Yeah, you are right. Thanks for reading! Ilya Sutskever should be in there.
1,250 karma · joined March 3, 2010
I do not agree. For example, CTR can be increased by modifying the design/text of a button. Or modifying the placement of the button, etc. CTR will not increase or decreased based on the structure of the URL. Hence the word CLICK in "CTR". Most of the time if the URL is listed somewhere, its truncated. Mobile phones trim it down to the domain name.
Plus it's just bad practice and will run into problems eventually. What happens when you have similar titles? Does this increase CTR or increase mistakes?
I still think its a shady practice and can't think of a single reputable major publication that would utilize that structure for Editorial. They should be penalized for a blatant attempt at manipulation. There is no other logical reason for it.
The verge: /features/23931789/seo-search-engine-optimization-experts-google-results.
> If you have data that shows urls like "/id/date/title-of-post" rank worse than "rootdomain/title-of-post" (which is nearly impossible to accurately measure due to the nature of how things are _really_ ranked) I'd argue that the rankings are related to the CTR rather than the URL structure.
Of course I don't have the data, but one has to assume they are doing it for one simple reason. Manipulation in search. It's not for a better user experience. How often are you typing in URLs manually?
> No judgement, but this seems like an odd stance to me. You seem to feel there is some sort of established standard in the structure of website pages/hierarchy, particularly one that should have punishments enforced against those who don't abide... Thankfully there is not, if there were then there would have to be some sort of agreement on these things - who is going to make those decisions? Who are those decisions going to be optimal for?
Generally speaking, yes URL taxonomy has best practices. I don't believe someone is going to create an about us page with /id/date/about-us and thinks that is a good idea, but anything is possible.
As for addressing SEO concerns. There is a lot of frustration out there these days by small sites and companies trying to make their way and Google results can be hit or miss. Major publications like CNET, Forbes, CNN etc are purposefully creating content and cramming it with affiliate links to sell crap to the masses. When a major publication writes about something its not an expert in, one has to start to raise eyebrows and wonder... Its painfully obvious. They get away with it because they are huge brands and can rank for anything, so they are abusing their power.
Sean Kaye says it best here: https://twitter.com/SeanDoesLife/status/1716935563075559630
Additionally, I want to mention an obvious manipulative practice that companies seem to be rewarded for, when if anything, should be penalized for.
And that is avoiding the "standard news" syntax of published content via manipulative URLS. Namely, avoiding using /id/date/title-of-post (or something similar) and just using the rootdomain/title-of-post to make it rank higher and seem more important than it is. These pages are not an About page, or Privacy Page, or Terms of Service page. Its manipulation and a shady practice and companies should be penalized for it.
AI is not going anywhere. This is not a fad like some of the others mentioned but more likely than not where the next decade of innovation is built on.
Am I missing something? The chargeback protection fee doesn't sound terrible
Seems to have no impact on any javascript, including ads. Pages do load faster, and I can see the prefetch working.
Just make sure you apply the data-no-instant tag to your logout link, otherwise it'll logout on mouseover.
Though these are two very different companies. Best of luck to owners of Snap stock.
A bit weird that we have to verify the card to get the 5% back... you'd think the fact that I've been using it for years would be enough verification.
In any case, don't forget to verify!
Go to Your Account -> Manage Payment Options
Then type in your full credit card number and click on verify and rewards will change to 5%.
You don't have to prove yourself to anyone. I stopped trying a long long time ago. Anyone who thinks programmers are just "coder monkeys" aren't really worth even having a conversation with.
No one will understand what you are doing. You should read up on articles about what it is like to be a boostrapped company and the type of nonsense you will face. Perhaps others linked to a few helpful and motivational articles to get you started.
You need to have thick skin and confidence that you are on the right path. Enjoy the climb, even though it will be insanely difficult.
I started my boostrapped company barely making any money and now I make more than most people I know. Use that as motivation and realize that being on your own means you can exceed anyone's salary because you play by different rules.
1) The terms of service are kinda scary. If I amass a large library of awesome videos you guys can turn off your servers and walk away like it's no big deal and you guys own the videos I make.
2) It seems as though you are doing everything you can to avoid users from embeding videos and want users to visit viewedit.com instead. Will this change?
The only change I would make is to remove the "Share on Twitter" text that is included with each large button on the website example. It's pretty much implied for the end user once they see the colors of the buttons and the icons.
For example, I shortened "Share on Twitter" to just "Twitter".
It is a fantasy sports company that helps you manage your team(s) by offering player projections, waiver suggestions, optimal lineups, trade suggestions, etc. We also help with fanduel/draft kings lineups.
Revenue has increased steadily over the past 4 years in the range of 20%-30% year over year.
User base growth is different as I focus more on active users rather than total new users. Active users increase around 15% year over year.
I still realize it's priced ridiculously high, but I can't say I'm dissatisfied with the product. I think the women who purchase the hair dryer will feel the same way.
Dyson's business model is making products with amazing suction or airflow. Whether it be vacuums, hair dryers, air purifiers, fans, etc. Their robotic vacuum hasn't even launched in the US yet. https://www.dyson360eye.com/
The reason you haven't seen cheap knockoffs is probably because they have patented their tech and a cheap knockoff isn't possible.
Looks like attackers managed to include this in a firmware update to launch DDoS. Amazing. Luckily the malware site is no longer working, so the users are safe. The users of the product mentioned that older versions of the firmware did not have this included.
Not sure how it happened, but to blame Amazon is ridiculous. I would look into the manufacturer a bit more to make sure it won't happen again before buying it.
To sum up. The price of the product is good. Amazon is still good. The company who made the product is now questionable. The firmware is bad.
Edit: I was asked why I think Jet paid full retail price... I can't know that for sure obviously. There was a packing slip that I didn't think to look at. In any case, the only way they don't lose money is if they bought it for close to 50% off. Seems unlikely to me.
For example, a month ago I bought an office chair. The retail price of this chair was $160. Jet.com was offering the same chair for $112. I was shocked. Plus they have a 15% off coupon for your first order. Needless to say, I bought the chair.
Jet ordered the chair from another website at the full retail price of $160 but turned around and was selling it for $112 with free shipping and a 15% off coupon code.
My purchase price was just $95. Meaning Jet lost at least $65 on this transaction.
I just don't know how they will stay afloat without constantly asking for money from investors. And how long will that go on for?