Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What it looks like when Google links to your website

raaw.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#31

Post by coldtea »

fastball wrote: post #16
kome wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2006 CIA Factbook stated that the "US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system", (in addition to non-industrialised Burma/Myanmar and Liberia).

This particular case is not English vs. Metric, but rather lack of cohesion in the metric system. English: Use commas for separating thousands, use periods for decimals. Metric: Use spaces for separating thousands, use periods OR commas for decimals. In this instance, the English approach is obviously the superior one, as spaces are more confusing to use as a delimiter than commas, and there should only be one way to…

>This particular case is not English vs. Metric, but rather lack of cohesion in the metric system.

Yes, and the grand-parent already said that this particular case is insignificant compared to English vs Metric.

Let's first fix this, and then we worry about decimal separator.

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#32

Post by coldtea »

fastball wrote: post #27
Amadou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some other system that uses periods for thousands and commas for decimals - the exact reverse of what you've listed as the english convention. I always thought it was a european convention. It makes more sense than what you've listed as the metric convention.

Indeed, and that is what I've seen from many Europeans. However, I think that must be a convention from before the universal adoption of the metric system by the EU, as the 22nd General Conference on Weights and Measures (held in 2003) declared that the symbol for decimals should be "the point on the line or the comma on the line". i.e. the official metric system symbol is period or comma, regardless of what actual E…

>i.e. the official metric system symbol is period or comma, regardless of what actual Europeans use.

Regardless? Those (and mainly comma) is exactly what Europeans use. It's not like there is some other symbol besides those too in use for that purpose.

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#33

Post by computer »

imdhmd wrote: post #26

hey alternativeTo team, congratulations! at this achievement, i hope you will put some effort (also) in improving the UX of the site so that users like me get keep visiting whenever we want an alternative. Some observations (at http://alternativeto.net/software/google-reader/ page): - Ads are covering a large part of the area - The list of alternatives are not prominently visible (need to scroll down) - UI is a bit c…

One thing that's bothered me almost every time I visited your awesome site over the last few years is that the link to the actual product is quite small and hard to see, in both places.

For me personally a big "Go to site" button would make the site even nicer.

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#34

Post by _delirium »

davidp wrote: post #22
tripzilch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is why I usually use spaces to separate thousands, so that I don't confuse people expecting either notation. The standard where I'm from is also a period for thousands, and a comma for the decimal fraction, but reading as much English scientific and computing literature, I am well aware that the period for decimal fraction is almost a de facto standard. So I tend to use spaces for the thousands and a period for…

This takes me back to 20 years ago when I was studying Japanese. Their traditional (pre-Arabic-numerals) system uses four-digit groupings instead of three: There are characters for ten, hundred, thousand, and ten-thousand. (I assume Chinese is similar.) Sometimes we use the number "1 million" to mean "a lot"; in that system it would be written as 100 ten-thousands. A more "natural" way to express "a lot" in that syst…

India uses a system sort of like that as well, even in English. The first major multiple is thousands, like in the western system, but then it goes in multiples of 100 above that: a lakh is 100 thousands (written 1,00,000), and a crore is 100 lakh (10 million, written 1,00,00,000).

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#35

Post by babuskov »

ekr wrote: post #18

Probably one of the reasons Google linked to them, is that they have so many Google ads on their pages (3 of them - quite disturbing to me). And Google takes about 32% of the price paid by the advertiser. Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation: let's assume 217000 page views, with a 1% CTR, and a 1$ CPC. The result (of that 1 day) : ~2000$.

Both 1% CTR and $1 CPC are more than you would expect from average website. Across all my websites I have 0.38% CTR and $0.27 CPC.

The result is then ~ $200, not $2000.

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#36

Post by _delirium »

dorfsmay wrote: post #14
aviraldg wrote: post #4

"...AlternativeTo had about 217.000 visitors on that first day..." Why can't we all agree upon a universal, consistent notation for math and science?

On a slightly different tangent, why do people put the dollar sign in front of the numer?

I believe that was inherited from how the British pound sign is written: £100 rather than 100£ has long been the standard. But I don't know why, where, or when the British usage originated.

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#37

Post by raawmarkus »

ekr wrote: post #18

Probably one of the reasons Google linked to them, is that they have so many Google ads on their pages (3 of them - quite disturbing to me). And Google takes about 32% of the price paid by the advertiser. Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation: let's assume 217000 page views, with a 1% CTR, and a 1$ CPC. The result (of that 1 day) : ~2000$.

I'm not interested in arguing about Google's reasons for linking to us but I just wanted to point out that it was not 217.000 pageviews but rather "users" or "uniques". Pageviews were 2-3 times that number.

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#38

Post by aviraldg »

dorfsmay wrote: post #14
aviraldg wrote: post #4

"...AlternativeTo had about 217.000 visitors on that first day..." Why can't we all agree upon a universal, consistent notation for math and science?

On a slightly different tangent, why do people put the dollar sign in front of the numer?

Maybe because: $1 25¢

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#39

Post by raawmarkus »

computer wrote: post #33
imdhmd wrote: post #26

hey alternativeTo team, congratulations! at this achievement, i hope you will put some effort (also) in improving the UX of the site so that users like me get keep visiting whenever we want an alternative. Some observations (at http://alternativeto.net/software/google-reader/ page): - Ads are covering a large part of the area - The list of alternatives are not prominently visible (need to scroll down) - UI is a bit c…

One thing that's bothered me almost every time I visited your awesome site over the last few years is that the link to the actual product is quite small and hard to see, in both places. For me personally a big "Go to site" button would make the site even nicer.

Thanks, we'll be sure to think about how we can make this better. The button/link is actually pretty big for all apps that don't have any additional links (like to app stores). See AOL Reader as an example. Is that reasonable or would you prefer something else?

http://alternativeto.net/software/aol-reader/

Re: What it looks like when Google links to your website

#40

Post by Raphmedia »

raawmarkus wrote: post #39
computer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that's bothered me almost every time I visited your awesome site over the last few years is that the link to the actual product is quite small and hard to see, in both places. For me personally a big "Go to site" button would make the site even nicer.

Thanks, we'll be sure to think about how we can make this better. The button/link is actually pretty big for all apps that don't have any additional links (like to app stores). See AOL Reader as an example. Is that reasonable or would you prefer something else? http://alternativeto.net/software/aol-reader/

Keep it simple.

I want a big, shiny button that links me to the content I want.

When I click on one of the software, I don't read the blue box. I scroll down and then click on an alternative. Then "what the?! I'm on the same kind of page again!" I scroll down, click on alternative... and repeat this again and again. Oh! Now this page has a big green "download" button! Awesome! click it Oh. It's an ad.

This was my reaction when I first visited the website just now.

Make the main link bigger. If it has a download link, make it big. If it doesn't? Make the website link bigger. I shouldn't have to think. I'm confused.

(Of course, I'm dumbing myself down on purpose when testing websites)

Post reply on HN