Kotobukiya inicia el año con el anuncio de un una segunda oleada en su versión Bishoujo de Lady Deadpool. Para aquellos que no somos muy versados en términos japoneses (me incluyo dentro de estos) Bishoujo o Bishōjo significa «joven hermosa», y justamente esto es lo que la compañía se ha dedicado a mostrar: personajes femeninos de vídeo-juegos, comics y anime/manga con cuerpos de diosas y caras angelicales.
Lady Deadpool no es la excepción, con su tamaño de 24 cm, su pose, su figura y cada uno de sus detalles nos muestran un carácter juguetón común en las figuras Bishoujo. Otra de las características de estas figuras que se mantiene, es la cabeza intercambiable; pero en el caso de esta figura (y posiblemente una de las razones por las cuales ha sido tan popular) es la posibilidad de cambiar otras partes de la figura, tales como las manos o incluso agregar o remover una granada.
Definitivamente es una figura que todo coleccionista querrá tener en su colección, especialmente en este caso que aún se encuentra en pre-orden la segunda oleada al precio de $74.99. Esperar un par de meses por un mejor precio es una gran opción en especial cuando las figuras de la primera oleada se encuentran sobre los $120 y ninguna de ellas es numerada. Para ver más imágenes de la figura, pueden hacerlo aquí.
Otro de los anuncios de Kotobukiya, en la última semana del 2015, fue más que todo un teaser relacionado a las figuras ArtFX+ de Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Lastimosamente por el momento no hay más información que la siguiente imagen:
El último anuncio que traemos de parte de Kotobukiya sería de otra figura Bishoujo, pero en este caso es una de sus variaciones gender bender como lo fueron las figuras de Freddy Krueger y Jason Voorhees. Siendo la figura una versión de Edward Scissorhands, basado en la película de Tim Burton. Igual, por el momento de esta figura no tenemos más información que el siguiente teaser:
Por el momento esa es toda la información de parte de Kotobukiya, sólo queda recordarles que cualquier consulta, noticia o recomendación es cuestión de comunicarse conmigo por medio del Twitter @ChopSuey_1603. ¡Pura vida!
I really like it when folks get together and share thoughts.
Great website, stick with it!
Les alternatives à la médicaments disponibles en ligne cuve Bourges medicamentos disponible con prescripción médica
dónde encontrar medicamentos en Túnez Nepenthes Calimera precio de medicamentos sin receta en Ciudad de México
мен алаштын кызымын скачать, мен
алаштын кызымын арын сактаган диана радоновые ванны при онкологии,
радоновые источники актау мал ұстау заңы, қр ветеринария
туралы заңы қос сөздер туралы макал
мателдер, мақал мәтелдер
Wo kann man Medikamente ohne Rezept kaufen? Nipro Boulogne-Billancourt Wo kann ich Medikamente in den Niederlanden finden
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but
good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding
more. Thanks for great information I was looking for this information for my mission.
Aw, this was an extremely good post. Taking the time and actual effort to
generate a very good article… but what can I say… I put things off a whole lot and never seem to get anything
done.
The depth and breadth of your knowledge on this topic is truly impressive. Great job!
Spot on about the indexing delays. It’s not just about building the link anymore; it’s about the «stickiness» of the placement. We’ve been focusing heavily on that metric lately.
Finally, someone said it. The old school «blast and pray» method is dead. Precision and camouflage are the new standard.
For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.
I’d love to see a follow-up post on how this integrates with social signals. We feel there’s a multiplier effect there that isn’t being fully utilized.
Thanks for the transparency. It’s refreshing to see a strategy that doesn’t rely on black-hat churn and burn. Sustainable growth is the only way forward.
One minor correction: the update rollout was actually 14 days, not 10. But that doesn’t change your main point—the volatility window is getting wider.
Brilliant articulation of the problem. The industry has been too focused on metrics like DA/DR instead of actual traffic flow and user behavior.
Brilliant articulation of the problem. The industry has been too focused on metrics like DA/DR instead of actual traffic flow and user behavior.
This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.
Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.
Have you considered the impact of mobile-first indexing on these placements? We’ve noticed that some «desktop-safe» strategies are flagging on mobile crawls.
This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.
We’ve been A/B testing this exact hypothesis. Group A (your method) is outperforming Group B by 40% in terms of ranking stability. The data speaks for itself.
One minor correction: the update rollout was actually 14 days, not 10. But that doesn’t change your main point—the volatility window is getting wider.
This is exactly why we moved away from automated PBNs. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense anymore compared to what you’re describing.
I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.
Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.
This is exactly why we moved away from automated PBNs. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense anymore compared to what you’re describing.
I’m curious about the sample size for these conclusions. We saw a 15% deviation in our own datasets, but the overall trend aligns with your findings. Good work.
Finally, someone said it. The old school «blast and pray» method is dead. Precision and camouflage are the new standard.
This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.
Great resource. I’ve sent this to a few colleagues who are still stuck in 2015-era SEO tactics. Hopefully, this wakes them up.
The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.
Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.
The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.
I’m skeptical about the timeline you proposed, but I’m willing to test it. If this holds up, it changes how we structure our entire outreach program.
Great resource. I’ve sent this to a few colleagues who are still stuck in 2015-era SEO tactics. Hopefully, this wakes them up.
Spot on about the indexing delays. It’s not just about building the link anymore; it’s about the «stickiness» of the placement. We’ve been focusing heavily on that metric lately.
The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.
Great resource. I’ve sent this to a few colleagues who are still stuck in 2015-era SEO tactics. Hopefully, this wakes them up.
The analogy of the «immune system» is perfect. You need to build resistance before the virus (update) hits. Too many people react instead of prepare.
This is exactly why we moved away from automated PBNs. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense anymore compared to what you’re describing.
Brilliant articulation of the problem. The industry has been too focused on metrics like DA/DR instead of actual traffic flow and user behavior.
Great read. It reminds me of the strategy we deployed last quarter. The focus on foundational stability really pays off when the algorithm shifts. Thanks for compiling this.
For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.
Thanks for the transparency. It’s refreshing to see a strategy that doesn’t rely on black-hat churn and burn. Sustainable growth is the only way forward.
Is there a specific tool you recommend for tracking the velocity? We’ve been doing it manually but it’s becoming unscalable.
I bookmarked this for my team. The section on avoiding footprints is crucial. We recently audited a site that got hit exactly because they ignored that principle. Good catch.
Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.
This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.
Great resource. I’ve sent this to a few colleagues who are still stuck in 2015-era SEO tactics. Hopefully, this wakes them up.
This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.
This is exactly why we moved away from automated PBNs. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense anymore compared to what you’re describing.
I’d argue that the content relevance is even more critical now. We’ve seen perfectly good links get devalued just because the semantic match wasn’t tight enough.
For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.
This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.
The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.
This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.
This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.