False. Carefully chosen, hand-transcribed, edited-for-brevity excerpt of a relevant and obscure book, with a particular quote bolded.
> There's even an affiliate link at the bottom
I've had 40,000 unique visitors in the last four months, and I've had $0 in Amazon commissions. Does it mess credibility up? I'm tempted to cancel the damn thing, if anyone buys from the link I get like 20 cents or whatever. I thought Amazon commissions would maybe help me pick up a free book every month or two, but they've done no such thing. I should ask other bloggers if they've made anything from Amazon on book recommendations - even a very small credibility hit isn't worth the 40 cents or whatever.
My Amazon links make about 1/1000th of that my Google links make; my Google links pay enough to cover costs on my blog and buy me a meal out a couple of times a year.
Admittedly ad placement is part of this but I've used Amazon book links where there are large amounts of people coming to a site with a particular interest - I've researched and picked out good books for that interest but nearly nobody bites (or Amazon aff links are not working?!).
Thanks for this, very useful info. I've been gunshy about Google, because I want everything on my page to be something I endorse, and I don't want Scientology or activist groups or make money online scams getting onto my site when I talk about religion or government or wealth.
But yes, Amazon hasn't performed for me, and I've tried to make it work. Short, snappy posts with Amazon link - nothing. Extremely long, detailed posts with obscure but really good books - nothing. For a while, I thought I'd be patient with it, but it's almost to the point where it's not worth the screen real estate.
Anyway, thanks for the insight. I wanted to drop you a line but no info in your profile - email me?
joshu hangs around here but I doubt he can comment on it. Crunchbase says delicious was bought for ~$10M. Would an employee #10 ever have more than 1%? So we're talking max $100K before taking investors or acquirers into account. I'd be interested to hear more about what his being "completely ripped off" consisted of. Email me if you don't want to say in public.
Please be careful. It could be that his thoughts are excellent but his communication is flawed. It could also be that he has a great deal of general expertise in the subject but is mistaken in this specific statement.
Thus, a general statement about him could be false is also aggressively ad hominem. You might want to consider focusing on the statement itself rather than the speaker, such as:
"Your suggestion is entirely wrong."
JM2C of course, and it is possible that I don't know what I'm talking about. I am not a psychologist or a logician.
So if I have a library of 10s of thousands of images of animals, shapes, things etc. that are all easily recognisable to English speakers -- e.g. cat, dog, house, drum, road, tree, book, horse -- and ask them to write in what is it, AND I constantly update that library and retire pictures that's been used many time -- what is your dumb script's success rate?
What if I combine three pictures in each challenge - e.g. "cat house triangle"?
My spam script would always answer "cat", so among 8 options (cat, dog, house, drum, road, tree, book, horse), I'd get a 12.5% success rate.
Plus you constantly have to update your image library, which a huge pain.
Also, recognizing 10,000 images will take me around one day and less than $1000 with Amazon turk, thus giving me a perfect 100% success rate. After that you would have to completely renew your image database.
You aren't getting it. The probability is 1/<number of options you present to the user>. If you show the user 100 images and ask them to select one, a bot will have a 1% probability to find the right one, but the user will tell you to get lost.
If you present 10 images (still a stretch), bots will have 10% success rate just answering randomly.
EDIT: Wait, from what I see you mean that the user will have to write "cat" or "dog" or whatever? That's better, yes. Communication, however, is hard, which is why me the GP didn't understand what you meant.
not to mention the fact that the bot will get spotted for entering the same phrase more then a few times, get put on a list and get served the squiggly crap
You have no idea how spam works. A bot isn't just one user trying to enter "cat" repeatedly. Botnets send requests from thousands of different IPs. You wouldn't know which ones are real users, and which ones are bots.
These are either rack-mounted or PCIe drives. If I look at the chart on that page, then the C300 is the fastest 2.5 inch SATA drive. I.e. its the fastest drive that can practically be added to a laptop.
The RamSan and NextIO aren't internal storage devices, and while the FuisionIO are non-volatile they use the PCI-E bus. A quick glance does not indicate if they are suitable to be booted from.
(edit: all that aside from the cost of using any of those solution as a desktop's storage system)
It's not really that linear because of compression. As an example, I shrunk a bunch of photos to 1/4 the resolution, and they only dropped in size about 1/4.
Plus, video can get even more aggressive about compression because it can reference between frames.
Guys, cmon, this is obvious book spam. There's even an affiliate link at the bottom