Short version: search your template's HTML for <data:post.commentLabelFull/>:, and delete the colon after the >
Detailed version:
1. Log into Blogger
2. From the More Options drop-down (just to the left of the "View Blog" button), select "Template".
3. Under "Live on Blog", click on the "Edit HTML" button.
4. A warning may pop up; click on "Proceed".
5. Check the "Expand Widget Templates" checkbox.
6. Use your browser's search function (most likely Ctrl+F) to search for <data:post.commentLabelFull/>:
7. Delete the colon after the >.
8. Click "Preview" to make sure it worked.
9. Click on "Save Template".
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
State of the blog template
I think I've got my new template pretty much finalized. The only problem is the colon after the word "comments" at the bottom of each post. I can't for the life of me figure out how to make it go away. I even used the search function to find every colon in my template HTML, and I couldn't find any that didn't serve a specific coding purpose. (My template is called "Ethereal", if anyone feels like trying to figure it out.)
Update: I've just figured out how to make it go away.
Other than that, if anything is difficult to read or isn't working properly, this is the place to report it.
Update: I've just figured out how to make it go away.
Other than that, if anything is difficult to read or isn't working properly, this is the place to report it.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Post your Sitemeter alternatives here
My Sitemeter hasn't been working for weeks, my email to them hasn't been answered, and I can't find any status information. So I've decided it's time for an alternative.
I'm looking for not just a hit counter, but something that gives me link and search engine referrals. Anyone have any recommendations?
I'm looking for not just a hit counter, but something that gives me link and search engine referrals. Anyone have any recommendations?
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Why Rich Kids of Instagram surprises me
What surprises me about Rich Kids of Instagram is that there are enough people to sustain it.
These "rich kids" are a very narrow demographic. Economically, it's limited not just to people who are rich enough to afford luxury goods, but to people who are rich enough to let their teen/adult children play with these luxury goods. They don't just have a Ferrari and Dom Perignon, they have enough vehicles and alcohol that their kids can use the Ferrari and drink the Dom Perignon.
When I was growing up, my family had a car and usually had a few bottles of wine in the house. But I couldn't use the car recreationally because we had just the one car and usually someone else needed it, and I couldn't just grab a few bottles of wine to take to the bathtub or the lake because there wasn't that big a stash and my parents were likely planning to use them on a specific upcoming occasion. This wasn't parenting, this was simply because available resources were finite. We'd have had to be in a whole different socioeconomic demographic for me to have been able to play with the car and the wine, and, similarly, the rich kids of instagram have to be in a whole different - and most likely narrower - socioeconomic demographic than people who can "just" afford Ferraris and Dom Perignon for themselves.
But, at the same time, these "rich kids" must be sufficiently unaccustomed to this level of wealth that they feel the need to remark upon it. My parents drove a Honda Accord when I was growing up, so that's my baseline idea of "car". If I had access to a Honda Accord, I wouldn't feel the need to take a picture to commemorate the event. And it wouldn't even occur to me to tag it or caption it as "This is my Honda Accord". Because it is my baseline idea of "car", I'd just say "This is my car." This isn't noblesse oblige - we haven't even arrived at considering such advanced concepts as noblesse oblige. This is just my idea of what is remarkable and noteworthy, based on the baseline environment in which I grew up.
So the rich kids of instagram must be from the very specific and narrow socioeconomic demographic that has luxury goods in such abundance that not just the parents of the family but the teen and adult children can use them for recreational purposes, and must be new enough to this level of wealth that they aren't entirely accustomed to it and therefore feel it's worth photographing and commenting on. I'm rather surprised that there are enough people who meet these criteria to support a tumblr.
These "rich kids" are a very narrow demographic. Economically, it's limited not just to people who are rich enough to afford luxury goods, but to people who are rich enough to let their teen/adult children play with these luxury goods. They don't just have a Ferrari and Dom Perignon, they have enough vehicles and alcohol that their kids can use the Ferrari and drink the Dom Perignon.
When I was growing up, my family had a car and usually had a few bottles of wine in the house. But I couldn't use the car recreationally because we had just the one car and usually someone else needed it, and I couldn't just grab a few bottles of wine to take to the bathtub or the lake because there wasn't that big a stash and my parents were likely planning to use them on a specific upcoming occasion. This wasn't parenting, this was simply because available resources were finite. We'd have had to be in a whole different socioeconomic demographic for me to have been able to play with the car and the wine, and, similarly, the rich kids of instagram have to be in a whole different - and most likely narrower - socioeconomic demographic than people who can "just" afford Ferraris and Dom Perignon for themselves.
