted.

Own your mistakes and show how you are rectifying them
If things could be better in your organisation – more gender-equal, for example, or more ethnically diverse – then admit it. Be transparent about your failings and show what you are doing to address them.

Starbucks gave a lesson on how to do this. In an incident in 2018, staff called the police on two innocent black men at one of its US cafés and got them wrongfully arrested. Starbucks responded quickly by closing down all of its shops and giving its staff special training. The company also communicated its position sincerely, admitting that it was ‘still learning’.

There is no short-cut
It is not enough to produce a one-off campaign, make a big donation or issue a public statement. Brands who are authentic need to be ‘issue fluent’.

Do the hard work – make sure you really understand the topic and all of its nuances, then build your communications, clearly and consistently over time. If your communications come across as culturally ignorant or tone-deaf could well be worse than not getting involved at all. Just ask Pepsi and Kendal.

Be both brand and advocate
To be successful in purpose marketing, businesses need to go beyond branding and into the realms of advocacy. That means not making gestures or resorting to tokenism, or just throwing money at the issue. It means taking a stance early, taking it consistently, and carrying those values right into the heart of your company culture.


Term Called ‘Expensive Keywords’

After 3 weeks of website hosting, I have familiarised myself with some of the technical terms used by webmasters world wide. Some of the terms are:

  1. SEO (search engine optimisation)
  2. Outbound inbound links, backlinks
  3. Website submission, blogroll, social booking marking, link scheme
  4. Direct/Referal/SearchEngine traffic, paid traffic
  5. PPC (pay per click), PPP (pay per post)
  6. Referals, Affiliate programs
  7. Blackhat whitehat SEO
  8. eCPM (click per miles), CTR (click through rate)
  9. meta tags including content, title, desciption, keywords

Not a complete list of what SEO is all about, but anyway, just a few days ago, I stumbled upon this term called ‘expensive keywords’. Boy was I confused. How can keywords be expensive? Keywords are words that you randomly put in your keyword meta tag which will describe your website/blog, so for example if I choose ‘peritoneal mesothelioma treatment’, then that means I am trying to tell others that my website/blog is about mesothelioma treatment. So how can random words that you choose out of the blue be expensive?

It was after some research when I realise why keywords can be expensive. In the world of SEO, advertisers whose advertisement can be found in Google Ads bid prices for these words. These keywords describe their website. But since there are others who are also trying to advertise their website with the same keywords, these advertisers will have to bid a higher price for them. So when somebody’s website content is about ‘google affiliate’, ‘domains yahoo’ or ‘peritoneal mesothelioma treatment’, then the websites of those advertiser with the highest bid for the mentioned keywords will be shown first thing in the Google Ads list.

Article Source:


Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!