• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Walking Dead #1 Black Label vs White Label - an Answer! UPDATED 2/4/14
2 2

Started by bffnut,

304 posts in this topic

Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the quick primer on the signatures Maloney. I'm definitely not the most tech savvy guy though. I've created a photobucket account and saved scans of the books I would like to put in my sig line on it. However when I try to copy and paste them to the sig line it just comes out as the text url when I "preview" it. Can anyone offer a bit of advice on what I'm doing wrong here?

 

Oh, and so as to not completely hijack this thread with my newbie-ness...

 

WALKING DEAD BLACK LABELS ROCK!

 

lol

 

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bffnut

bffnut

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Here is an example of how you should type it in.

 

Say this is the link for your picture on photobucket:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/dredjaw/Comics/TWD1_zps6486307f.jpg

 

wrap an img tag on either side of the link:

 

[ img ] link [ /img] (just remove the spaces)

 

and you will get this:

 

 

 

TWD1_zps6486307f.jpg

Edited by bffnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted (edited)

That's a great looking WD#1 bffnut. Can't see why it's not a 9.8 to be honest.

Sharp corners, no perceptible spine ticks, the whole she-bang.

 

Thanks for elaborating on the sig thing as well. As you can see from my one attempt at adding just one image, it just does not seem to be working out for me unfortunately. It still only shows up as text dad gummit! Shame they make it so cumbersome to add an image on this site. I'm sure there are loads of people with great books that they'd love to post but just can't figure out how.

 

-J.

 

**Edit** I actually figured out how to add pics to the sig the url I was copying and pasting was corrupted. Now I would be super grateful for any suggestions on how to make the pics small like a thumbnail, so I can row them up side by side like the other guys on here have done, so that one pic in my sig doesn't take up a whole page ? lol actually making this sig line has become a minor mission for the day.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bffnut

bffnut

Posted
  • Author
Posted

On photobucket, when you view the image, there are usually some links on the right side of the page for posting the image on other websites. In of the links is usually for thumbnails.

 

However, you will find that the signature line is limited to a certain amount of characters (I think 1000) so you may want to put the images together your self in paint and photoshop first, then load that combo image to photobucket.

 

As far as image hosting, I wish this board offered that as well, but I am sure that type of service is costly. And this site is free to use!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dragonmgmt

dragonmgmt

Posted
Posted (edited)
I have a hard time taking anything seriously that has, at best, 20% of the known copies as its sample for survey. I know you are extrapolating using that data, I just don't trust that extrapolation. Same as I don't trust anyone telling me that "America wants X because our poll of .001% of the population says so." I trust the 20% population data more, and I don't trust it at all.

 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why remediation is necessary in post-secondary institutions.

 

Sheesh.

 

slym, just admit that statistics isn't your thing and that you're trusting your gut on this one. That would be more honest than trying to takedown an entire field of study.

 

You are being a bit of a knob about this. That's pretty much exactly what his post that you quoted says. What more do you want? Let him have his opinion and kick back feeling smug about how deep your understanding of stats is.

 

Yes, I am being a knob about slym's willful dismissal of fairly sound statistical evidence re: the percentage of black labels vs. white labels. At least three people have pointed out that the methodology is appropriate and that the findings tend to contradict slym's anecdotal evidence.

 

At this point, he has admitted he might be wrong about the white vs black label issue (which is not what prompted my snarky reply) but continues to assert that "I don't trust that extrapolation," meaning he doesn't trust what statistics is capable of doing in terms of making claims about a population based on a small sample (which was the cause of my snarky reply).

 

My understanding of stats is above average but not stellar. The stats stuff people have been talking about on the board here can be found with a simple Google search. I'm not being smug; I'm asking that someone yield at least part of their opinion to the quantifiable evidence gathered by bffnut, and then, I'm scoffing when that someone still believes their gut instead, which in this matter (about prints runs) seems just silly.

Edited by dragonmanagement
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Balham's Finest

Balham's Finest

Posted
Posted
I have a hard time taking anything seriously that has, at best, 20% of the known copies as its sample for survey. I know you are extrapolating using that data, I just don't trust that extrapolation. Same as I don't trust anyone telling me that "America wants X because our poll of .001% of the population says so." I trust the 20% population data more, and I don't trust it at all.

 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why remediation is necessary in post-secondary institutions.

 

Sheesh.

 

slym, just admit that statistics isn't your thing and that you're trusting your gut on this one. That would be more honest than trying to takedown an entire field of study.

 

You are being a bit of a knob about this. That's pretty much exactly what his post that you quoted says. What more do you want? Let him have his opinion and kick back feeling smug about how deep your understanding of stats is.

 

Yes, I am being a knob about slym's willful dismissal of fairly sound statistical evidence re: the percentage of black labels vs. white labels. At least three people have pointed out that the methodology is appropriate and that the findings tend to contradict slym's anecdotal evidence.

 

At this point, he has admitted he might be wrong about the white vs black label issue (which is not what prompted my snarky reply) but continues to assert that "I don't trust that extrapolation," meaning he doesn't trust what statistics is capable of doing in terms of making claims about a population based on a small sample (which was the cause of my snarky reply).

 

My understanding of stats is above average but not stellar. The stats stuff people have been talking about on the board here can be found with a simple Google search. I'm not being smug; I'm asking that someone yield at least part of their opinion to the quantifiable evidence gathered by bffnut, and then, I'm scoffing when that someone still believes their gut instead, which in this matter (about prints runs) seems just silly.

 

Let me try and explain my comment, as I don't think it was understood:

 

Slym posted that he "didn't trust" the extrapolation, or any conclusion based on what he thought was a small sample size. You followed up with what I thought was a patronising comment telling him to admit he was going on a gut feeling, which is exactly what I thought he had already done (he wasn't saying that the stats were objectively wrong, just that he didn't trust them). That is why I said you were being a bit of a knob.

 

Anyway, on reflection, it was a bit of an uncalled for comment from me - so I apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2
Go to topic listing