Doesn't that depend on where the current results come from? If you watch the results of a US Presidential election on the county level, you can see much wider swings; the cities, which vote D, often turn in their results much later than the rural counties.
(Or maybe in this case, the results really are representative. I know nothing about Greek politics.)
I think we're working from different definitions of "representative" The sense I mean it in is, "the election centers that have reported results are demographically representative, and therefore predictive, of countrywide results".
That might be the case, but you didn't provide any evidence to suggest it is, so the more likely explanation is that you thought I meant something else by the word.
The results are from all voting centers. Once a voting center finishes counting, it sends it to the data center. So the data are sent more or less randomly to the data center. You are right that this does not mean that are truly representative. But for the sake of simplicity we can call it "representative".
The map on the Guardian page that this HN submission points to suggests otherwise re: it being a representative sample. The districts appear to be relatively large, and most districts are reporting 0% counted while others are at e.g. 50%. The districts with any votes reported at all are also strongly clustered.
The UK is a pretty extreme example of that (the other way round; urban areas tend to report first), so May saw Labour-party members discussing the unexpected scale of their defeat even whilst the actually announced results and counted votes put them some way ahead.
Of course, in this case the analysts had plenty of past data to work with in being confident that narrow successes in urban areas and defeats in marginal areas meant little hope of any gains anywhere else.
I do agree, however remember that you can get SSL certs from $9 (e.g. from NameCheap). You might be able to pay lower if you shop around too.
Also even if it was used as a fairly strong ranking signal, if Google still approach their rankings like they do now, spammers might still have sufficient ranking 'weight' to overcome a lack of SSL certificate.
I'm a freelance web developer for dozens of restaurants. They pay for the site, then a yearly hosting fee every year after launch. They get a basic CMS so they can update their hours/menus/etc.
I host all their sites on a few VPS servers. Some of my contracts require support for IE 7 or IE 8 on Windows XP, and those browsers don't support SNI. So in addition to what you've mentioned - maintaining certificates and losing more of what little money I make on hosting (I basically charge a small % of the VPS cost plus a few hours' worth of work), I now will need to figure out another solution. It seems like a waste to spin up a new VPS for each site that requires XP support.
Clients look at the <10% of visitors coming from Safari and IE7+8 on XP and say "those are potential customers." It's difficult to argue with that.
For now though, I'm going to do nothing new. All indications are that HTTPS is going to be maybe 1% of the ranking, and I know my market well enough that the sites rank highly for local searches - which is the important part. They're responsive and they've all got social media presences, so until SSL is more important for PageRank, I'll wait it out.
I had fun with this; definitely a good mini game to learn more about XSS, although it's a pitty that you can cheat-pass a level simply by appending '/record' to the end of the URL. (Granted it's just a game)
I definitely agree though - they sound like a very poor host. One of my websites received an invalid DMCA via my host, and my host handled it well (i.e. listening to my side of the story, before deciding not to pursue the 'complaint').
Any host that handles DMCAs so poorly (i.e. threatening their customers without knowing the facts) doesn't deserve to be in business IMO.
As patio11 says, the margin on domains are fairly small and so many domain companies survive on the upsells instead. Verisign's current .com price is $7.85 and for .net is $5.62. This is the minimum that the registrars (GoDaddy, NameCheap etc) need to pay - so when you think that NameCheap sometimes sell .coms for $8.95, the margin really is small... especially since I've left out the $0.25 ICANN transaction fee (many companies - GoDaddy aside - include this in the overall price). So a $8.95 .com sale leaves just $0.85.
So it does make sense for domain companies to market themselves as sellers of an online presence, instead of a sub-$10 domain name.
But having said that, the website seems a tad... boilerplate. I thought that big companies were done with rebranding to a Web 2.0 esque corporate web design?
Also the footer is 865 pixels tall on my 1920x1080p screen - does it really need to be that big?
I don't mean to be too critical - I do support the change to selling a 'story' instead of a domain name. But the design just seems... outdated?