Jim if what you're saying is that Patch makes money based on eyeball counts regardless of whether or not the content involves some actual work or, like this thing, virtually none, not only do we get that, we realize we're an integral part of that when we post comments that draw others to the same articles to "discuss" their merits.

When can we expect our commission checks?

@Jim: You should invent an app for that; then you can quit your night and day job.
;-P

@Bob McBride, we make money only on sold advertising positions. Eyeballs help support ad sales. What I don't get, in this case, is why anybody, you or anybody else, would care about, much less get bent about, that we put up a harmless little item that some people appreciate. From the editorial side, we don't know or care (well, a little) how many eyeballs it gets. It's a harmless item that just adds to our content base, and anyone and everyone who does look at it and gets anything out of it helps them and helps us, too. It's just information, and to us it's only a tiny bit of time and a few (relatively, or relativitally, speaking) electrons. What's the whoop? Why does everything have to be highly relevant to the day's agenda?

All this time I thought the blogger was paid by the number of comments beneath the article.

This isn't a blog, @Craig – it's a brief news story by a paid staffer. Blogs are free posts by whoevers.

Jim, I understand how your revenue stream works here. Ad rates are based on eyeball counts. My comment regarding this article had more to do with the way it was titled than its content. Had you simply titled it "Sunrise Sunset Calendar", it wouldn't have looked as ridiculous mixed in with the other articles in the list on the left hand side of the opening page as it does with the title it was given. If you're going to insist on using "teaser" headlines to attempt to get people to click on stuff, you've got to expect that sometimes you're going to end up with responses that seem as absurd to you as the teaser seems to some of your readership.

@Craig: Always do value your input – really. I just got a little agitated because I thought this was just a harmless little item. And based on the time it took to put it together, believe me, it's already paid for itself – just between you and me and Bob. I've got to be up at the crack of dawn to cover some election they're having, so I'm signing off on this one.

Jim: No worries, we're cool.
Sometimes I put too much effort into giving proof I am an ass.
I approve of this message.