But, at the same time, these "rich kids" must be sufficiently unaccustomed to this level of wealth that they feel the need to remark upon it. My parents drove a Honda Accord when I was growing up, so that's my baseline idea of "car". If I had access to a Honda Accord, I wouldn't feel the need to take a picture to commemorate the event. And it wouldn't even occur to me to tag it or caption it as "This is my Honda Accord". Because it is my baseline idea of "car", I'd just say "This is my car." This isn't noblesse oblige - we haven't even arrived at considering such advanced concepts as noblesse oblige. This is just my idea of what is remarkable and noteworthy, based on the baseline environment in which I grew up.
So the rich kids of instagram must be from the very specific and narrow socioeconomic demographic that has luxury goods in such abundance that not just the parents of the family but the teen and adult children can use them for recreational purposes, and must be new enough to this level of wealth that they aren't entirely accustomed to it and therefore feel it's worth photographing and commenting on. I'm rather surprised that there are enough people who meet these criteria to support a tumblr.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Why is Google encouraging people to move away from Web and towards apps?
I was rather disappointed that Google is discontinuing iGoogle, but outright shocked that they're suggesting using a selection of apps to replace it.
I use iGoogle to get an at-a-glance overview of what has updated since I last checked. I can see the subject lines of any new emails in my inbox, the titles of new articles in my Google Reader, the headlines of news articles on topics for which I have google alerts set up, the current weather and whether there's a thunderstorm alert, plus a few fun things like word of the day and joke of the day and daily puppy. Checking whether anything needs my attention takes about 5 seconds and can be done anywhere with internet access (at home, at work, at a friend's or relative's house, and on my ipod anywhere where there's open wifi).
To do this without iGoogle, I'd have to log into Gmail and Google Reader separately, scroll through Google Reader (and mark anything I wanted to read later as unread), get my news alerts delivered to my email and open each email separately - it would probably take at least 5 minutes to verify whether there's anything that needs my attention.
Using apps would not only be less effective, but it would also be detrimental to Google's primary mandate of indexing and making accessible the world's information because, as I've blogged about before, information contained in apps is ungoogleable. It seems to me that goggle would want information to be on the web and accessed through browsers, because then it can be indexed and searched. Information on a website accessible through a browser can easily be accessed by people with mobile devices, but information in an app is in a silo and can only be accessed by people with specific devices.
I can't imagine what Google is thinking with this decision. It seems like blind trend-following, and I can't see any benefit to them or to us.
I use iGoogle to get an at-a-glance overview of what has updated since I last checked. I can see the subject lines of any new emails in my inbox, the titles of new articles in my Google Reader, the headlines of news articles on topics for which I have google alerts set up, the current weather and whether there's a thunderstorm alert, plus a few fun things like word of the day and joke of the day and daily puppy. Checking whether anything needs my attention takes about 5 seconds and can be done anywhere with internet access (at home, at work, at a friend's or relative's house, and on my ipod anywhere where there's open wifi).
To do this without iGoogle, I'd have to log into Gmail and Google Reader separately, scroll through Google Reader (and mark anything I wanted to read later as unread), get my news alerts delivered to my email and open each email separately - it would probably take at least 5 minutes to verify whether there's anything that needs my attention.
Using apps would not only be less effective, but it would also be detrimental to Google's primary mandate of indexing and making accessible the world's information because, as I've blogged about before, information contained in apps is ungoogleable. It seems to me that goggle would want information to be on the web and accessed through browsers, because then it can be indexed and searched. Information on a website accessible through a browser can easily be accessed by people with mobile devices, but information in an app is in a silo and can only be accessed by people with specific devices.
I can't imagine what Google is thinking with this decision. It seems like blind trend-following, and I can't see any benefit to them or to us.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Dear Blogger: stop redirecting me to a profile creation page when I'm logged into a non-Blogger google account
I have more than one Google account. One of them I use for this blog, the others I use for other purposes. My other Google accounts don't have associated Blogger accounts because I don't use them for blogs.
Lately, when I go to blogger.com while signed into another Google account, I get this page (click to embiggen:
This page wants me to create either a Google+ account or a Blogger account associated with my other Google accounts. It doesn't give me an option to log out and log back in as my Blogger identity. To do that, I have to go back to google.ca and sign out.
But it gets worse.
