|
|
Posted by Mika on 11/29/07 12:02
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-F09CE7.20013629112007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <kzu3j.54796$c_1.10991@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99F6B2D4875B0boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...
>> > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03
>> > GMT Mika scribed:
>> >
>> >> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better
>> >> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years
>> >> spouting the same old nonsense! :P
>> >
>> > Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get
>> > that
>> > far.
>>
>> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong
>> on
>> 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters
>> like
>> you.
>
> A lot of stuff has gotten twisted and confused. Beauregard T.
> Shagnasty is a good man and his instincts are not to be lightly
> brushed aside. Never mind the micro details of the exchanges.
>
> There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is
> your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to
> confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that
> people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so
> on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?
>
> Is there a site that has no js, no flash, no constant big or
> little delays, that has perhaps simple diagramatic (rather than
> the 6953 x 290px jpg you use in one of your pages) very low
> bandwidth implementation of the idea at least of moving along a
> street with a mouse (think low bandwidth b & w sketches or
> diagrams to *represent* the street rather than *depict* it)?
>
> Without some control of this kind, it is impossible to go on
> anything but hunches and guesses. And the feedback from people
> here has been pretty hard on you and irritating to you. But in
> the absence of hard evidence what is there to go on?
>
> You see, I really question whether people would be prepared to
> pay the price of slowness and clunkiness for an experience that
> is so far below the one of real shopping. I do not hear any
> people from the UK on this newsgroup supporting the site in terms
> of speed and handiess?
>
> I have mentioned (not just as a joke) a few things before about
> how great is the shortfallin any meaningfiul claim that it "like"
> really being there. One can barely read any window signs or see
> in for a start. I know what you would like ideally. You would
> love a way to give your viewers a high quality virtual experience
> (think Boeing 747 simulators). How can a jpg of your dimensions
> (look at the tiny 290px height for a start) possibly do this? It
> falls *so far short of any real experience* that perhaps you
> should bite the bullet and not even try to be so realistic and
> fail. Better to be representative, to enable things efficiently
> and quickly in another way.
>
> If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to
> you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.
In a nutshell as I think this thread is getting a little tiresome, yes the
site makes money in the UK, and we get 5-figure hits per month, many from
repeat visitors. That is the science behind the chat.
Also just to clarify for once and for all, in the UK the site is not "slow &
clunky" to use, it is rather nippy on any reasonably modern pooter or
connection. See the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2m8pON8n0 This was captured live off the
web, not locally.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|