Skip to content

MARKETING.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
156 lines (135 loc) · 8.45 KB

MARKETING.md

File metadata and controls

156 lines (135 loc) · 8.45 KB
Raw

napkin discoverability playbook

The off-site half of the SEO/discoverability plan (spec: docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-11-seo-discoverability-design.md, Stage 3). The research behind these priorities (two adversarially-verified passes, July 2026, in that spec): ranking in ordinary web search is the main gate to being cited by AI assistants; earned mentions (YouTube, community posts, lists) correlate with AI-answer visibility far more than backlinks; comparison/decision content wins citations. Everything below is either done, drafted and waiting for you to post it, or needs your accounts with steps written out.

Facts and drafts written July 16, 2026 — re-check dates/versions before posting.

Already automated (nothing to do)

  • IndexNow — every site deploy pings Bing with all URLs (Documentation.yml, since Stage 1). Verify once after the next release: the "Ping IndexNow" step in the Documentation workflow log should end IndexNow HTTP 200.
  • Sitemap + robots — generated at deploy; AI crawlers explicitly welcomed.
  • Swift Package Index — .spi.yml points SPI's Documentation link at getnapkin.to.

Needs your accounts (step-by-step)

1. Google Search Console (highest value, ~15 minutes)

  1. Go to https://search.google.com/search-console → Add property → URL prefix → https://getnapkin.to/.
  2. Choose the HTML file verification method and download the file (googleXXXX.html).
  3. Give the file to Claude (or drop it in Tools/site/ yourself and add a cp Tools/site/googleXXXX.html docs/googleXXXX.html line beside the security.txt copy in .github/workflows/Documentation.yml), merge, release.
  4. Click Verify, then Sitemaps → submit https://getnapkin.to/sitemap.xml.
  5. After a few weeks, Performance shows the queries napkin ranks for — watch for "ribs alternative", "swift clean architecture", the compare-page titles.

2. Bing Webmaster Tools (~5 minutes, do right after GSC)

  1. https://www.bing.com/webmasters → Import from Google Search Console (one click, reuses the GSC verification).
  2. Submit the same sitemap URL. Bing powers ChatGPT search retrieval, so this one matters more than its market share suggests.

3. YouTube demo (the strongest single correlate of AI-answer visibility in the research)

No production values needed — a 5–10 minute screen recording:

  1. "What napkin is" over the getnapkin.to landing animation (30s).
  2. Clone → open Examples/RibHouse → run (2 min).
  3. Walk one napkin: Builder → Interactor (actor) → Router → Presenter (3 min).
  4. The pitch, honestly: RIBs pattern, no RxSwift, compiler enforces the rules (1 min). Title suggestion: "napkin: the RIBs pattern on Swift 6 actors — no RxSwift (demo)". Link getnapkin.to and the repo in the description.

Drafted — post when you're ready (all signed as you)

Before posting anything below: confirm the pages each draft links to are live (the compare pages and /when-to-use-napkin/ ship with the Stage 2 PR and deploy on the next release), and re-check the dated facts.

Hacker News (Show HN)

Title: Show HN: napkin – Uber's RIBs pattern rebuilt on Swift 6 actors, no RxSwift

Text: I maintain napkin, an open-source Swift framework that keeps the Router-Interactor-Builder architecture from Uber's RIBs but rebuilds it on Swift 6 concurrency: business logic lives in final actor interactors, routing/presentation are @MainActor, and every isolation crossing is an explicit await. No RxSwift and no runtime leak detector — actor isolation is checked by the compiler, and a weak-view ownership rule stands in for the leak detector.

To be clear: RIBs is alive (RIBs-iOS 1.1.0 shipped July 12, 2026 — re-check for newer releases before posting) — napkin is for teams that want the pattern without the Rx backbone. It targets iOS 26/macOS 26, it's young, and the community is tiny; the docs say plainly when you should use RIBs, TCA, or plain SwiftUI instead: https://getnapkin.to/when-to-use-napkin/

Docs: https://getnapkin.to · Repo: https://github.com/WikipediaBrown/napkin Happy to answer questions about the actor-isolation design decisions.