When I try to read blog comments, I'm also getting redirected to the account creation page. This includes comments on my own blog, which I quite deliberately permit people to comment on without being logged in. While the radio buttons for commenting anonymously still exist, it won't let you get as far as the comment field without having a blogger account. (Readers with non-blogger Google accounts: you can still view the comments by clicking on the permalink in the post time at the bottom of each post.)
But it gets worse.
The cookies Google/Blogger are using are too persistent, even within the internal logic of this new strategy. When I try to go to blogger.com logged into the wrong account and then go back to google.ca to log out, blogger.com doesn't remember that I've logged out and takes me back to the account creation page. I have to go to google.ca, log out, log into the Google account associated with my blog, and then go back to blogger.com.
And this last time that I logged out to get the screenshot above, even that didn't work. I logged out on google.ca, logged in to my Blogger account, went to blogger.com, hit the account creation page even though I was already logged into an existing Blogger account, and ultimately had to go to my own blog and click on the Blogger icon on the top left to get into my Blogger dashboard. WTF?? Once I hit this horrible account creation screen, it starts popping up everywhere and hindering useability.
So, Blogger, here's what you need to do:
1. When people hit something they need a Blogger account for, like logging into blogger.com, give them a page where they can log in OR create an account.
2. When people hit something they don't need a Blogger account for, like viewing comments, don't try to make them to log in or create an account.
3. Make this screen less persistent, so it doesn't keep popping up illogically just because the user it it once.
This is hindering useability. It's a struggle to log into my own blog. Please fix it now.
Update: Now the same problem is happening with the "Sign In" link at the top right corner of my blog. I'm not signed in, I click on it to sign in, and it doesn't let me sign in, instead trying to get me to create an account under the other google identity I have logged in. #FAIL
Lately, when I go to blogger.com while signed into another Google account, I get this page (click to embiggen:
This page wants me to create either a Google+ account or a Blogger account associated with my other Google accounts. It doesn't give me an option to log out and log back in as my Blogger identity. To do that, I have to go back to google.ca and sign out.
But it gets worse.
When I try to read blog comments, I'm also getting redirected to the account creation page. This includes comments on my own blog, which I quite deliberately permit people to comment on without being logged in. While the radio buttons for commenting anonymously still exist, it won't let you get as far as the comment field without having a blogger account. (Readers with non-blogger Google accounts: you can still view the comments by clicking on the permalink in the post time at the bottom of each post.)
But it gets worse.
The cookies Google/Blogger are using are too persistent, even within the internal logic of this new strategy. When I try to go to blogger.com logged into the wrong account and then go back to google.ca to log out, blogger.com doesn't remember that I've logged out and takes me back to the account creation page. I have to go to google.ca, log out, log into the Google account associated with my blog, and then go back to blogger.com.
And this last time that I logged out to get the screenshot above, even that didn't work. I logged out on google.ca, logged in to my Blogger account, went to blogger.com, hit the account creation page even though I was already logged into an existing Blogger account, and ultimately had to go to my own blog and click on the Blogger icon on the top left to get into my Blogger dashboard. WTF?? Once I hit this horrible account creation screen, it starts popping up everywhere and hindering useability.
So, Blogger, here's what you need to do:
1. When people hit something they need a Blogger account for, like logging into blogger.com, give them a page where they can log in OR create an account.
2. When people hit something they don't need a Blogger account for, like viewing comments, don't try to make them to log in or create an account.
3. Make this screen less persistent, so it doesn't keep popping up illogically just because the user it it once.
This is hindering useability. It's a struggle to log into my own blog. Please fix it now.
Update: Now the same problem is happening with the "Sign In" link at the top right corner of my blog. I'm not signed in, I click on it to sign in, and it doesn't let me sign in, instead trying to get me to create an account under the other google identity I have logged in. #FAIL
Thursday, April 05, 2012
When Google is very good at its job
1. There's a bacterium whose name reminds me of the phrase "helicopter pilot", but I couldn't remember its name. So I googled helicopter pilot bacteria. Second search result: helicobacter pylori.
2. They invented a new musical instrument recently, but I couldn't remember its name. All I remembered was that when I first saw it, I thought "That looks like a keytar mated with a bassoon." So I googled looks like a keytar mated with a bassoon. First search result: Eigenharp.
