evansolomon

17 ms·

31.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Well, cool. On that note, I have two questions: 1) The form I went through said $60 while the blog post says pre-order prices would be $50. From your explanations it sounds like I'm being counted in pre-orders, but it's unclear. I think
32.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Actually after looking again the fields don't show up at all. I loaded the site in an incognito browser and it's there, but in my main browser it's not. This is a new computer since the time I would have preordered so I'm not sure how you
33.
by evansolomon 16y ago
I just placed an order on the site and the confirmation said you would email me. Oddly, I don't remember giving you my email address in any of the forms. Am I missing something?
34.
A data-driven approach to communications(evanalyze.com)
4 points by evansolomon 16y ago|2 comments
35.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Whether or not it's more often verified, it is definitely more verifiable. One is a count that is likely in the millions or tens of millions of people and made up of nearly-anonymous people from around the world. The other is likely in the
36.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Traffic is a double-edged sword. Certainly a lot more important than funding or headcount in many if not most cases. But it's also a lot less verifiable than funding or headcount. Quantcast is a good start, though certainly not perfect an
37.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Do you know a lot of private companies that publicly share their revenue or profit? Of the ones that do, how many do it in a way that can be verified?
38.
by evansolomon 16y ago
What is the best metric the press could use for measuring private companies' success? Money raised and number employees might be bad, but I'm not sure they're not also the best ones possible.
39.
by evansolomon 16y ago
I don't believe you don't take into account who makes something in judging it, at least initially. Few things are impressive on day 1, either because they actually aren't that impressive or because it often takes more than 1 day to underst
40.
by evansolomon 16y ago
It sounds like this would not detect someone using Firesheep and also tunneling their traffic through SSH or a VPN, right?
41.
by evansolomon 16y ago
It's interesting that you chose to show Skype as a good home page. I happened to visit it today because I had to install Skype on a new computer. They make you jump through a lot of hoops to download the software and I actually pointed it
42.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Not saying you lie about honoring them (I can personally say you never have lied to me about it), just that a public "we don't honor embargoes" stance isn't always a valid indictment.
43.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Jason, to be fair so did TechCrunch but you still honor embargoes often. Glass houses, ya know.
44.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Like anything, it depends. I'd rather not say too much about SG's pricing publicly (since I don't work there and don't speak for them) but it's similar to other agencies in the same market. Ballpark, that means 10k-30k depending on your c
45.
by evansolomon 16y ago
I used to work at SutherlandGold and would be happy to make an intro for any companies that are interested in talking with them. Email in profile. (In case anyone is curious, I have absolutely 0 financial stake in the business so I will no
46.
by evansolomon 16y ago
There actually are several aspects of being a poker player (online) that make it really hard, though surely not impossible, to live a normal life. You have very little interaction with other people, your working hours are partially out of y
47.
by evansolomon 16y ago
This is a small point, but funding doesn't get announced on the day it closes ever. So no one was signing anything related to this deal once the .ly stuff started happening.
48.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Whether or not TechCrunch is reasonable about pointing out when they're wrong doesn't seem relevant. Facebook "attacking" their post has nothing to do with what TechCrunch might do if it turns out the post was wrong. Facebook knows if the
49.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Links to the rest of the series of articles here: http://linkbun.ch/0bf9s
50.
Why most golf statistics whiff and how to fix them(slate.com)
3 points by evansolomon 16y ago|1 comments
51.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Here's a clip of Gabriel's portion on Justin.tv http://www.justin.tv/evansolomon/b/268557010
52.
by evansolomon 16y ago
They launched Wave in May of 2009. It's not like they yanked it all that quickly.
53.
A Joke iPhone Sticker Turns Into a Business(bits.blogs.nytimes.com)
157 points by evansolomon 16y ago|45 comments
54.
by evansolomon 16y ago
No more than you could point to "Seniors Jeopardy," "GED Jeopardy" or "Aspiring Actor Jeopardy" in the TV Guide. Choosing to focus on a particular demographic doesn't, and shouldn't, compel you to focus on any others.
55.
by evansolomon 16y ago
That doesn't make sense in the context of maxklein's comment. He said that the same people get covered over and over because they have a better human interest angle. If the human interest piece were being <30 years old, that would onl
56.
by evansolomon 16y ago
Being "successful" isn't necessarily the point, and I don't think it needs to be. If the goal were to write about the most successful companies, there would probably never be a startup mentioned--and it would probably be an article you had
57.
by evansolomon 16y ago
You are likely correct that it's unlikely any of these companies' futures will change appreciably because of this coverage. However, PR can definitely make a real difference in a business--see Aaron Patzer's thoughts on this (no particular
58.
by evansolomon 16y ago
"If he's providing real value, it's fairly simple to start paying for advertising and driving new customers to sign up etc." This is definitely not fairly simple. Getting the attention of potential users is a huge problem and a difficult,
59.
by evansolomon 16y ago
"Most reporters are not going to do days of research to find the companies" A journalist's goal is to communicate (usually new) information, not necessarily to write about harder to find, harder to describe stories. I don't think this is a
60.
by evansolomon 16y ago
"[A less descriptive name] flies in the face of traditional, accepted marketing and branding theory" By pretty much any metric, this is demonstrably wrong. Here's BusinessWeek's Top 100 Brands list: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/07

More ›