terra_t

Wow, this is the first site I've seen to use frames in about 10 years!

Its generally true, but I've developed systems that go sideways and fork into multiple versions, so the data structures get more complicated.

I said it in fewer words and didn't add any adsense junk.

I used to have this problem. Then I realized that if I want to really copy a file, I type

$cp file_from file_to

and that

$ln -s link_from link_to

has a very similar effect to the cp command above. I haven't messed this up ever since.

Unless you're targeting a specialized market where you're really in demand, I'd have nothing to do with "web freelancing".

A few years ago I worked at a job shop that did web sites for small businesses, and I was talking with my accountant about getting my taxes done and he asked me how much we'd charge for a web site. I told him it would be around $2000... That would include a CMS install, original template, and some SEO. A pretty fair price for the time of the talented people it takes, plus the sales overhead. He was shocked. Although just getting another 10-15 clients a year would have paid for his site quickly, he was hoping he could get one for more like $50.

4 out of 5 small biz clients will let you make a tiny profit, but 1 out of 5 is a client from hell who'll balloon a $10k fixed price project to something that costs you $30k and wipes out the product you made from the other 4.

Not for me. I make web sites for my own account.

I've got a rule that "If it's not impossible, it's not worth doing." If most people think that what you're doing is impossible, you've got less competition.

If it makes $30k of revenue a year and you don't think that revenue stream is about to stop, this is a good investment. Do it.

Domain age counts for something, as does the rich mat of links that a long-existing site has.

On the other hand, the price looks high for a site that gets that much traffic. I can pretty consistently create SEO-oriented sites that get that much traffic & revenue in 1-2 yrs with an investment of my time that's more like $10-15k. (Working pretty intensely for a month, and mostly waiting for the link network to mature)

(Of course, I've gotten tired of that and now I'm trying to break into making sites that are 10-100x bigger than that)

Changing a successful site is always risky. There are two risks. (1) is that you might go from something that works to something that doesn't work, and (2) in theory the ideal way to drive up your traffic would be to make small incremental improvements, watch your results, then make more changes. Google's very happy for you to do that if you're using AdWords, but they don't like you doing that in SEO, so there are things built into the system that can (sometimes) zap your ratings if you try to revamp an old site.

Personally I can think of better things to do if I had $100k sitting around, but if you like this site you should think about trying to negotiate the price down. I think a multiple of 8 times earnings is fair, so something like $25k more like it.

Of course, his operating costs are low, so like your average domainer, he can probably sit around a long time to find the guy who'll pay too much.

I've often been unhappy with off-the-shelf monitoring systems, because every major site I've worked on has had some unique kind of problem.

For instance, there was one site where user abuse was the real problem... Bad enough that I built something that detected possible abusive behavior and would beep my pager.

For another project we had about 20 geographically distributed mirror sites, and we had to monitor network connections to all of them and make sure they were all alive and staying synchronized.

Right now I've got a site where the caching system screws up periodically and then I start getting 500 errors. Sooner or later I'm going to really fix the problem, in the short term what I really need is something that gets in my face whenever the 500 error rate spikes.

This definitely sweetens the deal. AMZN's monitoring facilities have been expensive and not really all that good.

Halos around your text are quite important if you're trying to draw titles on television, particularly the old NTSC television. You see them all the time in video games too.

Yes, it is good, but not good enough for many applications. You're also left with the issue that one kind of "apple" is more common than the other kind of "apple" so the baseline accuracy of something that always assumes it's one kind of apple might be surprisingly good.

That said, text-to-speech is a system where it's important to do disambiguation of a particular set of words. For instead,

"I read the news today, oh boy", "read" sounds like "red"

"I read the news every day", "read" sounds like "reed"

You need to be able to disambiguate the word sense to be able to correctly read the world "read". There are maybe 20 or so very common words that are like this, so a modest amount of work in this area would be part of a good TTS system.

Sure, but the fact is that nobody actually needs a "word-sense disambiguator", they need a search system with better accuracy, or a classifier with better accuracy or an information extraction system that turns text into facts.

Many areas in NLP are like this. You can get 92% accuracy in a few hours of work, and then you can get 93% after a week or work, and then you can write a whole PhD thesis about how you got 94% accuracy.

To a certain extent, there are approaches, such as the Support Vector Machine that are "unreasonably effective" but once you get past that, you often have to confront issues that everybody wants to sweep under the rug to make a real breakthrough.

For instance, there was that NELL paper that came out a few months ago; NELL extracted facts from text but it had no idea that "Barack Obama is the President of the United States" was true in 2010, and that "Richard Nixon is the President of the United States" was true in 1972. If you can't handle the fact that different people believe different things and that statements have expiration dates, no wonder you can only get 70% accuracy in IX