Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Has MS realized they must change with the times?
Nope, it's just another PR campaign 63%
Not really, but it's a step in the right direction 18%
At least someone there has 0%
Definitely 0%
Who cares? I like paying over inflated prices for stuff 18%

Votes: 11

 Analysis of The Beast and a friendlier BG?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 05, 2002
 Comments:
I recently came across three articles that I found to be rather interesting. After reading through them I realized how (if read in the right order) they made a lot of sense.

Some may see them as one sided. However, if you were to read them with an open mind you'll find them to be rather intelligent, informative and even entertaining.

These three articles together touch upon Microsoft's business practices past, present and future. While discussing open source software they tend not to be too one sided. One such article even makes clear mention of the drawbacks of migrating from a Microsoft platform to that of competitors like Apple, IBM, Sun and the open source community. Yet, it doesn't fail to mention why some are still considering it.

While some hard headed individuals may write them off as "anti-Microsoft", these articles offer a fair analysis of Bill and Company.

diaries

More diaries by detikon
Trustworthy Computing !?!
Attn: Yoshi
If it ain't broke...break it!
Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry
Microsoft [continues to fight a legal challenge in a consistent manner]
[ I just can't ] stop whining
What is MS really saying?
Microsoft bloat and easter eggs?
The articles are as follows:

1. Microsoft books LinuxWorld stand in bid for "dialogue" at Newsforge by John Lettice of The Register

2. Feeling the Heat in Redmond by Rob Preston for the "Down to Business" column of the TechWeb Business Technology Network

3. Sympathy for Microsoft at Newsforge by Robin Miller

       
Tweet

Sources? (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 03:34:14 AM PST
So, let's just be clear about this.

You've got two articles from a "news" site whose funding depends entirely on advertising at Slash-dot.com, a notoriously communist lunatix site.

Your other article comes from an also-ran publishing concern desperate to lure even the most insane subscribers in a pathetic attempt to appear viable to advertisers in a world devoid of bananaramic venture capital.

Where do you go to find shit like this, detikon?


dear god (none / 0) (#2)
by detikon on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 06:59:35 PM PST
Yeah I'm sure that OSDN depends solely on advertising from Slashdot.

As far as TechWeb goes what subscribers?

You and others like you are so quick to jump on this and blow it off. I'm sure that if the articles came from MSN you wouldn't have shit to say.

Amazingly enough you believe that this piss hole is somehow held above all others and respect throughout the world for its hard hitting journalism. Hate to tell you but most people only find out about this site because they saw a reprint of some amazingly idiotic misinformed article.

Hell the very first time I visited this site was to real the how to article on building a PC. What surpirises me the most is that someone wrote that dribble for the "non-techie" yet all these people speaking out about the ability to open your PC" or uniformed idiots like elenchos never bother to mention it.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Oh, detikon. You poor fool. (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 02:35:32 AM PST
Why are you so sure LNUX (not just osdn) is not primarily dependent on slash-dot advertising? Have you ever heard of a 10Q, much less read one?

There was no mention of Techweb's subscribers in my comment. Do you suppose their parent company has no subscribers, or does not seek them?

If all your articles came from any other biased source, it would be quickly pointed out. Your straw man has already been blown to bits. The interesting thing here is that you refuse to understand the fact that your sources are, in fact, biased.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the notion that Adequacy pretends to be an organ of stringently unbiased journalism. It pretends to be nothing of the sort. Adequacy seeks to be the premier site for controversial opinion on the internet, and it demands that opinions expressed be well-defended.

Continual referral to pro-communist lunatix propaganda sites does not constitute an Adequate defense of your adolescent opinions, detikon.

I am curious: what uniform does elenchos wear, exactly?

And where, for the umpteenth time, do you go to get your news, detikon?


oh man (none / 0) (#4)
by detikon on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 05:08:01 AM PST
OSDN has advertisements on numerous sites in its "network" including Freshmeat, Linux.com, Newsforge, SourceForge, and many others. Gee how is that different from any other internet news site? How is that different from other companies doing the same thing with their other sites like MS does with Expedia.com?

