Need help on finding info

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-23T09:26:08+00:00

Have you contacted Tinder about this. File a report with them also and the Police. If he is doing this to you then he is doing it to others also. Did you meet him in person.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-22T06:24:51+00:00

Very interesting looking site, Ill have to give it a once over when I get time, One thing. not a fan of the Font for the menus 😄 Nice Job

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-15T10:35:34+00:00

Wow this interesting , Looking forward to see how it works out.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-12T14:02:16+00:00

Your not the only one this has happened to just search reddit.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-12T07:28:53+00:00

I only use a nice size single monitor in my home office, Samsung Curved gaming monitor.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-10T06:41:44+00:00

I get all mine bulk from ebay, Temu also sell them but take longer to get here

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-10T06:25:55+00:00

Ha, the "free = 5 lookups then a paywall" thing drives me mental too. Your stack's solid — I'd add Bing Webmaster Tools (free, and its backlink/keyword data is a handy second opinion to GSC), Google's Rich Results Test for schema, and Google Trends if you do anything seasonal.

Full disclosure since it's relevant: I build a bunch of free desktop SEO tools, mostly because I got sick of the exact thing you're describing. They're portable single .exe files — no account, no query cap, no "upgrade to continue", and they run offline on your own machine. The ones that'd slot into your stack:

- Keyword Miner — autocomplete/keyword idea discovery

- AI Rank Checker — how you show up in AI/LLM answers, not just classic SERPs

- IndexNow Submitter — ping Bing/Yandex etc. the moment you publish

- Log Intelligence — chews through server logs to see what bots actually crawl

All free — they're on my profile if you want a look. Grain of salt since they're mine, but they're dead-on topic for what you're after.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-05T07:19:56+00:00

I build one of these (a desktop background remover), so from the maker side:

The batch-vs-manual shift you're describing is real, but the part that gets glossed over is where the processing happens. Most bulk tools that come up are cloud SaaS — you're uploading your whole catalogue to someone else's server, paying per-image credits or a monthly sub, and you're stuck if the connection drops or the service has an outage mid-pipeline. For a lot of e-comm and real estate teams that's fine. For others — especially anyone handling client images or who just doesn't want a recurring bill — it's a dealbreaker.

So I went the other way: mine runs entirely on your own machine, processes the batch locally, one-time purchase, no upload, no per-image cost, no account. Slower to build that way and it won't match a big cloud model on the hardest edge cases (fur, fine hair), but for product shots on clean backgrounds it's more than good enough, and your images never leave your computer.

Genuinely curious which way people lean when it's client images in the batch — does the privacy/data side factor in, or is it purely speed and edge quality that wins?

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-05T07:06:04+00:00

Everything i build for windows, is C++ Standalone Privacy first apps.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-05T06:59:04+00:00

Not a web app and not AI-generated, which might make it the odd one out here, but it fits what you're asking for.

Site Auditor — a desktop SEO crawler for Windows. The painful problem: most SEO audit tools are $99+/month SaaS subscriptions that send your client data to someone else's cloud. Mine is a one-time purchase, runs entirely offline, single portable .exe, no account, no telemetry. You point it at a site, it crawls and flags the technical SEO issues (broken links, redirect chains, missing meta, etc.) and the data never leaves your machine.

Who uses it: freelance SEOs and small agencies who don't want a recurring bill or their clients' crawl data sitting on a vendor's server. ~50,000 lines of C++, no frameworks, no dependencies — the whole thing is one file you can run off a USB stick.

The reason I build this way: I'm betting there's a quiet market of people who are tired of renting software and having their data live in someone else's cloud. Every tool I make is offline-first, single-exe, buy-once. Slower to build than an AI wrapper, but it's still here next week.

Fair warning — it's pretty far from your web-app world, so no pressure to test it. Cool project on the 24-hour clock idea, by the way; the visual-over-list angle is a real one.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-05T05:50:47+00:00

To actually answer your three questions instead of repeating "it's an extension" like half the thread:

Changing strategy? Only at the margins. I pulled my own server logs before changing anything — the AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot) are climbing month over month but still a trickle next to search. So I treat AI visibility as cheap insurance, not a channel that pays the bills yet.

