Welcome to ToTG!
|
March 29, 2013
Sincerely Another Quiz
Pretty close, except for the "conscientious and responsible" part. And the "procrastinating or shirking", too. Oh, and the "puts manners first" is way off as well. I DO try to make sure my emails are well-composed, though. They're often always too wordy, but.... Thank goodness for spell check.
One of the questions was "When was the last time you hand-wrote a letter?" I'm glad "I can't remember" was one of the choices, because I honestly can't remember. It's probably been over fifteen years ago, before I got a computer, for sure. It's hard for me to sign my name on a credit card slip; I've almost forgotten how to write.
I'm really not a "sincerely" type of person. If it's a friend or family member, I usually sign off with "Love"; if it's a stranger, it's "Regards". Most of the time I don't put anything other than my name.
One of the questions was "When was the last time you hand-wrote a letter?" I'm glad "I can't remember" was one of the choices, because I honestly can't remember. It's probably been over fifteen years ago, before I got a computer, for sure. It's hard for me to sign my name on a credit card slip; I've almost forgotten how to write.
I'm really not a "sincerely" type of person. If it's a friend or family member, I usually sign off with "Love"; if it's a stranger, it's "Regards". Most of the time I don't put anything other than my name.
| You Are Sincerely |
![]() You're the type of person who puts manners first. You always act appropriately. You are conscientious and responsible. You don't like the feeling of procrastinating or shirking. While you don't always sign your emails 'Sincerely,' you make sure that they are well composed. Whether you're emailing a friend or a business associate, you take the time to double check your words. More than any other type, you make sure email doesn't pile up for you. You know it's important to reply quickly. Some may say that email is going out of style, but you still consider it an art form. And you couldn't imagine living without it. |
Maybe the quiz says I use "Sincerely" because this song came out the year I was born. Just like me, an oldie but a goody.
Rank & Worth
ToTG is ranked #8,129,387 in the world according to Website Value.
Different sites give some vastly different rankings, especially in what ToTG is "worth". ValueMyWeb says it's worth $499. I've said this before, but I'd sell it for that in a New York minute except I was taught to never cheat anyone.
webArbiter says it's worth $457. Yeah, right.
Alexa, arguably the most accurate of these types of statistics sites, globally ranks ToTG #23,066,013.
SiteWorthGet said this blog was worth $139, but after updating the information, its worth is now $109. I shouldn't have updated it, it depreciated 21 bucks with one mouse click! (the content has greatly depreciated over the years since I started it, too)
OTOH, siteworthchecker had a value of Zero, Zilch, Nada...the big ol' goose egg $0 but after an update, it is also now valued at $109. To be honest, that still seemsway too a little high.
I guess "worth" means the potential for earning, but since there's no ads, that's a moot point. The numbers vary from site-to-site, but most of the estimated earnings come in at around ten bucks/month. It's worth $10 to me to NOT subject my few readers to ads and the potential for trojans/viruses many hosted ads contain not to mention the invasion of privacy and all-around annoyance of them. I use various ad block extensions on my Firefox browser and I expect many others do as well. If not, they should.
urlpulse says it's ranked #28,916,047 in the world, #2,318,571 in the United States and worth $855.30, with a value per visitor of .03 cents.
Maybe that's why this blog doesn't get many visitors or many people leaving their two cents worth. I'd hate to post here too and have my worth devalued by 2/3.
webArbiter says it's worth $457. Yeah, right.
Alexa, arguably the most accurate of these types of statistics sites, globally ranks ToTG #23,066,013.
SiteWorthGet said this blog was worth $139, but after updating the information, its worth is now $109. I shouldn't have updated it, it depreciated 21 bucks with one mouse click! (the content has greatly depreciated over the years since I started it, too)
OTOH, siteworthchecker had a value of Zero, Zilch, Nada...the big ol' goose egg $0 but after an update, it is also now valued at $109. To be honest, that still seems
I guess "worth" means the potential for earning, but since there's no ads, that's a moot point. The numbers vary from site-to-site, but most of the estimated earnings come in at around ten bucks/month. It's worth $10 to me to NOT subject my few readers to ads and the potential for trojans/viruses many hosted ads contain not to mention the invasion of privacy and all-around annoyance of them. I use various ad block extensions on my Firefox browser and I expect many others do as well. If not, they should.
urlpulse says it's ranked #28,916,047 in the world, #2,318,571 in the United States and worth $855.30, with a value per visitor of .03 cents.
Maybe that's why this blog doesn't get many visitors or many people leaving their two cents worth. I'd hate to post here too and have my worth devalued by 2/3.
March 28, 2013
March 27, 2013
I'm a Fun Guy!
Did you know mushrooms are more closely related to animals than to plants?
Mushrooms are fungi, which are actually genetically closer to animals than they are to plants. Scientists use a genealogical path known as the Tree of Life to trace the evolution of living organisms, and they have determined that fungi share a common ancestor with animals and are completely branched off from plants.
Fungi and animals have to turn to external sources for their food sources, but plants can produce their own nutrients. Chitin, a complex carbohydrate responsible for cell wall structure, is a molecule that is shared by fungi and animals but is not found in plants.
wiseGEEK: Learn Something New Every Day
Mushrooms are fungi, which are actually genetically closer to animals than they are to plants. Scientists use a genealogical path known as the Tree of Life to trace the evolution of living organisms, and they have determined that fungi share a common ancestor with animals and are completely branched off from plants.
Fungi and animals have to turn to external sources for their food sources, but plants can produce their own nutrients. Chitin, a complex carbohydrate responsible for cell wall structure, is a molecule that is shared by fungi and animals but is not found in plants.
wiseGEEK: Learn Something New Every Day
March 26, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)