Now let's talk about TechWeb and the subscribers issue. Apparently you are having trouble remembering what you wrote previously.

A quote from your previously post:
"Your other article comes from an also-ran publishing concern desperate to lure even the most insane subscribers in a pathetic attempt to appear viable to advertisers in a world devoid of bananaramic venture capital."

The 2 article you mentioned previously in that post were from the same site, Newsforge. So the only one left is TechWeb and you do mention subscribers. Then you ramble one about capital and other bullshit obviously without visiting the site and researching the parent company CMP United Business Media. No you'd rather spout off anti-Linux communist crap.

Now as for this shit hiole of a site. Controversial opinion? Opinion about what? Have you read the crap on this site? No proof and no possible way to validate ANYTHING. "Uh me and this other guy visited the AMD sweatshops then made up more shit about stuff AMD doesn't even manufacture and get the names and companies they work for COMPLETELY fucked up". Or how about the whole Steve Job, Richard Stallman, John Wozniak (whose real name is STEVE Wozniak).

You think a bunch of self proclaimed intellectual always telling people to p[rovide proof a validate THEIR (the respondents) opinions would be able to do the same. Hell they can't even spell Linux and Linus Torvalds correctly. No we are all just supposed to believe all this unfounded crap written in articles with nothing more than random works having little to do with the subject matter linked to shit at Amazon.com.

Controversial opinions like the holocaust never happening. Yeah tell that to my old Jewsih neighbor who spent time in the camps and watched the Nazis shoot the shit out of his father because he was too weak to do slave labor.

This site reminds of the Tabloids. Nobosdy actually takes it seriously but they can't help reading the dribble for comedic purposes or whatever reason. That is unless they're complete white trash and actually believe the bullshit.

Now when you can find time between actually doing some solid research rather than spouting off more "Linux sucks because it sucks crap" and masturbating while downloading porn from your parent's basement get back to me.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Why do you even bother? (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 12:58:45 PM PST
United Business Media publish such magazines as Information Week and Network Computing, which have subscribers. These publications, like most in the UBM stable, are also-rans in their niches, and routinely do all sorts of crazy things ("push" subscriptions, scare headlines, linux evangelism, etc) in a desperate bid to win more subscribers over from industry leaders like Ziff-Davis and IDG.

It looks like we can add tech publishing to the list of topics detikon doesn't know a damned thing about, but pretends to when challenged.

Asking google what a 10Q is didn't help you much, did it? You certainly didn't find a LNUX 10Q, even though they're all available online. And you didn't read it. And you didn't do any back-of-the-napkin calculation, taking ballpark slash-dot traffic numbers into account. You didn't consider the percentage of non-slash-dot osdn site advertising that simply hypes other osdn properties.

Still, you deny the inevitable conclusions. Makes you look real clever, detikon. Real sharp.

How anyone could manage to use google to make their arguments less credible is beyond me, but you do it routinely. Kudos.


ha ha ha (none / 0) (#6)
by detikon on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:02:26 PM PST
I fail to see how the practices of CMP are so different from Ziff-Davis with www.download.com and cNet all of which are subsidiaries of CNet Networks. What about IDG with PC World magazine and wesbite? Funny thing is that I see the same type of advertising on all three. Ads for various products. Maybe you're confusing the pulldown menu with links to their other interests (they all have them) as advertsing. They all have advertising that at times that hypes their other services.

You really think they are the only ones that do it? Just head over to Expedia.com which is owned by MS. How many references throughout the site do you see for MSN, Microsoft, Passport and .Net? You see the same a VA Software with links to the OSDN Network and Sourceforge.; Well whoopee!

Amazingly enough all these source have numerous pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft (articles). What was that one I read here recently? Oh yes "An Office Without Windows".

And what's all this shit about Google? Why wouldn't I simply visit the VA Software Corporation website, click on Investor Relations. Funny though while a lot of advertising relates to Sourceforge (then again how's this so different from what companies like MS do?), much of it relates to Compaq and their sponsorship of the Sourceforge.net Clustering Foundry as well as IBM, EMC, Sharp, Verisign, and Rackspace.

