If you don’t eat dinner, what about dessert? It’s one of those things that I do like to do. It’s a treat to remember that I do like desserts. It’s called the New York Times and I love it.
It’s like a food post, but instead of a food post, it’s an interactive dessert. That’s the idea behind the New York Times: post a food you’d enjoy, then have the opportunity to comment on it, and then have that person go and eat that food. While this is a great idea, it’s one that doesn’t work all that well.
For one, you dont get the chance to make a post every time you visit the New York Times. Two, a lot of readers do not want to eat the same thing every time they visit the site. And three, it is quite difficult to get a post made and get it up on the first day. For example, the NY Times often has a holiday issue to post on.
One of the greatest problems of this approach is that most readers are not reading the NY Times at all. Instead they are reading it on their computer or mobile device. If you post on a site and the person you wrote it about doesn’t come back to your post, then you have to wait to get their reaction. You might be able to get a tweet to your post, but that is rare.
There are two reasons that this is not a very effective approach. The first is that there is no way to know whether your post has been read by someone else. We can’t see who has read your post. As a result, when people are in the mood to reply, they just write to the post in the exact same way they would have written it if they actually read the post. The other reason this isn’t a very effective approach is that it is very time-consuming.
I think the most effective design is a simple one. The most significant thing is that the posts are read by everyone and then people are in control of how they respond to it. Not the first thing. I think it is a very effective design. I don’t know why there would have been a response if everybody read your post.
As it turns out, the post is about the same.
The fact is, the thing that seems to be going through our heads is a post that people will read, but they are in the dark of things. So when someone says they read your post and you say you dont know what they are talking about, we are in the dark about what they are talking about, and we take it all as a sign to ignore the post.
This reminds me of the old joke about a customer who had come into a restaurant and ordered a lobster roll. The waitress said, “Would you like it rare?’”. “’Cause I’m not going to eat the fish.
It’s all in the wording. It’s like they are saying that he wants to eat a rare lobster, but they are actually asking for a lobster roll, a lobster roll that was cooked rare, and has been eaten. So it is rare, but it has not been cooked rare, and it was eaten by someone who is insane.
0 Comments