HN norms: post morning US time on a weekday, stay in the thread answering technical questions, don't ask for upvotes.

r/swift / r/iOSProgramming

Title: I rebuilt the RIBs architecture on Swift 6 actors (no RxSwift) — with comparison pages vs RIBs, TCA, and VIPER

Body: RIBs' Router-Interactor-Builder tree is a great shape for flow-heavy apps, but the framework is built on RxSwift and ships a runtime leak detector. I wanted the shape with Swift 6's own machinery, so I built napkin: interactors are final actors, the UI ring is @MainActor, streaming is AsyncStream/Observations, and isolation mistakes are compile errors.

Before anyone says it: RIBs is not dead — uber/RIBs-iOS shipped 1.1.0 on July 12, 2026. I wrote cited comparison pages (vs RIBs, vs TCA, vs VIPER) that try hard to be honest about when napkin is the wrong choice — e.g. it needs iOS 26+, and if your complexity is state rather than flows, TCA is better at that: https://getnapkin.to/compare/napkin-vs-ribs/

Runnable example app in the repo. Feedback welcome, especially from people who've shipped RIBs at scale.

Check each subreddit's self-promo rules; r/swift generally allows OSS with engagement. Post one, wait a week, post the other.

iOS Dev Weekly pitch (email to Dave Verwer / submit via site)

Subject: napkin — Uber's RIBs pattern rebuilt on Swift 6 actors

Hi Dave — napkin is an open-source reimplementation of the RIBs Router-Interactor-Builder architecture on native Swift 6 concurrency: actor interactors, @MainActor routing, no RxSwift dependency, compile-time isolation checking and a weak-view rule in place of RIBs' runtime leak detector. Might interest readers evaluating architecture options post-Swift-6: the docs include comparison pages (vs RIBs, vs TCA, vs VIPER) that say plainly when each alternative is the better choice. https://getnapkin.to — WikipediaBrown

awesome-swift entry — HOLD until the repo has ≥ 15 stars (their hard rule)

PR against https://github.com/matteocrippa/awesome-swift. Note their CONTRIBUTING.md: the README is generated from contents.json — the PR must edit the JSON, not the README, and the PR description must say why the package belongs. There is currently no RIBs-style framework in the "Patterns" category. Entry to add to contents.json:

{
  "title": "napkin",
  "url": "https://github.com/WikipediaBrown/napkin",
  "description": "Router-Interactor-Builder (RIBs-style) architecture rebuilt on Swift 6 actors — no RxSwift, compile-time isolation."
}

PR description: "napkin fills the RIBs-style slot in Patterns (none listed today): Apache-2.0, actively maintained, documented at getnapkin.to, Swift 6, >15 stars." Other criteria (already met): actively maintained, documented, English README, Swift 5+, Apache-2.0. The soft gate is "used by the community" — the star count covers it.

Measurement (no analytics by choice)

We deliberately run no visitor analytics. What you can watch:

  • Google Search Console / Bing Webmaster: impressions, clicks, queries (above).
  • AI citations, manually: ask ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity "RIBs alternative for Swift Concurrency?" or "napkin vs TCA" monthly; note whether napkin appears and which page gets cited.
  • GitHub traffic (Insights → Traffic): referrers from chatgpt.com, perplexity.ai, bing.com are the AI-driven signal; stars gate the awesome-swift PR.
  • If you later want referrer data on the site itself, the cookieless options researched: Cloudflare Web Analytics (free, one script tag) or GoatCounter (free, open-source). Both consent-banner-free.

Refresh cadence

  • Comparison tables are stamped "as of July 15, 2026". Re-verify when: TCA 2.0 ships (their 1.24 and 1.25 releases openly prepare it), RIBs-iOS releases, or ~every 6 months, whichever comes first.
  • The two research-refuted claims that must stay out of napkin copy: "TCA 2.0 is in beta" (it isn't; it's in preparation) and "v0.16.4 removed iOS from uber/RIBs" (the split happened October 2024).
  • Open research gap: no verified data on real search phrasings (two passes came back empty). If Search Console later shows the actual queries, retitle H2s to match — that's the durable, evidence-based way to do it.