I think you should read over the 10-Q again.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Sweet Jesus, did you ever miss the point. (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 04:33:23 PM PST
You rant and rant and rant about online cross-promotional advertising, but that was mentioned only in passing, and only as part of a calculation of the percentage of LNUX revenues attributable to advertising on slash-dot.

Of course other companies do that sort of self-promotion, you moron. And that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the points I've made.

You have completely, utterly failed to understand anything of substance in this little debate.

I'll be happy to go over a LNUX 10Q again if you think you've determined that the bulk of the company's revenue is not due to slash-dot advertising, and can present your case using material from the filing.


here you go (none / 0) (#8)
by detikon on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 08:54:11 PM PST
The 10-Q reports can be found <a href= http://www.vasoftware.com/company/investor_relations/financial_documents.php>here</a>.

Please point out in the report(s) where you determined the bulk of the companies revenue come from advertising on Slashdot. Also show a comparison of the traffic produced by indivual viewers of the many websites.

Will you be able to show that there are more visitors to Slashdot then there are to Newsforge or Linux.com? Will you be able to show whether the number of advertisement are fewer on non-Slashdot sites? Will you be able to show comparisons of the number of people who visited Slashdot and other sites and then moved on to the VA Software Corporation homepage or Sourceforge?

I would love to see you set out to prove that the bulk of revenue is due to Slashdot advertising rather than advertsiing done at other sites, public knowledge of Sourceforge, or the advertsing banners placed on project homepages.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Bzzt. Sorry. (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 11:05:53 PM PST
Providing a link to a 10Q (congratulations on finding it, better luck with the html next time) does not constitute an argument based on material in that filing.

You're not capable of even rudimentary financial analysis, detikon. Just admit it, if you're big enough to admit your ignorance.

Even an analysis that downplays slash-dot's revenue contribution in favor of other OSDN sites and other LNUX revenues, such as this one, places the percentage of LNUX revenue due to slash-dot advertising alone at somewhere between half and three quarters of all LNUX revenue.

Your turn.


uh gee uh duh (none / 0) (#10)
by detikon on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:49:21 PM PST
I had already founf the link before. If you actually bothered to read past reports I made metion that rather than doing a Gogle search it would be simpler to click on Investor Realtion at the VA Software website.

As far as not switching to html, I took some time off from this site to spend more time reading quality articles at sites such as Newsfactor, The Register, and OSOpinion. Amazing their submission system can automatically compensate from HTML. Also I was logged out. As you might know Anonymous user default to plain text. However, you may login before submitting the article but must always switch this. It was simple forgetfulness.

I had already read the report from Adequacy.org. Amazing there are many who claim to have had conversation with insider utilizing IRC chat. Using IRC I can pretend I'm Bill Gates so it does little for the credibility of the source. Then we read more information that generally opinion based and/or public knowledge. Sometimes we even get to read statements made by someone who the author believes works for that company (just throwing around important sounding names I guess) when they actually work for the competition. Let's not forget the famous AMD sweatshop article by osm/Yoshi/(whatever other alias he's using) void of any proof with statements made by Intel who suddenly became an employee of AMD.

The entire analysis you link to is full of nothing but assumption and unfounded conclusions coupled with opinions and misinformation from a source claiming to work for the company. Hardly any real analysis and very little fact. Of course to get to that I had to wade through numerous anti-Slashdot remarks.

So what actual analysis are you referring to? Maybe you could offer something outside the tiny universe that is Adequacy.org.

Amazingly enough goofball sites like Slashdot get far more respect from the Joe Blows computer users and even corporate PR reps. I mean seriously. When was the last time you went a corporate website and saw, in the news section, a link to an article on Adequacy.org

I will say this. Thank you. Thank you for the link to that article as I needed a really good laugh.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

So, you have no argument, then. (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 02:26:43 AM PST
I see you offer absolutely nothing from the 10Q to support your arguments. You instead engage in a pathetic attempt at character assassination.

How droll.

The analysis previously linked to, performed by a seasoned trader, depends only peripherally on sources within the company, and then only when estimating slash-dot's operating expenses. The revenue figures are taken directly from the filing.

