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

Inside a viral website

notfunatparties.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 305 posts

Re: Inside a viral website

#61

Post by platz »

gumby wrote: post #51
platz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even with art, an NFT doesn't confer copyright rights, so you don't even own the art. > a way for the artist to generate artificial scarcity The art isn't stored on-chain, so it's not scarce either. All the NFT is is a pointer that has some text about who created it and what it points to. Not sure why why that pointer itself is valuable except as a status of "i am the only one that owns this unique pointer". Of cours…

It’s valuable because someone felt it was. It’s the pet rock of 2021.

https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...

> Link to a print-ready high-resolution image file will be unlocked on purchase (2048 x 2048 pixels).

LOL

Re: Inside a viral website

#62

Post by brentm »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

One thing I don't understand about monetizing on the Internet. I see the author considered ads, tried an affiliate scheme and even did an NFT. But what about plain old, honest to God payment? Couldn't they just put a paragraph of text on the site, "Hey folks, I'm worried about hosting costs, if you find this page useful, please [Donate]", with a button redirecting to Paypal or Stripe or whatever, collect the money an…

The best path probably would of been getting in touch with Flexport and getting them to sponsor it for a couple grand + hosting.

Re: Inside a viral website

#63

Post by twox2 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

One thing I don't understand about monetizing on the Internet. I see the author considered ads, tried an affiliate scheme and even did an NFT. But what about plain old, honest to God payment? Couldn't they just put a paragraph of text on the site, "Hey folks, I'm worried about hosting costs, if you find this page useful, please [Donate]", with a button redirecting to Paypal or Stripe or whatever, collect the money an…

Who would pay $1 for getting a chuckle out of a meme? Also 50 million views is not 50 million visitors. If he had a normal ad monetization channel in place, he should have easily been able to garnish a minimum of a 10 cent CPM and walked away with at least $5k from his 15 minutes of fame. The problem is that learning as you go makes it a little too late to monetize the peak. There are companies whose entire business is in pumping out viral sites like this. Some explode for a a little while and others never make a penny. You can bet your butt that in the hands of someone who does this professionally these 50 million views would have been thousands and thousands of dollars.

Re: Inside a viral website

#64

Post by danparsonson »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

One thing I don't understand about monetizing on the Internet. I see the author considered ads, tried an affiliate scheme and even did an NFT. But what about plain old, honest to God payment? Couldn't they just put a paragraph of text on the site, "Hey folks, I'm worried about hosting costs, if you find this page useful, please [Donate]", with a button redirecting to Paypal or Stripe or whatever, collect the money an…

I suspect 0.01% is highly optimistic, especially for a meme-related site that's essentially a drive-by laugh for most people.

Re: Inside a viral website

#65

Post by oefrha »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

One thing I don't understand about monetizing on the Internet. I see the author considered ads, tried an affiliate scheme and even did an NFT. But what about plain old, honest to God payment? Couldn't they just put a paragraph of text on the site, "Hey folks, I'm worried about hosting costs, if you find this page useful, please [Donate]", with a button redirecting to Paypal or Stripe or whatever, collect the money an…

If my developer tool with thousands of stars on GitHub generates $15/yr in donations, I would say 0.01% of visitors each donating $1 to a website they on average spend 1 minute or less on (seems a reasonable assumption?) is far too optimistic.

Re: Inside a viral website

#66

Post by Kalium »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

One thing I don't understand about monetizing on the Internet. I see the author considered ads, tried an affiliate scheme and even did an NFT. But what about plain old, honest to God payment? Couldn't they just put a paragraph of text on the site, "Hey folks, I'm worried about hosting costs, if you find this page useful, please [Donate]", with a button redirecting to Paypal or Stripe or whatever, collect the money an…

The conventional wisdom on the internet, often backed by common experience, is that significantly less than 0.01% of visitors leave a dollar. Internet donation plates are not known for producing consistent revenue.

Re: Inside a viral website

#67

Post by TeMPOraL »

oefrha wrote: post #65
TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

One thing I don't understand about monetizing on the Internet. I see the author considered ads, tried an affiliate scheme and even did an NFT. But what about plain old, honest to God payment? Couldn't they just put a paragraph of text on the site, "Hey folks, I'm worried about hosting costs, if you find this page useful, please [Donate]", with a button redirecting to Paypal or Stripe or whatever, collect the money an…

If my developer tool with thousands of stars on GitHub generates $15/yr in donations, I would say 0.01% of visitors each donating $1 to a website they on average spend 1 minute or less on (seems a reasonable assumption?) is far too optimistic.

Can you give any other metric for its popularity? Stars aren't a good one - Github stars are bookmarks, not a reflection of whether one actually uses a given repository. Personally, I have 301 starred repositories, of which I maybe use... 5?

Re: Inside a viral website

#69

Post by vharuck »

KMnO4 wrote: post #27
oefrha wrote: post #4

> These reports aren’t just limited to the products you recommend — if someone buys anything within a 24 hour period of clicking your link, you can see, and you get commission. Anyone else find this a pretty gross violation of privacy on Amazon’s part? Why should your unrelated purchases be disclosed to affiliates just because you clicked an affiliate link for whatever reason? Let’s say the affiliate website use acco…

I think seeing all the random items is collateral damage. It can possibly be fixed (only show purchases in the category that you referred?). As the affiliate, the insights are invaluable. Imagine you hosted a sleep blog and directed people to a particular memory foam pillow. If you saw they ended up purchasing a different pillow, you could change the link to better serve your readers. Or if you saw that they ended up…

Why not ask people for this kind of stuff in an honest[1] way? If that doesn't work well because people rarely want to share that information, collecting without asking doesn't seem right.

[1] By "honest", I mean like a pop-up with a question or two and a clear "Not now" button. Not another cookie banners or passive collection.

Re: Inside a viral website

#70

Post by kamel3d »

simias wrote: post #39

>Instead of ads, I thought I would try and sell an NFT of the page. I’d read a fair amount about NFTs (both good and bad), and I was a mix of sceptical and curious. I thought this would be an interesting and weird opportunity to try it out myself. Added to this, it could be a fun meta-meme. I thought it would be fun to be the first meme website to sell itself as an NFT. I don't quite understand, what was sold here ex…

That's why I still think NFTs are scam
Post reply on HN