"Usually I'm rated very badly, and I've no idea about the reason.
IMHO a rate of 1 is appropriate to a solution that doesn't compile or else.
Please send me a mail, or give me a post to make me understand, what code-horror i've done."
IMHO a rate of 1 is appropriate to a solution that doesn't compile or else.
Please send me a mail, or give me a post to make me understand, what code-horror i've done."
- I'm currently doing some music.
- It's quite amateur and experimental, but I selected classical as a lead category on one of my mp3 hosting services.
- There's cca. 10000 of files (artists) in "/classical" folder (or similar super number)
- There's one more classical artist for my country
- While I was on the tail of list, I concluded, after year of observation, that popularity is just function with body full of probability functions. In other words, until you are not much visible, your popularity track (==rating graph) keeps random shape during time (or kind of `Brownian motion based rising only` graph).
- I was still second in my country (for this site). It's quite non-significant, for what I am trying to describe to you, that I think that I consider that second artist being better artist.
- Then I've got support from few of not much rated, but organized friends of mine (they are trying to increase their success probability with designing large web (or net) of artists, using "Add as friend", with more or less success). This support moved me, hm, I am not sure, but it moved me some considerable amount of partitions forward. But if I remember, it was considerable, but not generally significant amount (it means, that even their method - not much different from web-farming - has also rather random effects, with minimal, but present positive feedback; this also means, that generally, mp3 sites are well secured against such hack /there are sites which probably are not web-secure, but how can I tell that friend artist of mine really deserves or not his rating, can I? In addition from what position you could tell that artist can't support artist?).
Ok, but generally I consider their support (in amount of 3 'automatic' :? fans for me; I rather consider them being real friends and real fans, but you know, those are three different things: belief to on-line people, this theory, and personal factor of significance of 'mark as friend') to have unspecified effect in my story. I can't say. Nor I have some emotional profit from being fanned by this group of friends here or there, just because it looks like strategy, and even if it didn't, it is quite supposed to fan across, between people who are friends. Not sure about this last 'it is supposed' :D - Now comes second significant point of this story: with or without help of these friends, I don't know, as told above, some 'station', I don't know how to describe status of this artist, added me to his roster (I don't know what that term means). But this artist, what will be more understandable to you, is kind of label, he take you to his 'board', he provide link to you from much higher rating position. And do you or don't you believe, My artist-nick skipped half of positions, and I left that second czech artist (seemingly, since now I, am from cz :) ) behind myself, with no real effect of his and my quality proportion.
Ok I am not depending on such beliefs, that he's really better or not, but I still think so. Evidently this proportions have no relation to sites algorithm results, this is must be thing, because you base rating on people, number of fans, number of plays and another very random factors. - The conclusion: until you keep tailing with visibility, your rating is random, but growing. With more rating you have, your rating is more derived from your real skills. And when you are too high, it gets pretty dangerous, because, maybe, your rating starts to reflect your real value. But don't hurry. What does it have common with reality, when you get enough return for your hard work, since you've got enough return from some probability function.
More simply told, what does it mean, that there is ten random people casting as popstars (e.g.), and only order of these people reflects their real abilities, beauty of voice, or big 80085 ;). It simply means, that some fraction or all of them could be replaced with much cuter, or much more talented people, which are kept down forever by some probability automaton, counting millions of linked-rating agents.
It reminds me of money, politics and people really able to move things forward (basically group not mixed with any of previous). - I am sorry if it looks like I am doing some star from myself here, I just wanted to put my thoughts together, on this my circumstance, giving it to you as easy to read schema of popularity, related to Internet services, where rating is kind of 'main factor'. Basically I wanted to tell you, let it be, rating is not really internally significant (measure of self-realization feeling, your own your value), nor generally significant (measure of talent, social properties etc.). Rating is random value significant only for cash income, what is really important, but also really nothing to die/being sad for.
- If you don't consider this popularity theory valid, take this part of it as possible advice: make your articles more visible, and observe what happens. But it's not as good as receive positive feedback from random, still. Because you must start writing what people want and need to read (even if they did much better wanting and needing to read your current, spontaneous research content).
I would never done music for people (in sense of adapting myself for high popularity), I do it for me, and then for people (what is wrongly considered to be high quality marker).
But there are artists / writers, writing primarily for masses, with no popularity plans behind, and I consider them automatically better than me (I work just from my refinement, even if it should disgust all of public... simply preferring authenticity instead of effect) - I could simply tell you let it be, or adapt your work to trendy (/high rate consumed) technology and approaches. So sorry me if I misused you to put self-reflection and state together with stupid theory. But generally I hope you listened just little bit more opinions on your rating than you requested, and if not, you can, hopefully get over that :)
- Just BTW, why I remarked my category (you see it was factor not properly used within theory). I probably skipped it unconsciously, but I wanted to tell, that that label, which significantly shuffled my rating forward, is more experimental one. So even if I and my college from cz would obtained both same attention of this label-man, I would have better luck, because, although I categorized me as "classical", he would preferred me (maybe), because he's more experimental oriented. Simply, because I am more amateur, and less classical, I obtained better classical position. It can simply change, and also I don't suppose to get from my current 300 position (yes, maybe if my friend label steps forward, but not myself), but for now, it works like this.
- You can simply conclude, that I suppose you to receive some real rating by time, if you have a luck. I did everything I can for this effort. But it's not much important I guess. Important is who knows you, and not how many people think something about you.
And before all important is, that we are trying to program something useful.
autor | 21. ledna 2010 v 4:22 | 
I DONT KNOW YOUR MAIL.. THATS WHY I CONTACT U THRU THIS BLOG... SORRY....
Hello sir,
I am trying to create an exe file or dll file at run time...
i got this link.. and i guess it should be something related to it...
I read to your answer for the question i asked.. thanks for tolerating my illiteracy on vb.net...
Sir , could you pls explain step by step how is the output obtained for the following program,...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y947hae6.aspx
[ PLS DOWNLOAD THE SAMPLE ] and run it as given...
PLS CONTACT ME AT
ayyappashrine@ymail.com
THANKS A LOT, IN ADVANCE