Again, it's your turn.

Make your case using information in the 10Q, if you think you can. To date, you have done nothing of substance to counter the claim that LNUX depends primarily on slash-dot advertising for revenue.

Guess what, detikon? Once you've actually read and understood the filing, you'll find that the truth isn't what you want it to be, and no amount of wishing will make it so.


actually there's no more to argue (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by detikon on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 10:31:46 PM PST
You have failed. You claimed that YOU could give a solid analysis. Yet you failed to do so. You claimed that YOU could over proof yet you couldn't. Where is the in depth analysis that you promised? Oh a link pointing to and article on this site. My gosh. What you couldn't find something from an outside source? I suppose on this site it's perfectly acceptable to point to an article that has receive praise from editors (who are also unable to prove their case in anyway) and anonymous readers only. Yet like always it's been picked apart with numerous facts and solid proof and held up for nothing more than it's comedic value.

The only step in the right direction this site and many visitors have made is to stop whining (ala osm/Yoshi) about hacked links.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Still no argument. (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 02:31:56 PM PST
If you don't like the link, would you prefer cut-and-paste?

You can whine and complain all you like about the fact that Adequacy occasionally posts financial analysis, but that does not constitute a valid critique of said analysis.

If you don't want to read the 10Q for yourself, you are free to find some other analysis that counters the claim that slash-dot advertising accounts for the bulk of LNUX revenue, and link to it.

Go on. Stop crying and complaining, and produce some solid financial reasoning, if you can.


No I would... (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by detikon on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 05:41:24 PM PST
...prefer something from an outside source. You know something that one can actually believe. Article at Adequacy.org have an amazing reputation of being completely biased and offering little in the way of any real proof. That is unless you consider links to books at Amazon.com to be proof.

I think you would be wise to read this little story from The Register. While having nothing to do with the subject at hand it does provide an analysis similar to my own but regarding this site.
A painfully familiar claim for which the author provides not one scrap of evidence, yet expresses as an established fact.
If you want further evidence of what the world thinks of this site I suggest you read this one too.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

So you agree, then. (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 06:15:05 PM PST
I am glad that you finally agree that the bulk of LNUX's revenue is derived from slash-dot advertising.

You also seem to have strong opinions about Adequacy, which is wonderful. Why you've chosen to express them in the midst of a discussion of LNUX's finances is something of a mystery, but please, feel free to continue to air your views on any and all unrelated matters, if it makes you feel better.


Where? (none / 0) (#19)
by detikon on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 07:40:33 PM PST
Where did I agree? Yes you have full permission to quote the line in which I agreed that VA Software.

I have provided the 10-Q report which states nothing along the lines to which Slashdot is the primary source for advertisement and revenue.

It's quite possible you are referring to the statement made in the article from The Register. That simple applies to the half-assed analysis you linked to in your previous post. So please quote one of my previous post where at any time I have ever agreed with you.

Also it appears that you obviously haven't beenb paying much attention to any of the previous posts to know why I have been so outspoken about Adequacy.org. It's obvious that you have some trouble reading. I suggest you go back and read all the previous posts. Maybe then you'll have some idea.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

You've agreed by not disagreeing. (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 12th, 2002 at 10:06:58 PM PST
Since you have offered absolutely nothing of substance to counter the assertion that LNUX is primarily dependent on slash-dot advertising for revenue, despite repeated requests for arguments substantiated by financial data, you must, implicitly, agree with the statement.

You are free to continue expressing your opinions on entirely unrelated matters, of course, but until you have made an argument based in documented fact to counter the statement in question, you agree with it.


did you pull that out of your ass? (none / 0) (#30)
by detikon on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 04:17:31 PM PST
So it's much like the fact that you claimed that you would be able to point out exactly where in the 10-Q report references were made regarding avertising on Slashdot. I have presented the 10-Q but all your "if you can find the report I'll do this and that has failed".

You have failed to offer anything beyond an "analysis" made in an article on this very site which, it turns out, is nothing more than slanderous comments made about VA Software and Slashdot couple with statement made by a non-existant pertson claiming to be an employee on an IRC chat. That's a laugh. I can pretend to be the friggin president.