2. They invented a new musical instrument recently, but I couldn't remember its name. All I remembered was that when I first saw it, I thought "That looks like a keytar mated with a bassoon." So I googled looks like a keytar mated with a bassoon. First search result: Eigenharp.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
What Facebook should do about employers who demand prospective employees' Facebook passwords
Facebook should put a clause on their terms of service stating that users may not share their password with anyone else without first informing Facebook that they intend to do so. They should create a special form you can fill out for the express purpose of informing Facebook that you intent to share your password with someone. This form should request enough data that Facebook will be able to find that individual's Facebook account.
Then Facebook should use this information to either a) ban all employers reported through this mechanism, or b) set all their privacy to the lowest possible setting without the option of raising it back up.
Fair warning would be set out in the terms of service ("By using this service, you agree to.."), and they could use selective publicity to very loudly announce that you have to report to Facebook if your employer requests your password while being more discreet about the consequences for the employer. Facebook already has a reputation for changing privacy settings and terms of service on its users, so it may as well use this precedent for good.
Then Facebook should use this information to either a) ban all employers reported through this mechanism, or b) set all their privacy to the lowest possible setting without the option of raising it back up.
Fair warning would be set out in the terms of service ("By using this service, you agree to.."), and they could use selective publicity to very loudly announce that you have to report to Facebook if your employer requests your password while being more discreet about the consequences for the employer. Facebook already has a reputation for changing privacy settings and terms of service on its users, so it may as well use this precedent for good.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Question for people outside of Canada
Does the URL in your address bar appear as impstrump.blogspot.com or impstrump.blogspot.ca? Lately, blogspot.com seems to be redirecting to blogspot.ca, and I'm not sure if it's because my blog's location settings are set for Canada or because my ISP is located in Canada (in other words, because I'm writing from Canada or because I'm reading from Canada.)
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Canada Post Comparison Shopper
A very useful tool that I've discovered recently is the Canada Post Comparison Shopper. If you're looking to buy a product online, it searches a large number of Canadian and US online stores to see who sells the product and ships to Canada. It's very useful for many reasons:
1. You get the results for all the stores on one page, so you don't have to google a bunch of different sellers to find who has the best price.
2. It gives you prices in Canadian dollars, with shipping, handling, and duty fees. No more having to make a cart to see what the actual cost is!
3. It can outdo Google! It often finds retailers who don't turn up on the first page or two of a cursory google, and undersell those who do.
4. All these sellers ship by Canada Post, which, as we all know, is far more convenient than private couriers.
I don't believe the Canada Post Comparison Shopper searches eBay, but it does sometimes have better deals than eBay. It also doesn't appear to search Overstock.com, and there may well be other common and credible retailers that it doesn't search either. But it's certainly worth taking 10 seconds to see if the Comparison Shopper can do better than your usual sources.
1. You get the results for all the stores on one page, so you don't have to google a bunch of different sellers to find who has the best price.
2. It gives you prices in Canadian dollars, with shipping, handling, and duty fees. No more having to make a cart to see what the actual cost is!
3. It can outdo Google! It often finds retailers who don't turn up on the first page or two of a cursory google, and undersell those who do.
4. All these sellers ship by Canada Post, which, as we all know, is far more convenient than private couriers.
I don't believe the Canada Post Comparison Shopper searches eBay, but it does sometimes have better deals than eBay. It also doesn't appear to search Overstock.com, and there may well be other common and credible retailers that it doesn't search either. But it's certainly worth taking 10 seconds to see if the Comparison Shopper can do better than your usual sources.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Things Google Should Invent: reverse sort by date
Currently, you can sort your Google search results by date, which puts the most recent results first. But the only way to see the very oldest results is to keep clicking the last of the available pages until you reach the end of the results, which can be a wee bit time-consuming if there are millions of them.
Google has the information, the technology exists (most things that have a sort by date function let you choose the order), why not give us the option for those cases where we need it?
Google has the information, the technology exists (most things that have a sort by date function let you choose the order), why not give us the option for those cases where we need it?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Overstock.com has good international shipping
I recently ordered something from Overstock.com. I was a bit hesitant because they ship by DHL (with which I've had bad experiences in the past), but I ultimately decided to buy it anyway because of the price and because the possibility of delivery is more convenient than having to go out to a store and schlep it home.
The first pleasant surprise is that Overstock guarantees the shipping and duty price - no COD! - which means that I can ask my super to accept the package for me.
The second pleasant surprise was when I got a Canada Post delivery notice, went to the post office, and found out that it was my Overstock order.