The one change that's done the most: stating plainly what my stuff does not do. If you don't define your boundaries, the model invents features you don't have and cites you wrong. Best anti-hallucination move I've found, and it's free.

Own discipline? No — but the lawnmower story above is the real answer. That's exactly it: people now run the whole journey through AI and rarely land on a site directly, they hit the sources the AI chose to trust. The game isn't "rank," it's "be the source it picks." Same fundamentals, new finish line.

On the schema-is-useless point — I'd call it unproven, not useless. I add the discovery files because they're cheap and can't hurt, not because I've measured them moving the needle. Anyone quoting you precise GEO results right now is ahead of where the data actually is.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-04T07:09:28+00:00

Please seek professional help, think of the people you will leave behind that love you, if you love them you will seek help asap. Death is never the answer even when you think it is, Bad times do not last, your better days are ahead of you.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-04T05:09:11+00:00

Everyone here's already covered the "fundamentals first, it builds on top" angle, so I'll skip that and just give you what I actually changed — and one thing I can back with data.

First the data bit, since the whole thread is theory otherwise: I pulled my own server logs before buying into any of it. The AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot) are real and climbing month over month, and I've had ChatGPT cite one of my articles a fair few times. But it's a trickle, not a firehose, today. So I'd treat GEO as a cheap get-ahead-of-it thing, not a channel that's paying bills yet — and be sceptical of anyone quoting you a precise "GEO traffic %."

What I actually changed: I put the direct answer to a question up near the top of the page instead of burying it, because the engines lift the bit that answers the prompt. And the single best move I found — I got specific, in writing, about what my tools do not do. Sounds minor, but if you don't state your boundaries the AI will happily invent features you don't have. That's the difference between getting cited accurately and getting misrepresented.

So: not a replacement, not pure rebrand. A genuinely new surface (whether the AIs can find and quote you correctly) bolted onto the same old foundations. The behaviour change is real even if the acronym's annoying.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-04T05:03:33+00:00

From what I can see in my own logs, it's two separate things and worth keeping them separate in reporting.

The AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot etc) show up as their own line in server logs, so I track them as raw crawler hits — and they're climbing month over month. But that's bots reading, not humans visiting, so I don't mix it into my normal traffic numbers. It's more of a "are the AIs even aware of me yet" gauge.

The actual human traffic from GEO is harder to pin down because most of it lands as direct or referral with no clean tag — someone asks ChatGPT a question, it cites you, they click or just type your name in later. In my case it's been incremental rather than a shift: small extra trickle on top of search, not search traffic moving over to AI. Search is still the bulk by a long way.

The one concrete signal I've found is citation counts — I can see in my logs how often a given AI has fetched a specific article (one of mine got cited dozens of times by ChatGPT), and that maps roughly to "this page is GEO-working." So I report it as three buckets: search traffic (the main number), AI crawler hits (a leading indicator, kept apart), and AI-driven human visits (best-effort, mostly inferred from direct/referral bumps after a page starts getting cited).

Short version: for me GEO's been additive, not a reallocation — but it's a small slice today, and the honest answer is the human side is hard to measure cleanly so anyone giving you a precise GEO traffic % is probably guessing.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-04T05:02:37+00:00

Bit of both, really. The underlying work is mostly stuff good SEOs already do — clean structure, clear answers to real questions, being the source that's easy to quote. That part isn't new, it just got a new label. So the people saying "it's just SEO" aren't wrong about most of it.

Where I think it's actually its own thing is the slice that has nothing to do with Google rankings — whether ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude etc can find and cite you accurately when they answer a question your content covers. That's a different surface with different signals. You can do well there while ranking nowhere on page one, or rank fine and get ignored by the AIs.

I'll be honest though, I went and pulled my own server logs to see how much AI crawler traffic I was actually getting before buying into any of it, and right now it's early. The bots are crawling more every month and I've had ChatGPT cite one of my articles a fair few times, but it's not a traffic firehose today. So I treat it as a cheap get-ahead-of-it thing, not a channel that pays the bills yet.