However, if it makes you feel better to pretend that I or anyone else believe you are correct go right ahead. You just keep telling yourself. That is what this site is all about. Someone makes a point and you make rebuttals based not on any fact but "established fact" then request that anyone who challenges the claim offer rock solid proof. What a laugh.

You have succeeded in nothing more than comedic writings. Have a nice day.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Glad you still agree. (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 06:23:21 PM PST
You agree with this analysis of the 10Q, because you can not offer any criticism other than personal attacks on the author, and the forum in which it appears. The only alternate analysis that has been presented is this one, which I see you have made no comment on at all.

Just admit it. You are as ignorant of financial analysis as you are of copyright law, if not more so, and you are not capable of independent critical thinking on financial matters.

The 10Q most certainly does support the assertion that slash-dot advertising is primarily responsible for LNUX's revenue. It does not state this directly, but any reasonable analysis of the data in the filing will find it to be so, a fact which you have confirmed by failing to produce any analysis to the contrary, either on your own, or via reference to a third party.

You have not done anything other than call people names and hiss and spit about how awful you think Adequacy is. I can see how this might be satisfying for you, but I'm afraid you are losing the debate on the real topic at hand, and making yourself look very bad in the process. Hope that helps.


 
Attn RobotSlave: stop posting anonymously [n/t] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 02:12:30 AM PST



 
be careful with this user (none / 0) (#11)
by nathan on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 02:50:23 PM PST
He has made wild, terroristic threats on my life within the last 24 hours.

Also, he bites.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

are you a complete moron? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 10:40:45 PM PST
Are you talking about the post where detikon asked if it were necessary to draw a picture and something about a brick?

There is a very big difference between asking if it's necessary and someone saying they are going to do it. Even if they ask if it's necessary and say they will it couldn't be considered a threat. Basically it's like saying if you believe it's necessary and thus giveing the person permission.

Grow up you big baby. Oh, and change you pants. That is unless you're just going to piss them again.


referring to yourself in the third person? (none / 0) (#22)
by nathan on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 05:57:00 AM PST
What's next, the royal We?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

An announcement: (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 12:34:11 PM PST
nathan would like the honourable AR to be informed that nathan knows that the honourable AR is as the honourable AR has just stated, and nathan yet enquires as to what nathan is.

Thank you for your time.
Paul Reubens


indeed (none / 0) (#24)
by nathan on Fri Jul 12th, 2002 at 05:11:52 PM PST
The preceding post is a huge puddle of wonk.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Question.. (none / 0) (#25)
by DG on Fri Jul 12th, 2002 at 09:10:37 PM PST
What is "wonk"? Is that like wank?

just wondering.. if it is wank you mean.. damn AR should go back to kur5hit
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

A summary for you, DG. (none / 0) (#28)
by because it isnt on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 07:43:47 AM PST
AR: nathan is poo
nathan: IKYABWAI
AR: look everyone, an IKYABWAI
nathan: AR is poo
DG: i'm confused.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

No.. (none / 0) (#29)
by DG on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 02:00:46 PM PST
I'm not confused i was trying to be funny.. hmm some people just don't get it, I guess
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
lunitist (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 08:19:28 PM PST
Sounds to me like Detikon is a lunitist.


 
Some real financial analysis. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by RobotSlave on Thu Jul 11th, 2002 at 12:42:07 AM PST
I've been watching that financial thread for a while now, and I'm a frustrated with all the sniping and lack of actual analysis on both sides.

I was a little skeptical about your anonymous critic's assertions, detikon, so I ran the numbers myself. Here's what I found.

Let's start with a brief look at all of the revenue data in the 10Q.

Here's what it says.

  • In Q3 (fiscal, commonly referred to as Q2) 2002), LNUX had 5.1 million in net revenue.
  • Of that revenue, 0.7 was due to exited business (hardware and Linux software services)
  • 19.7% (or one million) of that revenue came from a single source: Intel
  • Intel was the only customer that accounted for more than 10% of net revenue.
  • 0.5 million was booked due to ad barter (as opposed to sales).


