by Asim Jalis
Here is something interesting I am noticing. Almost all the
Google queries to my site are either about real estate bubbles or
about software interview questions. I would say about 95% of the
queries are about these two topics.
There is an 80/20 rule in operation here.
Here are some possible explanations:
1. People are more interested in these topics than in the other
ones I have written about, such as the value proposition, or
2. I rank much higher on these two topics for some reason than on
others. Maybe there just aren't that many pages that talk about
real estate bubbles and software interview questions.
3. These are the topics for which I have chosen the correct
titles. My other articles have poor titles in the sense that
Google has a hard time figuring out what they are about.
There are two interacting factors here: the real world outside,
and Google. Somehow these two topics seem to do well on both of
So it follows then that if I write a blog on either of these
topics it is more likely to be successful than if I write a blog
on the other topics that I am interested in.
Here is another thought. No one in his right mind talks about
real estate bubbles. People in the real estate business want to
send out the message that it is a tangible and safe investment.
Even AdSense has a hard time selecting ads for real estate
There might be a real market opportunity here to be a real estate
bear. Or a bear in general. Most analysts are bullish because
bullishness sells more than bearishness. This leaves the bear
position wide open. It's a dirty job being a bear and no one
wants to do it. Which makes it perfect for someone like me who is
willing to enter the market at the bottom and talk about the
things no one wants to talk about.
The disadvantage of this position is that it will be impossible
to sell advertising or to get much money as a speaker.
However, I could always sell myself as a person who is fair and
balanced and not swayed by financial special interests. That
might give me a credibility that the irrationally exuberant
analyst might not have.