51–60 of 65 posts
For perspective: Last night's Lost finale got 13 million viewers, 2.5 hours each, so that's 32.5 million hours wasted there. The Superbowl gets ~100 million viewers and lasts... what, three hours? So that's 300 million hours wasted there. The soccer world cup final is rumoured to get something on the order of a billion viewers, so... that's a lot of hours wasted. And your entire life, if you never do anything in the…
IMO watching the Super Bowl is time well spent...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don't like the throwing around of the term 'wasted' even if you mean 'wasted potential work time', who's to say that entertainment in short bursts doesn't increase productivity by preventing burn out?
Of course I was being facetious in describing them as wasted, just as the original article was. If you really thought of every moment spent at leisure as "wasted time" you'd go mad. The vast majority of hours of anyone's life are "wasted" in one sense or another, so it's not my problem how anyone else chooses to waste theirs. I just hope that when I get to the end of my hours that the top few hundred of 'em will be e…
Time in which you can do whatever you like is what life is all about. You are truly lucky if you can make money with that but most people cannot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of those things impact productivity during work hours?
Mexico shuts down during Mexican world cup games. People don't work, there are literally no cars on the street.
The amount of 'sick leave' around those days is also well above average.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of those things impact productivity during work hours?
Mexico shuts down during Mexican world cup games. People don't work, there are literally no cars on the street.
Wait until next week, when you'll see donkey kong on the homepage and no searchbox.
Does anyone else thing that this was a massive experiment? I mean, Google MUST have lost some revenue. This is the first time that they've added anything interactive to the home page. They must want to learn something enough to do that. If so, what? One possibility is to see if increasing engagement time during a visit has any effects like increased ad conversions or increased time spent on consecutive sessions.
Maybe an employee developed it in his 20% of time and they put it up because "why not?".
Bertrand Russell
And what percentage of total work produced do those 4.82 million hours represent? You can't evaluate if it is a "tragic" cost or not without knowing the other half. From their writeup, sounds like average time spent on Google for that day went from 33.6 million hours to 38.4 million hours - an increase of 14% more time spent per person on google.com for a single day. This doesn't sound tragic to me. If the average Re…
I don't think you guys get the joke. They were being sarcastic about the whole "tragedy" they even said so in the first comment.
That stumped me for a while because people here are smart in general. I won't go into why I think that happens. My conclusion is that it's better not to post anything humourous -- unless it's obviously humourous.
Does anyone else thing that this was a massive experiment? I mean, Google MUST have lost some revenue. This is the first time that they've added anything interactive to the home page. They must want to learn something enough to do that. If so, what? One possibility is to see if increasing engagement time during a visit has any effects like increased ad conversions or increased time spent on consecutive sessions.
> I mean, Google MUST have lost some revenue. Maybe an employee developed it in his 20% of time and they put it up because "why not?".
Of course, it also drove a lot of people to google to check it out, hard to measure the good feelings towards google due to that. The images they display really does generate a lot of good feeling, for a tiny bit of work for google.