Google to Spend Almost $2B on 1.9M Square Feet

Status
Not open for further replies.

pandemonium_ctp

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2009
35
0
18,580
2
The $1.9 billion deal is said to be the biggest for a single building in the country this year.
At least Google is supporting the realtors of NYC. Now if we can get some sales to residents trying to sell their homes around the country that'd be nice.

[citation][nom]erzhik[/nom]wait a minute... WebMD? How in the hell?[/citation]

How do you think Google became a giant? "Anonymous information collecting."
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
61
0
18,580
0
Wanna know why the title says 1.9 million and the article says 2.9 million? Because web journalists (if you can even call them that when all they do is repeat what they find on other websites around the web) think that because they can easily edit an article after releasing it, means it's ok to be Sloppy. Sadly, I see this more and more each day. Atleast some will check back soon to correct mistakes that readers (free editors) point out to them. As far as I have seen, Jane lacks even that little bit of professionalism.
 

Xatos

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2010
45
0
18,580
0
"Still, if you thought you had it bad paying over $2,000 per month for your not-so-spacious one bedroom on the Upper East Side"


That's what you get when you have liberals running your state 24/7.
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
61
0
18,580
0
Hah! She proved me wrong this time :p and corrected her mistake before I could finish typing my comment.. but also deleted the comment that pointed out her mistake.. and now will delete mine too naturally.. Apple is a good teacher :p
 

Travis Beane

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2010
251
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]Wanna know why the title says 1.9 million and the article says 2.9 million? Because web journalists (if you can even call them that when all they do is repeat what they find on other websites around the web) think that because they can easily edit an article after releasing it, means it's ok to be Sloppy. Sadly, I see this more and more each day. Atleast some will check back soon to correct mistakes that readers (free editors) point out to them. As far as I have seen, Jane lacks even that little bit of professionalism.[/citation]
Or, you could actually read the article. 2.9 million square feet, and 1.9 billion dollars.
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
61
0
18,580
0
No Travis. When Jane first posted this article, the TITLE said Google to Spend Almost $2B on 1.9M Square Feet
.. and then within the article she said 2.9M .. and the very first comment pointed that mistake out to her. Then she corrected it and deleted the first comment. Much like apple delete's comments on their forum's instead of admitting mistakes. Jane? Don't you think you could have just replied to the comment saying you fixed it instead of trying to cover up your errors? Travis, I don't blame you and everyone else for thinking my comment was bogus, the blame is on Jane.
 

JMcEntegart

Splendid
Moderator
Aug 25, 2007
4,168
1
22,730
0
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]Wanna know why the title says 1.9 million and the article says 2.9 million? Because web journalists (if you can even call them that when all they do is repeat what they find on other websites around the web) think that because they can easily edit an article after releasing it, means it's ok to be Sloppy. Sadly, I see this more and more each day. Atleast some will check back soon to correct mistakes that readers (free editors) point out to them. As far as I have seen, Jane lacks even that little bit of professionalism.[/citation]
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]Hah! She proved me wrong this time and corrected her mistake before I could finish typing my comment.. but also deleted the comment that pointed out her mistake.. and now will delete mine too naturally.. Apple is a good teacher[/citation]

Sigh, so I'm sitting here at 1am on a Friday night, checking comments, because you know, I notice my stuff is being posted and I like to make sure some slip up hasn't squeezed through, and I realise "Oh crap, that's a 1.9 billion dollar deal for 2.9 million square feet, he's right! I've gotten my numbers confused. 1.9/2.9... Poop. He's the first commenter -- I guess I'll just edit and delete his post. That way we don't have to derail the whole discussion with a million comments about a typo that's not even there anymore."

Nope. Here we are.

The sad thing is I was actually going to leave it up and respond to say 'thanks' because I thought what if "that ONE guy" comes along and say, "Hey she corrected it and now my comment looks stupid!!" because he ALWAYS does, but was told not to because, "Jane, there is one comment on this post, it is likely no one else will see it. Do not derail the discussion with talk of typos. Please correct it, delete the comment, and move on."

I'm genuinely sorry if you think I lack professionalism, but if professionalism is "checking back soon to correct mistakes that readers point out to them" then I'm pretty sure I'm one of the most professional people here. I watch comments like a hawk. That is why I was awake and online at 1am on a Saturday morning. That is why I am here now, at 5am on a Saturday morning, checking yet again, to make sure everything is going smoothly.

Still, that's the benefit of the Internet and being one of those horrible Web journalists. It allows publications like ours to correct mistakes without having to print real-life, physical retractions or corrections the next day.
 

