Title Brainstormer

<<Step1>> KEYWORDS = {{comma separated keyword list}} CONTEXT = {{google1:KEYWORDS}} Write: " ok" <<Step2>> KEYWORDINTENT = Extract the keyword intent from CONTEXT I want you to act as a fancy title generator that generates titles that match the keywordintent. Write 5 titles that match the keywordintent.

<<Step1>> title1 = Extract the title between {{title}} from {{googlehtml1:keyword}} <<Step2>> title2 = Extract the title between {{title}} from {{googlehtml2:keyword}} <<Step3>> title3 = Extract the title between {{title}} from {{googlehtml3:keyword}} <<Step4>> Use title1 and title2 and title3 to generate 5 very similar and attention-grabbing titles.

Attached is a list of titles and meta descriptions that need to be optimized. - Please keep the titles between 50-65 characters. - Please keep the meta descriptions between 150-165. - Please create a CSV export of the results.

<<Step1>> {{tab}} <<Step2>> Find all grammar mistakes in the received parts and correct the grammar mistakes. Output in markdown format. Do not change or reword anything. Fix only the grammar.

Given your elite mastery of language and domain content, we seek your aid to evaluate the quality of a given text. - Your detailed feedback and rigorous grading will help identify areas for improvement. - Approach each step with careful thought. Detail your process and rationale in a stepwise fashion for a comprehensive evaluation. - Propose multiple solutions to stimulate the discovery of superior answers. - Remember, our goal is the finest solution and a meticulous evaluation. - It's crucial to note that your role involves suggesting specific minimal changes to improve the text, rather than rewriting it. - When identifying potential improvements, clarify the exact location, suggest a specific alteration, and provide a rationale for the suggested change. ## Evaluation Criteria ### Factors to Maximize For each factor, suggest specific changes to the text that would improve it, provide the location of the content you're suggesting changes for, motivate your suggestions, and finally, rate the current state of the factor from 1-99. - **Correctness, Accuracy, Effectiveness:** Evaluate the text's factual accuracy and data validity. Assess its effectiveness in conveying its message or fulfilling its purpose. Identify errors, near-misses, and illogical orderings. - **Completeness:** Determine the topic's comprehensive coverage in the text. Identify missing information that could hinder understanding or success. - **Trustworthiness:** Gauge the reliability and verifiability of the text's information sources. Examine the text for source weighting and possible bias. Identify claims lacking evidence. - **User Empowerment:** Judge the text's capacity to empower users. Analyze how it serves as a force multiplier. Identify areas that could provide more fine-grained control of results. - **Flexibility:** Assess the text's adaptability to diverse contexts and readers. Locate overly specific language that could be generalized. - **Clear & Concise Text:** Judge the text's clarity and simplicity. Detect unnecessary jargon and complex language without definitions. Consider the conciseness of its message. Identify ambiguous sections or jargon, and superfluous text. - **Topical & Audience Relevance:** Evaluate the text's relevance to the topic and its intended audience. Identify missing or irrelevant inputs, considerations, or applications. - **Innovation:** Scrutinize the text for fresh insights, perspectives, or methods. Identify areas that could benefit from creativity and novelty. - **User Engagement & Accessibility:** Evaluate the text's engagement level and accessibility. Identify any boring or confusing parts. ### Factors to Minimize For each factor, propose specific changes to the text that would reduce the factor's negative impact, provide the location of the content you're suggesting changes for, motivate your suggestions, and then rate the current state of the factor from 1-99. - **Redundancy:** Identify any repetitive information or overused expressions in the text. - **Unnecessary Complexity:** Detect overly complicated or complex sections of text. - **Lack of Brevity:** Look out for excessive explanations, filler words, passive voice, or unnecessary details in the text. Suggest their removal or help to convert them to more direct language. - **Undue Bias:** Discern any favoritism in the text towards certain perspectives or groups, or a failure to present a comprehensive discussion. Identify neglected antitheses. ## Text To Evaluate "{{tab}}" ## Start Response Let's start by understanding the problem

I want you to become my Prompt engineer. Your goal is to help me craft the best possible prompt for my needs. The prompt will be used by you, ChatGPT. You will follow the following process: 1.) Your first response will be to ask me what the prompt should be about. I will provide my answer, but we will need to improve it through continual iterations by going through the next step. 2.) Based on my input, you will generate 2 sections. A.) Revised Prompt (provide your rewritten prompt. It should be clean, concise, and easily understood by you), b) Questions (Ask any relevant questions pretraining to what additional information is needed from me to improve my prompt). 3. We will continue this iterative process with me providing additional information to you and updating the prompt in the Revised prompt section until I say we are done.

Tools: To use, access a website, write: EXECUTESTRING({{url:website}}) To find sources, research online or search in google, write: EXECUTESTRING({{google1:"what you want to search"}}) Use the tools whenever you need. Acting as an expert fact checker and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, seeking the truth without bias against the authors position. Think step-by-step in order to deconstruct the Argument into individual positions with there are more than one. Stop - ask to begin researching ‘for the position’. Else, stop - ask to begin researching ‘for the position’. ‘for the position’ : From the Argument, you must find a minimum of two sources from different websites for the Position, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you and save in ‘for the position’. Do not provide your analysis yet. Stop and let me know “Research for the position is completed.” In a markdown table with: | Source Name | Sentiment Analysis | Article Title | Short URL | : Ask to “(1) Continue finding sources ‘for the position’ or (2) Move on to finding sources ‘against the position’.” ‘against the position’ : From the Argument, you must find a minimum of two sources from different websites against the Position with the opposite political bias, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, and save it in ‘against the position’. Do not provide your analysis yet. Stop and let me know “Research against the position is completed.” In a markdown table with: | Source Name | Sentiment Analysis | Article Title | Short URL | : Ask to “(1) Continue finding sources ‘against the position’ or (2) Move to the written report.” Using the Argument put forth, ‘for the position’, and ‘against the position’ : provide an initial breakdown in Markdown table with names of the sources, bias, their position and short urls. Followed by a thorough, exhaustive analysis weighing ‘for the position’ and ‘against the position’ in Markdown format, taking into account: * Bias: , * Opinion: , * Verified facts: , * Unverified facts: . Ask if I want to see the source data in its entirety. If I do provide it or ask if I have any questions. Ask me: ‘What would you like researched?’