[adorno]

What Facebook was doing in March 2008

You're still too dumb to understand what occurred in 2008, and the people at Facebook were lucky to have started their website years earlier.

BTW, that's a pretty stupid graph to put up, since, the number of visitors to a web site, especially a FREE one, is not indicative of its economic health.


My website, YES!, I said, "MY WEBSITE", would also be free, and there would be no membership requirements, and the only "members" would be the people who create articles to be read by the general public. The general public wouldn't pay a dime, while the official "members" would be the ones paying the bills. So, even if "MY" website were to be successful, I would not be counting the number of users or members of the public, since, they would not be members. It would be like what happens when people pick up a newspaper or magazine from a local store or distributor, and the publisher would have no idea about who that person is. Similar concept with my idea. No logging in, and no IP to keep track of.

So, to me, showing number of visitors is, basically, useless, and it wouldn't translate to number of sales or be indicative of a revenue stream. Facebook's numbers, for the most part, don't translate to real success. Google does a lot better job converting their visitors into real revenue, but, even there, Google is a business which got started way before the recession of 2008. Oops! I gave it away. I accidentally told you what happened in 2008, and now, you won't have to go back and figure it out yourself. But, no matter, you'll still not understand.

[OldEarlGray]

>>”MY WEBSITE”, would also be free,

Sure it will Wiley.  No doubt the servers running your vaporware will be powered ala an ACME Pons&Fleishman Cold Fusion generator too.

But alas, you'll never finish it --- as boring folks with the self-Adornoation of your ego in the Vanity is clearly more your Forte than finishing actual projects.

>>Google does a lot better job converting their visitors into real revenue

Google was started with CIA seed money. Have you thought about asking them to fund your patents? Of course not.

That’s the thing about the Adornoation of one’s self in the Vanity, Wiley - it’s only skin deep and has no character or real substance.

FAIL. No sale.

[OldEarlGray]

 

Google, CIA, invest in ‘future predicting’ startup

http://business.financialpost.com/2010/08/02/fp-tech-desk-google-cia-invest-in-future-predicting-startup/

 

But we don't need that to predict your unfunded "current project" ending up on the unfinished excuse pile, do we Wiley?  

Go ahead.  Prove me wrong by finishing your website and publishing that URL.  I dare you.

Until then,Wiley, this...

Help! ????? - not a valid win32 application
myself | myself

Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 3:25:03 PM by adorno 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1982166/posts

...is the technically (un)proficient albatross you'll be wearing around your vainglorious neck.

[OldEarlGray]

>>So, to me, showing number of visitors is, basically, useless,

That information wouldn’t be useless to the individual “members” you’re allegedly planning to try to lure into funding your pay-to-publish fairy tale. Nobody is going to leave their magazines to sell at a kiosk in a basement closet with no traffic — much less pay for the “privilege” of leaving them there.

Besides, there’s lots of interesting groups on FB where various content is presented in a manageable, useful, and interesting format... thus manifesting an internet presence for whoever wants to do so — all without becoming a paying “member”.

So try harder - at something besides rationalizing your failure.