JMcEntegart

Splendid
Moderator
Aug 25, 2007
4,168
1
22,730
0
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]No Travis. When Jane first posted this article, the TITLE said Google to Spend Almost $2B on 1.9M Square Feet.. and then within the article she said 2.9M .. and the very first comment pointed that mistake out to her. Then she corrected it and deleted the first comment. Much like apple delete's comments on their forum's instead of admitting mistakes. Jane? Don't you think you could have just replied to the comment saying you fixed it instead of trying to cover up your errors? Travis, I don't blame you and everyone else for thinking my comment was bogus, the blame is on Jane.[/citation]

*Sigh* It's not censorship, it is just an effort to keep things on topic. I used to thank people, notify them that it had been all fixed, but was told not to because it derails the discussion. I sometimes still do it, if a number of people have commented on the typo, but for the most part, I obey instruction until you come along and continue to harp on about the typo that no longer exists.
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
61
0
18,580
0
lol... Ok Jane, I can definitely appreciate your attitude in your response. Perhaps I was a bit too hasty in comparing you to the likes of Apple. I guess I am unaware of a significant time delay from when you submit your article to when it actually gets online. Perhaps thats why on occasions I have noticed that your error's do not get corrected for hours. I did not realise you could be sleeping by the time it was online :)
Even as I posted my last comment, I assumed that you didn't want to leave a comment there that was not relevant anymore, but I was not certain of your motives. In the end, it did cause more confussion by deleting it.
You are right that the comments on typo's are off topic, but I think me and others hope that if we criticize them enough, you and other's will take better care and do a better job of proof reading. Especially the Headline atleast. Honestly, it sometimes seems that you guys think it's no big deal. That is why I attacked your professionalism and resorted to words like sloppy.
Consider this. What if I read the title of your article, but had no time to read the rest of it before going to bed myself. Then the next day at work, among my collegues, I quote you and they tell me I am must be remembering wrong. And being sure of my memory, I insist that Google is getting a "great deal at 1.9M".... I end up making a fool of myself because of your one little typo. And then I come back to your article and find that it does indeed say 2.9M??? So now I think I must be losing my mind? Another good reason to not remove all traces of edits, wouldn't you agree?
 

JMcEntegart

Splendid
Moderator
Aug 25, 2007
4,168
1
22,730
0
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]lol... Ok Jane, I can definitely appreciate your attitude in your response. Perhaps I was a bit too hasty in comparing you to the likes of Apple. I guess I am unaware of a significant time delay from when you submit your article to when it actually gets online. Perhaps thats why on occasions I have noticed that your error's do not get corrected for hours. I did not realise you could be sleeping by the time it was online Even as I posted my last comment, I assumed that you didn't want to leave a comment there that was not relevant anymore, but I was not certain of your motives. In the end, it did cause more confussion by deleting it.You are right that the comments on typo's are off topic, but I think me and others hope that if we criticize them enough, you and other's will take better care and do a better job of proof reading. Especially the Headline atleast. Honestly, it sometimes seems that you guys think it's no big deal. That is why I attacked your professionalism and resorted to words like sloppy. Consider this. What if I read the title of your article, but had no time to read the rest of it before going to bed myself. Then the next day at work, among my collegues, I quote you and they tell me I am must be remembering wrong. And being sure of my memory, I insist that Google is getting a "great deal at 1.9M".... I end up making a fool of myself because of your one little typo. And then I come back to your article and find that it does indeed say 2.9M??? So now I think I must be losing my mind? Another good reason to not remove all traces of edits, wouldn't you agree?[/citation]

If you must know the error occurred because I was rejigging the title to fit with our character constraints (yes, we have one for titles on the front page). Between swapping in and out 1.9, 2.9, 'Almost 3 and almost 2,' It just slipped through. Not only do we each proofread, but someone else proofreads to try and vet further mistakes. All I can say is that accidents happen. We're people, not robots. We write a lot each day and sometimes we make mistakes. Sorry we're not perfect.

Like I said, I used to acknowledge corrections and respond, but recent changes (I say recent but it's been months) dictate that we do what many other sites do, which is edit the post and delete any mentions of a typo as it derails the discussion (it's done a FANTASTIC job of that here, making this a prime example).

Also, I'd like to point that you compared me to Apple not once, but twice. I think that deserves TWO apologies!

ANYWAY. How 'bout that Google deal? New York is crazy expensive, no?
 

techcurious

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
61
0
18,580
0
ok.. I do sincerely apologize for comparing you to Apple. No one deserves that ;)
And I did not wish to "harp on". I was only defending my first comment that was misunderstood.
I gladly admit to mistakes I made, but can't stand when people think I made a mistake when I didn't, Travis tried to tell me I should learn to read! .. no fair *sob.. sob..* :(

But yes :) I was baffled at the 2 Billion price, and then I realised that I don't actually have a clear vision of how much space 2.9 million square feet is. I would need to see the property to appreciate just how expensive New York really is I guess.
 

JMcEntegart

Splendid
Moderator
Aug 25, 2007
4,168
1
22,730
0
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]But yes I was baffled at the 2 Billion price, and then I realised that I don't actually have a clear vision of how much space 2.9 million square feet is. I would need to see the property to appreciate just how expensive New York really is I guess.[/citation]

Me too. At first I though the WSJ sources had it wrong (or a typo, god forbid!) but having checked out the building (111 8th Ave. in case you want to go look), yeah, it's effing massive. One of the biggest in Manhattan, I believe. I can't even comprehend 500,000 square feet. I thought moving to an apartment with an extra 250 square feet was a big upgrade. This building takes up an entire block.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Streaming Video & TVs 0
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 4
Adom Streaming Video & TVs 2
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
B Streaming Video & TVs 4
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
N Streaming Video & TVs 2
T Streaming Video & TVs 3
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
O Streaming Video & TVs 1
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
D Streaming Video & TVs 2
F Streaming Video & TVs 4

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS