ab -c 30 -n 3000 http://www.blinklink.me/b/4XIxfoeF4C0
Concurrency Level: 30
Time taken for tests: 93.802 seconds
Complete requests: 3000
Failed requests: 2137
(Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 2137, Exceptions: 0)
Write errors: 0
Requests per second: 31.98 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 938.024 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 31.267 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 182.47 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 116 165 165.9 122 1276
Processing: 137 771 624.6 625 6827
Waiting: 132 733 595.7 601 6823
Total: 254 936 644.7 789 7062
You're intentionally making it too generic to portray the guy as an asshole, when that's not how things went down. Very politician-like. Yuck.
I'm betting that version 2 will solve this problem.
(Edit: I added another 1000 views by tweeting, so it didn't affect it permanently)
* ab has more results variation between runs
* ab will almost always report lower performance than wrk
* If you have two implementations being benchmarked, A and B and B is always faster than A. wrk will report a greater degree of performance separation between A and B.
"Three Felonies a Day" via https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...
It lets you simulate hitting your web server to benchmark the speed. You can do cool things like test concurrent and sequential connections.
> ab - Apache HTTP server benchmarking tool
$ whatis ab
ab (1) - Apache HTTP server benchmarking tool
$ wtf ab
ab: ab (1) - Apache HTTP server benchmarking tool
That said, it's pretty easy to mirror content. In case the link is dead, http://i.imgur.com/KGo7oRH.jpg is what was on the page originally.
Oh, and I found a UI annoyance. On the front page (http://www.blinklink.me/), the blue "Make a BlinkLink" button at the top that says is just a link to blinklink.me. The bottom button (which is a less-noticeable white) actually posts the form. You should probably hide the top button on the front page.
But here, after slapping the die part on the face, people are forcing themselves to post the link on twitter. Very cool!
"Before we allow you in our restaurant or show you a menu, you must give us a positive review on yelp."
Interesting, my reaction was the total opposite of yours - I immediately started to hate the idea - for the same reasons as you stated.
It reminds me in very negative ways of these crappy sharehostera where you are nagged and limited just to extort your money.
WTF? Maybe we won't be free of scummy exploits until the second last person in the world dies and leaves the last person with nobody to exploit, but just because we can't get rid of something doesn't mean we have to praise it, of all things. What's wrong with you?
That you can mirror the content is maybe not even that important from a psychological point of view.
You could make it difficult perhaps by requiring the user follow a path with their mouse, otherwise white noise appears. That way they cannot actually move their cursor to take a screenshot. Maybe do something else to occupy one of their other hands, such as pressing a series of keys. Of course someone else could be standing there ready to push the "print screen" button or use a camera, like you can with Snapchat. Don't forget a time limit.
Any mouse movement or keypresses would blank the page and you'd have to reload it to see the contents again. Of course, there are probably ways to subvert this, but it would stop most people.
My time is too valuable for that kind of absurd bullshit.
I want to pay for what I use; everyone else can do the same.
It's kind of not OK to distribute other people's work when they don't want you to.
>> "before receiving a free gift that doesn't exist"
Presumably if this was done by someone like Coca-Cola you would receive something for sharing the page. The spam problem could be improved by asking them to tweet their own content + link rather than a predefined message. e.g. Tweet your favourite thing about [brand] and get [reward]. And the tweet would be [your message] + link.
These techniques could be used in interesting ways - most people just don't bother.
>> "You want users to visit a promo page, where they're forced to retweet the content before getting access?"
Also if the user is getting something of value I don't see the problem with asking them to do something to get it. They aren't being forced, they are being given a choice. Do this thing and get rewarded. Don't do it and life goes on.
Isn't that what social networks are for these days. They're just junk mail by another name.
Otherwise, love it. Needs a favicon. Get ready for viral growth.
I think this has just been created for giggles, not for any particular reason. Admittedly, it piqued my curiosity!
But the conclusion is that it is easier to click reload twenty times than to tweet a single message.