It turns out they use a service called DHL Globalmail for their international shipping (to Canada at least). I don't know exactly how it works, but on my end the result is that I get all the benefits of Canada Post delivery - no COD and the package ends up at the post office a block from my home rather than at some remote depot.
I'm very happy about this, and because of the convenience of the delivery I won't hesitate to order from Overstock.com again in the future.
The first pleasant surprise is that Overstock guarantees the shipping and duty price - no COD! - which means that I can ask my super to accept the package for me.
The second pleasant surprise was when I got a Canada Post delivery notice, went to the post office, and found out that it was my Overstock order.
It turns out they use a service called DHL Globalmail for their international shipping (to Canada at least). I don't know exactly how it works, but on my end the result is that I get all the benefits of Canada Post delivery - no COD and the package ends up at the post office a block from my home rather than at some remote depot.
I'm very happy about this, and because of the convenience of the delivery I won't hesitate to order from Overstock.com again in the future.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The problem with making an It Gets Better book
When I read that they're making an It Gets Better book, I had a visceral negative reaction. At first I thought this was because I don't like the idea of making money from It Gets Better. But, upon further reflection, I think it's more complicated than that.
The internet already contains all the It Gets Better stories, and will continue to contain any new stories that people come up with. However, a book will only contain some of them. A book also costs money, whereas we're paying for the internet regardless so it doesn't cost anything to look at It Gets Better online. So with the book you have to pay more to get less.
But on top of that, there's also the problem that a book is indiscreet. In an interview, Dan Savage told the story of a 15-year-old girl, closeted from her parents, watching It Gets Better videos on a borrowed iphone under the covers at night. A book would be less useful to that girl. The iphone she can turn off, or quickly switch over to facebook or something. But a book is right there, rather large, with a title. Meddling parents are likely going to find it. My parents let me read whatever I want, but they still knew what I was reading. And I knew (or could easily find out) what they were reading. Books are far more difficult to hide, so they're less useful to the people who need It Gets Better the most.
Now, I do think it's useful to curate It Gets Better. And I do actually think text is a better format than video. A text-only website is even easier to read discreetly, and if your internet time is limited or monitored you could easily copy-paste stories to read elsewhere. Save them on a USB key with a name like "English Essay Notes.doc", or save them as text files and read them with an ebook reader app on your ipod touch. But this would be better achieved with a website that allows people to submit their stories and readers to vote them up or down, similar to Not Always Right, would do the job better.
Basically, the book format adds nothing but a price tag, and does nothing to help the people for whom it hasn't get Gotten Better. I can see how some marketing guru whose job is to look for the next big internet phenomenon to turn into a book would land on this idea, but as a former member of the target audience of this project, it just seems crass to me.
The internet already contains all the It Gets Better stories, and will continue to contain any new stories that people come up with. However, a book will only contain some of them. A book also costs money, whereas we're paying for the internet regardless so it doesn't cost anything to look at It Gets Better online. So with the book you have to pay more to get less.
But on top of that, there's also the problem that a book is indiscreet. In an interview, Dan Savage told the story of a 15-year-old girl, closeted from her parents, watching It Gets Better videos on a borrowed iphone under the covers at night. A book would be less useful to that girl. The iphone she can turn off, or quickly switch over to facebook or something. But a book is right there, rather large, with a title. Meddling parents are likely going to find it. My parents let me read whatever I want, but they still knew what I was reading. And I knew (or could easily find out) what they were reading. Books are far more difficult to hide, so they're less useful to the people who need It Gets Better the most.
Now, I do think it's useful to curate It Gets Better. And I do actually think text is a better format than video. A text-only website is even easier to read discreetly, and if your internet time is limited or monitored you could easily copy-paste stories to read elsewhere. Save them on a USB key with a name like "English Essay Notes.doc", or save them as text files and read them with an ebook reader app on your ipod touch. But this would be better achieved with a website that allows people to submit their stories and readers to vote them up or down, similar to Not Always Right, would do the job better.
Basically, the book format adds nothing but a price tag, and does nothing to help the people for whom it hasn't get Gotten Better. I can see how some marketing guru whose job is to look for the next big internet phenomenon to turn into a book would land on this idea, but as a former member of the target audience of this project, it just seems crass to me.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Is Web 2.0 making information less accessible?
I recently learned that an excerpt from an upcoming book I'm looking forward to is only available through an iphone app. Despite the fact that it's promotional material trying to make me want to buy the book, it isn't on the internet anywhere. And because it's specifically an iphone app, people who don't have an iphone, ipad, or ipod touch can't get it at all. (I tried installing the app on my ipod touch, but it turns out the preview is available only the US, which is a whole nother rant.)
