I do, just not enough for my shopping trips. Most of the time I just forget to take them back to my car before going out or don't want to drag them around the store with me.
Side note on them, target used to have these really nice fabric bags. I have two and would love to buy more but none of the stores seem to carry them anymore. Now they just have those thick plastic like ones.
Until we get 3D printers with an atom-level precision, you can't really reproduce a brush stroke with a vertical nozzle, so you'd need to somehow identify those strokes from the depth scan.
>Ideally, Google wouldn't credit one part of the site that is lower quality than the other part. //
Site authority presumably wouldn't be a thing if it didn't produce good results. Sites that allow crappy content will tend to have more crappy content and so a page on such a site is less likely to be what someone is searching for; as long as that stands then site authority will still be useful and shouldn't - IMO - be discounted completely.
They may temporarily bump a site up based on new "authoritative" incoming links and then make judgements from a combination of user time on site/bounces back to search results and clicking on more results and additional pages. Longer term there is definitely manual human review looking for "spam."
Unless you tie it into their feedback ratings. Presumably your system drops or deprioritizes artists with fewer than 2.5 out of 5 stars, for example. So you could set something like: 3+ stars as the default 1.0 multiplier, 4+ stars gets a 1.1 multiplier, and 4.75+ stars gets a 1.2 multiplier. This may create an incentive for the artist to put in more time and produce better quality, unless the artists are already putting in their absolute best effort rather than cranking out paintings as quickly as possible.
Copying Hunter Thompson , initiating "gonzo" style, has been the rage for quite a while -- it's more fun than being honest and careful