311–320 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you elaborate?
IANAA but generally if they're just processing payments then GAAP revenue would only be the difference between cash in and what they immediately pay out. Think of it in terms of facilitating a transaction and taking a cut of what flows through their hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, this will lead to us only being able to read the blogs and personal websites of people who are able to dip into their own money and time to make and host a blog. I'd be very interested in reading about the life of exactly not that kind of person.
Many of my favorite websites from the old Internet were exactly this, and I think it's sort of a shame that I can no longer find sites like that with Google. For example, I once read a site about this person's journey for the perfect pizza dough. It was obviously a labor of love and he had tried tons of permutations and research into the topic. The site was very web 1.0, presumably doesn't have great SEO, but the guy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patreon seems to be a better model, to be honest. It's about nine million dollars a month in total pledge, which meant over one hundred million in revenue per year if it never grows beyond that.
Gross revenue, that is, before the content creators are paid out.
When I said hundred million, I really meant hundred million paid to creators, not with the cut included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > It's not lightweight -- the average script include I have right now is around 280k. > You consider 280k script lightweight? Wow. They do not. :P
Right, I probably misread it. Sorry. The 150k version will be the lightweight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specifically, the day job shouldn't be too enjoyable if you're making money from it. Once it is, you should start doing it for free and find a job you find less enjoyable. That just follows in a straightforward way. Now, this may not seem absurd to you, but I dare say it will to most people.
I think the original meaning was "if you love what you're doing, you would not mind doing it even if you're not being paid for it", not "if you love what you're doing, you would refuse to do it for pay, but only do it for free". Signed, Captain Obvious
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of my favorite websites from the old Internet were exactly this, and I think it's sort of a shame that I can no longer find sites like that with Google. For example, I once read a site about this person's journey for the perfect pizza dough. It was obviously a labor of love and he had tried tons of permutations and research into the topic. The site was very web 1.0, presumably doesn't have great SEO, but the guy…
That website is adorable. I miss stuff like that, finding blogs on the front page of google, not buzzfeed. It reminds me of Rocket Roberts, who has a giant page on how he built a small observatory in his backyard for amateur astronomy and astrophotography: http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/observatory.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could implement it as an API call. The site could fetch the current "sponsored by X" line and render it directly in the HTML it serves.
But I don't want to point my servers at shady URLs to fetch random content, that's what the users machines are for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's incredibly toxic behavior and should be mandated that people reply to a post before downvoting it. "Hey, let's penalize that person for participating!"
> pg 3246 days ago | on: PG on trolls
> I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
> It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I ask: if one is not "famous" (i.e. popular), why should one expect their site to be profitable from ads alone? If my limited edition, 250-prints-per-month 'zine isn't making money, is that the advertising industry's fault, or is there an issue with my expectations? People ask the "how do we fix dwindling ad-based revenue" question all the time. The answer is clear, it's just not what people want to hear: metered…
I kinda agree with you; I run a personal website, it isn't very popular (and I don't update it often - hmm, maybe there's a link there!) - but it is my website, and I've kept the domain active since 1998 or thereabouts. ie - a "labor of love" How do I pay for it? Well, I reach around to my back pocket for my wallet, and... I don't have ads, I don't have a sponsorship, and I don't care - what I have and what I put on…
None of my favorite websites update very frequently, but I still check them all regularly. In aggregate, theres always fresh content, and it's better content because the author actually wanted to write about it.
Thumbs up man!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't make money from it, then it's not an absurd conclusion at all. Of course, it means one needs a day job, but such is life.
Specifically, the day job shouldn't be too enjoyable if you're making money from it. Once it is, you should start doing it for free and find a job you find less enjoyable. That just follows in a straightforward way. Now, this may not seem absurd to you, but I dare say it will to most people.
More specifically, market forces dictate that if a job is all sparkles and lollipops, you don't need to pay people to do it, because they'll do it for free in their spare time. Thus, every job has downsides.