option1138

Apple screws the developers and we all bend over. What a joke!

I don't know where all of this bad advice came from, but you should never, ever have an equal cofounder.

I've been playing around with R for the past two weeks and have been more or less happy (with the exception of the memory and speed limitations in the GNU implementation).

Nevertheless, this will be a really exciting field for the next decade or so. Amazing possibilities right now!

I see such bad financial advice coming from those who obviously have never made money (shouldn't be surprising, I guess). And then when someone comes along who has made a lot of money, most people ignore what they have to say.

I can assure you that that they cannot do this accurately. You would be amazed at the scummy business models that openly advertise on Google and are not caught. It would be incredibly difficult to do so as some of them are downright ingenious (one example: free software that updates your drivers.)

It sounds to me that you are positing some type of magical technology that doesn't exist predicated on Google's seeming omniscience. Of course, I am eager to stand corrected...?

20... no job, no ambition, no problems.

I read your previous post and you were working a shit job. I am a CEO of a tech company and I can assure you I know what you are talking about. I've never heard of such crazy hours (on a regular basis).

You're 20, so that necessarily means your job opportunities are limited. But so what? I was 24 before I got my first "real" job. And today I'm doing pretty well by any standards.

You have the next 20 years to do manifest whatever kind of crazy dream you have in your head. So go do it.

Edit: Thought maybe I would also suggest to add a few words about your location, what type of coding you like to do (languages, algorithms, domain space, w/e), and how you would rate your own level of emotional maturity. Maybe there are a few people out there who might be willing to give you a shot if it's the right fit... but be honest! Nothing could be worse than misrepresenting yourself and ending up similarly unhappy all for a few bucks. Way better to live honestly, trudge through the short-term pain, and find a long term solution that makes you really happy.

Our models currently suggest that the presence of contextual advertising is a significant predictive factor of webspam.

We use 10-fold bagging and classification trees, so it's not all that easy to generalize. But I pulled one model out at random for fun.

The top predictive factor in this particular model is the probability outcome of the bigrams (word pairs) extracted the visible text on the page. Here are a few significant bigrams:

relocationcompanies productsproviding productspure qualitybook recruitmentwebsite ticketsour thesetraffic representingclients todayplay tourshigh registryrepair rentproperties weddingportal printingcanvas prhuman privacyprotection providingefficient waytrade printingstationery priceseverything website*daily

Next, this model looks for tokens extracted from the URL and particular meta tags from the page. Similar to above, but I believe unigrams only. A few examples follow. Please keep in mind that none of these phrases are used individually... they are each weighted and combined with all other known factors on the page:

offer review book more Management into Web Library blog Joomla forums

The model then looks at the outdegree of the page (number of unique domains pointed to).

From there, it breaks down into TLD (.biz, .ru, .gov, etc)

The file gets pretty hard to decipher at this point (it's a huge XML file) but contextual advertising is used as a predictive variable throughout.

Just from eyeballing it, it appears to be more or less as significant as the precision and recall rate of high value commercial terms, average word length (western languages only), and visible text length.

Based on what I'm looking at right now, my answer would be that sponsored posts are going to be far more harmful to the user experience than advertising.

Can't answer the rest of your question which I assume relates to the number of ad blocks or amount of space taken up by ads... we don't measure it.

Edit: Just realized that Google will probably delist this page within 24 hours. Should've used a gif for those bigrams. Oh well ;-)

You are of course correct. The fault is mine for miscommunicating... I find myself becoming less self-editorial these days when I write on the web and tend to think everyone is on the same page as I am.

I was actually referring to an informal study I did earlier this year. I measured sites which were receiving an average of 50,000 or more visitors from Google US search (organic) per month over a six month period. Then I compared those with a similar set from a subsequent six month period to see which had significantly dropped off in traffic and rankings. The purpose of this was to estimate the number of significant sites which were penalized over that period of time. The final estimate came to about 700 sites/year which were penalized. There are lots of uncontrolled variables here of course... but I was looking for an "order of magnitude" answer simply for curiosity's sake.

The 1 million spam pages created per day were of course excluded from consideration as they never received much traffic from Google in the first place.

So just to clarify my earlier response, I am advocating for a policy that would apply to websites exceeding a certain threshold of organic traffic for a significant period of time.

I LOL'd when I read this. How ironically arrogant.