When Eddie Izzard first started his last US tour in 2008, I could do a google blog search the day after each show and find multiple reviews of each gig, or at least what he was wearing and which wikipedia entry he looked up. By the time he got to Canada in 2010, internet trends had moved away from blogs more towards Facebook and Twitter, so you couldn't necessarily find comments on any given show. They were all buried in people's Facebook walls, ungoogleable to the outside world. Not the most important thing in the world, obviously, but it was information I was looking for and could no longer find.
Blogger blogs, like mine, are very googleable. As a result, I get a lot of hits from people googling about things like the difference between La Senza and Victoria's Secret bras or how I connected my computer to my monitor. These things are helpful to people, and they wouldn't be able to find them and benefit from what I've learned if I'd posted my discoveries on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed instead.
One of the most egregious misuses of Facebook is promotional pages (either commercial or activism) that require you to join or "like" them (or whatever they're calling it now) to access the content. Apart from its inherent ridiculousness (if you don't let me see the information about why your group is of interest to me, I'm never going to join it), it renders information completely inaccessible (and ungoogleable) to casual passers-by, especially as more and more organizations move towards Facebook as their primary/only web presence. On top of that, my employer (and a number of others, I understand) blocks access to Facebook from office computers. So if I'm translating about an organization and I need information about them, I can't get at it.
I totally understand why you might want to keep your online presence limited to a select group of people, but I'm worried that as more user-created information is put on friends-locked walls or in ungoogleable apps, we might be not only losing access to existing information, but losing the ability to determine what information exists. Even though Google can't access all existing information, it can almost always confirm that the information exists somewhere I just can't get at straight through the internet. For example, the existence of academic papers has been googleable every time I've looked, even if I have to go through a library to get them. What if we lose this ability?
When Eddie Izzard first started his last US tour in 2008, I could do a google blog search the day after each show and find multiple reviews of each gig, or at least what he was wearing and which wikipedia entry he looked up. By the time he got to Canada in 2010, internet trends had moved away from blogs more towards Facebook and Twitter, so you couldn't necessarily find comments on any given show. They were all buried in people's Facebook walls, ungoogleable to the outside world. Not the most important thing in the world, obviously, but it was information I was looking for and could no longer find.
Blogger blogs, like mine, are very googleable. As a result, I get a lot of hits from people googling about things like the difference between La Senza and Victoria's Secret bras or how I connected my computer to my monitor. These things are helpful to people, and they wouldn't be able to find them and benefit from what I've learned if I'd posted my discoveries on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed instead.
One of the most egregious misuses of Facebook is promotional pages (either commercial or activism) that require you to join or "like" them (or whatever they're calling it now) to access the content. Apart from its inherent ridiculousness (if you don't let me see the information about why your group is of interest to me, I'm never going to join it), it renders information completely inaccessible (and ungoogleable) to casual passers-by, especially as more and more organizations move towards Facebook as their primary/only web presence. On top of that, my employer (and a number of others, I understand) blocks access to Facebook from office computers. So if I'm translating about an organization and I need information about them, I can't get at it.
I totally understand why you might want to keep your online presence limited to a select group of people, but I'm worried that as more user-created information is put on friends-locked walls or in ungoogleable apps, we might be not only losing access to existing information, but losing the ability to determine what information exists. Even though Google can't access all existing information, it can almost always confirm that the information exists somewhere I just can't get at straight through the internet. For example, the existence of academic papers has been googleable every time I've looked, even if I have to go through a library to get them. What if we lose this ability?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tragic ungoogleability
This is Monty Python's Galaxy Song:
Very useful for science students! Except who does astrophysics in miles any more?
What this song really needs is a metric version! I've been saying that ever since Grade 12 Physics class, and every once in a while I google to see if anyone has done it yet.
Unfortunately, it seems the band Metric has a song called "Twilight Galaxy", which renders a metric version of the galaxy song very difficult to google. This is a tragedy for science students everywhere!
If you write a metric version of Monty Python's Galaxy Song, or find one elsewhere and want to link to it, make sure you include "Monty Python" in the title to preserve what little googleability is left!
Very useful for science students! Except who does astrophysics in miles any more?
What this song really needs is a metric version! I've been saying that ever since Grade 12 Physics class, and every once in a while I google to see if anyone has done it yet.