And that's it. No further information from that source. We need more information to continue the analysis and determine the details.

The Adequacy article by jsm which you hate so much provides some analysis, but it didn't look quite right to me, either. I don't like some of his sources, and some of his estimates look wrong to me.

I'll just stick with solid published information, and ignore the interesting speculation based on IRC chat or mysterious "inside" sources.

First, the disclosures regarding Intel tell us that no-one else paid LNUX more than $500,000 during the quarter.

Second, if that cool million from Intel came in the form of Sourceforge 3.0 licenses, you can be sure we'd see it on the Sourceforge brag sheet, but it's conspicuously absent.

So what did Intel buy? We can't be sure, but we know it came from OSDN, and that means advertising. This is hardly surprising, given that VA's CFO admitted in the conference call that OSDN advertising accounted for "substantially all" of the Q2 revenues, (without giving out hard numbers, of course).

While I agree with jsm's contention that most Sourceforge customers are probably buying 10 or 30 licenses at a time for evaluation (and let's remember, no-one bought 500, according to the 10Q), I think his estimate of 200K in sales for the quarter is a little stingy. I'll go out on a limb and say they may be selling as many as 100 seats in a good week, and grant them as much as 750K in revenue due to Sourceforge in the quarter.

After we've subtracted revenue from exited business, that leaves us with 3.65M of revenue from OSDN.

Now we have to set about determining how much of that should be attributed to slashdot. jsm's notion that the money from Intel went into a sourceforge "sponsorship" is interesting, but it's more likely it was spread out over a larger package, including banner ads.

Absent any other metric, we've got to use traffic stats to estimate slash-dot's contribution to OSDN ad revenues.

OSDN's advertising sales page claims 6 million unique visitors per month, and 120 million ad impressions.

Rob Malda's slashdot subscription announcement is most helpful.

We learn that slashdot has a third of a million visitor per day. Then we get a breakdown that relates percentages of users to dollars that would make all page views ad-free for those users, if they were to subscribe. I reproduce these figures below, along with page views/day, calculated from the $5/1000 pageviews subscription fee:

82% -- $20/yr ( <10 pageviews/day )
15% -- $05/mo ( 10-33 pageviews/day )
03% -- >$05/mo ( >>33 pageviews/day )


That middle 15% is our key. Unlike the less active percentile, can assume that they are daily visitors. We can now make a simple calculation: 15% of a third of a million visitors is 50,000 people, which in turn account for 0.5M to 1.65M pageviews per day, or 15M to 50M pageviews per month.

Thus, 15% of slashdot visitors account for somewhere between 12% and 40% of all ad-bearing OSDN traffic.

If we add the most active percentile, we find that 18% of slashdot users represent 20% of osdn traffic at a bare minimum, and possibly two thirds or more of all OSDN ad-bearing traffic. But we still haven't accounted for 82% of slash-dot's visitors.

That 82% is difficult to translate into page views without more information, but it must be substantial. If all of them are one-off visitors, never to return, then we could just add them up: 82% of a third of a million per day would be 80M per month, or two-thirds of OSDN ad impressions, but this is far in excess of OSDN's claim of 6M visitors/month. Note that if even half of a percent of all slashdot visitors are one-time viewers, then those one-offs account for the bulk of OSDN's claimed 6M viewers each month.

It is likely, then, that the vast majority of those 82% are daily visitors (or can be amalgamated as such), and we can calculate that there are about 273K of them, accounting for 8M to 80M impressions per month, or anywhere from 7% to 67% of all OSDN ad impressions.

You would have to be a complete moron to insist on the absolute minimum or absolute maximum of the possible range here (if you're not keeping score, that's 27% to 135% or more of all OSDN traffic).

If we split the difference at 81% and knock off ten points to be on the safe side, then we can make a ballpark estimate of OSDN ad revenue attributable to slash-dot by taking 70 percent of 3.65M, which gives us 2.555M, or just over half of all net revenue for the quarter.

Technically, that's the majority of VA's revenue for the quarter, but the anonymous poster was exaggerating quite a bit when suggesting that the "vast majority" or "bulk" of the revenue was due to slashdot.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.