Or you could use progressive JavaScript, AFAIK. Make your every link a first class citizen (with it's own view) and for supported browsers replace links' default action with content switching (without reloading) using JS requests.
Of course that's a bit harder since your views need to respond in a different manner to casual GETs and AJAX requests.
Which really should be trivial using most modern 3-Tier frameworks. They universally have a concept of "layout" vs "template" so in a pseudocode logic, all you need to do is tap into the render method and swap out an empty layout when responding to an XHR request.
Sorry man. I thought it was clear that it was says me. I'm just one data point obviously, but the speed differences on the sites I go to/make was clear. I removed the earlier comment, it probably sounded more authoritative than it should.
And I was referring to whatever Chrome web developer timeline calls 'paint'. FF could be faster in other parts of rendering, I don't know. But paint matters to me the most right now and FF disappoints there.
That's great when you're hiring CEOs or product people, but I think if you're hiring a manager it's ok if his interest is more in managing than the end product.
Otherwise what happened to Google will happen to you.
eg, losing people like Sheryl Sandberg because you can't accommodate the needs of competent careerists for self advancement.
Edit: Just want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing with the original post. When you're small everyone's a product person, but you can take that idea too far.
I doubt that actually. Done right the bandwidth used should be less than in a client-server model. The idea is that the peers talk to each other directly and the data does not have to go all the way to the server and back. But I guess I was trying to say that he is not stating the real reason behind the decision.
Also, in a corporate setting, if you make a call to a buddy in your building, chances are the data will be routed on your own private routers and never even hit the ISP. I'd say that was a big plus for P2P.
I honestly don't get what Google is supposed to do in situations like this. Google's algos are supposedly measuring for 'relevance'. But when it's not documents you're talking about but companies offering probably identical flowers for probably similar prices it's hard the make the argument that one is more 'relevant' than another.
I honestly think Google should start a different 'business' section of the search engine that plays by different rules. That is ranked by custom satisfaction or price or something.
Otherwise the only ones who win are the SEO companies.
I honestly think Google should start a different 'business' section of the search engine that plays by different rules. That is ranked by custom satisfaction or price or something.
It's called "Google Shopping". The problem is, nobody uses it, so optimizing your business for it probably isn't going to be profitable. Because people search for products in the "normal" Google search, that's where the incentives to do SEO come from.
Personally, if I wanted to buy flowers, I would google for flowers and then search for each company that turns up to find reviews. If you really want to screw people like me over, you need shill reviews, not the #1 Google spot.
There was actually a question there. I wrote it. I asked whether or not humans.txt is speciesist, and narrow minded. It's a reflection on our current understanding of who our peers are. I felt that future generations would look back on humans.txt with contempt. What might AI, aliens, or other hereto undiscovered sentient organisms think? There are groups working on genetically modifying dolphins to make them more intelligent. I wouldn't want them to feel like they are second class citizens. I proposed people.txt.
Stackoverflow was probably not the right place for the question so it got closed with extreme prejudice.
{ I can assure you that for some of us the response is both (a) more akin to amusement than to contempt and (b) hard to translate accurately. Adjusting for the frequent use of the word “human” to metonymically mean “sapience” is trivial. Adjusting for casual conflation near those concepts is easy in most discursive domains. Adjusting for some mysterious «nonlinear» behavior near «poles» is a chore but doable. Adjusting for things like transitively requisite, highly specific background emotions—well, extroversionism and kith are just the tip of the iceberg. “humans.txt” is peanuts. }
Google and various Twitter application directories.
Do you spend any money on getting users?
None so far, but am looking to change that in the summer. I'm getting married in a couple of weeks, and then honeymoonining, so things are getting a bit hectic, but once those have calmed down I'm thinking of experimenting with Adwords :)
Congratulations, and thanks for the inspiring article. I have had an idea on the go on and off for a while now and this is inspiring me to get off my butt and finish it.
pushState's SEO issues.