Unfortunately, it seems the band Metric has a song called "Twilight Galaxy", which renders a metric version of the galaxy song very difficult to google. This is a tragedy for science students everywhere!
If you write a metric version of Monty Python's Galaxy Song, or find one elsewhere and want to link to it, make sure you include "Monty Python" in the title to preserve what little googleability is left!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wil Wheaton is awesome!
This story isn't new, but I just heard it yesterday.
Wil Wheaton personally replied to an 8-year-old's lost fan club application - 21 years after the fact.
Wil was my very first celebrity crush, back before it ever occurred to me that I might enjoy kissing someone someday, possibly before any real-life crush. It seems my excellent taste in celebrity crushes started early.
Wil Wheaton personally replied to an 8-year-old's lost fan club application - 21 years after the fact.
Wil was my very first celebrity crush, back before it ever occurred to me that I might enjoy kissing someone someday, possibly before any real-life crush. It seems my excellent taste in celebrity crushes started early.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Things amazon.ca Should Invent: tell us the shipping method when we pay for our cart
I blogged before about how amazon.ca is now using UPS for its shipping, apparently in addition to Canada Post. I find this horrendously inconvenient, but when I emailed them to complain they told me that there's no way for me to set personal shipping method preferences.
If they can't do that (or, you know, just ship by Canada Post like normal people), they should allow us to see who the shipper will be when we make our cart. You can already tweak your cart to try to leverage discounts, see how different shipping options will affect the ETA, see how shipping items separately or changing shipping speed will affect the price, etc. Why not add an option to tell you which shipper will be used if you order now?
Surely the computer system knows this. (If it were down to human intervention, then we could obviously set a single shipper preference.) If they tell us when we're making our carts, then we can make informed decisions, and maybe they'll get more people paying to upgrade their shipping so they can get the kind of shipping they want.
If they can't do that (or, you know, just ship by Canada Post like normal people), they should allow us to see who the shipper will be when we make our cart. You can already tweak your cart to try to leverage discounts, see how different shipping options will affect the ETA, see how shipping items separately or changing shipping speed will affect the price, etc. Why not add an option to tell you which shipper will be used if you order now?
Surely the computer system knows this. (If it were down to human intervention, then we could obviously set a single shipper preference.) If they tell us when we're making our carts, then we can make informed decisions, and maybe they'll get more people paying to upgrade their shipping so they can get the kind of shipping they want.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Things They Should Invent: text transcription of Web 2.0
A lot of the very important G20 record is on YouTube or Twitter. The problem with this is it's more difficult to read. This is an issue because it's most important to get this information to the people who don't want to invest the time in reading it.
For example, I think everyone should read Steve Paikin's tweets from last night, starting from "leaving the media ctr. heading for the scene of the rioting. want to see for myself." He walked around the city and live-tweeted what he saw in real time. But currently the only way to read these tweets is to go to his twitter feed, click the "More" button currently seven times (it's going to increase as he keeps tweeting), find the first tweet in the series, and read through by counterintuitively scrolling up.
There are also youtubes that allegedly show the use of agents provocateurs. I say "allegedly" because I haven't watched them yet. Why not? Because youtubes are inconvenient. You have to watch the whole thing, you don't know when the interesting and relevant stuff is going to happen, you don't know if you even care about the contents.
I could read a transcript of a youtube much faster than I could watch a youtube, and I could read a chronological transcript of a twitter feed much more easily than I could read an actual twitter feed.
They need to invent a way to do this, either automatically for everything that's posted, or by sending the material through some website that automatically transcribes it.
I find it inconvenient and burdensome to keep up on everything I should to be fully informed (I know, I know, #FirstWorldProblems), and I actually do feel morally obligated to intake all available information. It's even more important to get this information into the minds of people who refuse to believe that the situation could be more nuanced than they originally thought, and they're certainly not going to want to go to the effort of watching youtubes and reading twitter feeds that they don't care about!
For example, I think everyone should read Steve Paikin's tweets from last night, starting from "leaving the media ctr. heading for the scene of the rioting. want to see for myself." He walked around the city and live-tweeted what he saw in real time. But currently the only way to read these tweets is to go to his twitter feed, click the "More" button currently seven times (it's going to increase as he keeps tweeting), find the first tweet in the series, and read through by counterintuitively scrolling up.
There are also youtubes that allegedly show the use of agents provocateurs. I say "allegedly" because I haven't watched them yet. Why not? Because youtubes are inconvenient. You have to watch the whole thing, you don't know when the interesting and relevant stuff is going to happen, you don't know if you even care about the contents.
