Something about journalism and statistics:
TC> survey, nor any definition as such for an individual page was. The stats
TC> that I got from Goldman were that, from next to none in Dec 1999, there
TC> are now "more than 4.4 million WML pages," online as of Aug 2000.
So you got some numbers from the CEO of the Wapforum (!) without any
definition about the measuring method. He got this numbers from a
company who made this report especially for them (!).
Please have a look at the George Bush Website and you see that he has a
strong lead over Gore, says an totally independent institute.
And now look at Al Gore's website and read that he has a strong lead
over Bush, says an totally independent institute.
You understand what I mean?
TC> That's
TC> 4.4 million in 8 months, or nearly half a million WML pages a month.
TC> Even if you calculate each WAP site with 100 individual pages, that
TC> would mean 5,000 new WAP sites (presumably new WAP content providers as
TC> well) a month.
But you can not calculate anything without the definition how this was
measured.
TC> Either that means there is a lot of content creation
TC> support for the platform, or there is a lot of really big sites with
TC> hundreds of sub-pages.
If you look at this site: http://www.nooper.com (I know, I know, Folks,
but I have no other example right now!), your browser request gets a total
individual page, especially sended to your computer.
It looks almost the same to everybody, but there is this
little number below and this number changes all the time. This page is
totally dynamically on the fly produced and this page (or this unique
URL) could show everybody totally different content...how much 'pages'
are this?
TC> That or someone is lying.
Don't be so extreme. If you don't understand something, but you are
really sure about a (totally wrong) fact, you tell it to other people as
a (totally right) fact. This is not lying, it's missing knowledge and a
lot of self esteem.
TC> Pinpoint, who supposedly did the survey has a Web site (add .com), but
TC> does not have any information on the findings. Presumably, the survey
TC> was done internally for the WAP Forum, so not available to the public.
See my presidental example above.
TC> I agree totally that there is a lot of confusion with terms to describe
TC> the Internet, wireless of wired, with much of the information completely
TC> meaningless to most people except for journalist looking for a story or
TC> web sites which might want to sell advertising or attract investors.
Actually these wrong or false or not confirmed statistics will be
written down in magazines and very often they are the base for new
businessplans. Later you can find some of the results of these businessplans
at this service: http://www.fuckedcompany.com
TC> On the other hand, a sudden surge of content for WAP might indicate some
TC> kind of acceptance on the industry's part for the platform although i
TC> suspect and from my experience testing out a WAP service on Hutchison's
^
So you tested one (!) WAP service from 5000 new WAP sites per month
(it's your calculation). And...
TC> network in Hong Kong, that only highly localized content will work.
...you have a final conclusion.
TC> Besides, trying to get outside an operator's menu using a WAP phone is
TC> near impossible, probably because they don't provision international
TC> bandwidth to support mobile phones accessing overseas content. Also
TC> according to my colleagues here at the magazine, some WAP phones don't
TC> even let you bookmark sites, so users are forced to laborously enter the
TC> address of WAPsites each time.
So, this means that nobody can access the 4 million pages, right?
Haha, you really made my day. Now please tell us for which magazine you
work, but I assume it must be this here:
http://www.satirewire.com/
:)
Juergen
PS: In germany we have a common quote: Don't believe statistics which
you not faked by yourself.
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Nov 2 12:47:16 2000