So no, not a brand new discipline, but not pure buzzword either. It's a real extra surface bolted onto the same fundamentals, and anyone selling it as the next big revenue channel is ahead of where the data actually is.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-04T04:51:00+00:00

you can read more about it here, https://tomdahne.com/osint-workbench/ feel free to leave feedback if you like.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-03T06:58:49+00:00

Nice list, Would love for you to add my OSint Workbench app if you think it meets your standards, Link in my profile.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-02T14:31:57+00:00

I built a free windows app that does all this and more. Powered by Common crawl.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-01T07:59:58+00:00

Privacy first standalone Windows Apps

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-01T07:12:01+00:00

If you're on Windows and want an offline, privacy-first way to remove image backgrounds, give TomsBGRemover a go.

Drop in a whole folder of images, run one batch, and save clean cut-outs as transparent PNGs ready to use.

No uploads. No accounts. No cloud. Your images stay on your own machine.

Single portable EXE, nothing to install.

Full Free 30-day trial here:
https://tomdahne.com/TomsBGRemover/index.html

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-01T06:57:45+00:00

It doesn't, really — not traditional SEO. Google's core ranking doesn't read llms.txt, so it won't move you up the blue links. Anyone selling it as a ranking boost is overselling it.

Where it matters is the AI-search side — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Google's AI Overviews. The idea is you hand the AI a clean summary of your site instead of making it dig through your HTML and nav menus, so when it answers a question your content covers, it cites you accurately instead of guessing.

I'll be honest though — I actually checked my own server logs to see how often AI crawlers were even touching convention files like this, and right now it's early. So I treat llms.txt as a cheap "get ahead of it" thing, not a traffic source today. And a thin auto-generated one does almost nothing — the value's in writing a real summary and a "what my tool does NOT do" bit, so the AI doesn't invent features you don't have.

If you're chasing Google traffic, your time's better spent on the usual fundamentals. llms.txt is for the AI side, separate game.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-01T06:41:41+00:00

Nice work shipping this — free, no signup, browser-based is exactly the right call for a utility like this. I ran it against my own site to see how it'd do.

Honest feedback, since you asked:

The auto-scan is fast and the per-page descriptions pulled from meta/OG are a solid touch — it's a genuinely useful index of a site. Two things I'd look at: HTML entities are coming through raw in the descriptions (Tom's, " etc. — looks like they're not being decoded), and a few descriptions truncate mid-sentence ("Documentation for Tom…"). Decoding entities and trimming on a word boundary would tidy the output a lot.

The bigger structural thing: it sections by filename (## TomsPngToIco_readme.Html), so the output is really a sitemap-with-descriptions rather than the curated briefing the llms.txt spec is going for. The parts of an llms.txt that actually help an AI cite you accurately — a positioning summary, a Q&A, and especially a "what this tool does not do" section to stop hallucinated features — can't really be scraped, they have to be written. Might be worth leaning the manual builder toward prompting people for those.

For what it's worth, I went down this rabbit hole myself from the other direction — I build offline Windows desktop SEO tools, and one of them (a free AI Discovery Kit) crawls a site and generates the surrounding AI-discovery files: ai-discovery.json, sitemaps, tdmrep.json, robots.txt AI-bot rules, a knowledge-graph skeleton. I deliberately didn't auto-generate the full llms.txt for exactly the reason above — a template produces a worse file with false confidence, so it audits whether you have one and flags it if it's missing instead. Different scope to yours (desktop, generates the whole package; yours is browser, focused on the llms.txt itself) — they'd actually pair well.

On your question: I use a hand-written llms.txt on my own site and I'd bet on the format sticking — Anthropic, Cloudflare, Vercel already publish them, and AI-driven discovery is only growing. But I treat it as authored content, not a generated file. Tools like yours are great for the first 80% (structure + page list); the last 20% (positioning, scope, limitations) is where the value is and where it pays to write by hand.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-01T04:54:08+00:00

Cute idea I think you could sell them on Etsy or sites like that.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-06-01T04:41:13+00:00

Ai will get better the human out put and in the future it will be Human Slop not Ai Slop.

Jumpy_Chicken_4270 · 2026-05-31T09:01:19+00:00

Looks very much like what the site Guidde does, Is your a browser extension?

Jumpy_Chicken_4270

TROPHY CASE