I could read a transcript of a youtube much faster than I could watch a youtube, and I could read a chronological transcript of a twitter feed much more easily than I could read an actual twitter feed.
They need to invent a way to do this, either automatically for everything that's posted, or by sending the material through some website that automatically transcribes it.
I find it inconvenient and burdensome to keep up on everything I should to be fully informed (I know, I know, #FirstWorldProblems), and I actually do feel morally obligated to intake all available information. It's even more important to get this information into the minds of people who refuse to believe that the situation could be more nuanced than they originally thought, and they're certainly not going to want to go to the effort of watching youtubes and reading twitter feeds that they don't care about!
Now taking suggestions for a new word
The protesters who were wrecking stuff were using black bloc tactics, complete with full black costumes. This does is a great favour semantically, because we can now call them "black bloc protesters", which is a clear and simple way to distinguish them from the majority of legitimate peaceful protesters.
What we need is a similar term for law enforcement who abuse their power. It needs to be clear, straightforward, and easily understood, so there are no barriers to using it every time you need to describe the concept. It will eliminate any ambiguity without making the speaker seem an apologetic for the police (which could hinder the speaker's perceived neutrality and/or credibility).
The word needs to be neutral, without casting any positive or negative connotations on the people it refers to. Black bloc is a specific protest technique, so people who engage in it can rightfully, neutrally, and unquestionably be called black bloc protesters. It's like how a person playing a vuvuzela can rightfully, neutrally, and unquestionably be called a vuvuzela player. Regardless of how you feel about the people being referred to, it is inherently non-judgemental.
(At this point, someone usually points out that the people in question deserve to be spoken of judgementally, but we can't do that properly unless we also have the option of referring to them neutrally, thereby making any aspersions case an informed and deliberate choice.)
Suggestions welcome. If any journalists or anyone else with broader reach than me would like to take this up, you're welcome to it. If your suggestion is clear, obvious, and justifiable enough that I can use it in translations, I will do so if the topic ever comes up.
What we need is a similar term for law enforcement who abuse their power. It needs to be clear, straightforward, and easily understood, so there are no barriers to using it every time you need to describe the concept. It will eliminate any ambiguity without making the speaker seem an apologetic for the police (which could hinder the speaker's perceived neutrality and/or credibility).
The word needs to be neutral, without casting any positive or negative connotations on the people it refers to. Black bloc is a specific protest technique, so people who engage in it can rightfully, neutrally, and unquestionably be called black bloc protesters. It's like how a person playing a vuvuzela can rightfully, neutrally, and unquestionably be called a vuvuzela player. Regardless of how you feel about the people being referred to, it is inherently non-judgemental.
(At this point, someone usually points out that the people in question deserve to be spoken of judgementally, but we can't do that properly unless we also have the option of referring to them neutrally, thereby making any aspersions case an informed and deliberate choice.)
Suggestions welcome. If any journalists or anyone else with broader reach than me would like to take this up, you're welcome to it. If your suggestion is clear, obvious, and justifiable enough that I can use it in translations, I will do so if the topic ever comes up.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Awesome customer service via Twitter!
1. In the library, I see a sign showing their renovation plans. On the sign is a post-it saying "Do not photograph." That's weird! I have no interest in photographing the sign, but it's odd that I wouldn't be allowed to photograph something prominently displayed in public space. So I ask the guy checking out my books why, but he didn't know. We had a bit of fun theorizing and laughed at the absurdity of the whole situation, and I left plotting a nefarious scheme to make a big show of photographing the thing just so someone would stop me.
Catching up on my tweets that day, I decided to tweet @TorontoPublicLibrary and ask them about the sign. It looked more like a promotional account than a question-answering account, but it's worth a try. After all, that's what Twitter is for! So I was pleasantly surprised to see that one Toronto Library person responded promptly and copied the tweet to another person who was able to answer my question!
It was a silly and inconsequential question, but they nevertheless took the time to answer it. Which, in a weird sort of way, is totally fulfilling the library's mandate.
2. I read an article that suggested that TFSAs don't work precisely how I thought they worked, and there might be financial penalties involved. I'm not super good at money stuff, but from where I'm sitting it looked like that sort of thing could be avoided with failsafes in the computer system. You know how if you enter the wrong number of digits in a "phone number" field on an electronic form, it simply won't let you proceed? They should be able to do the same thing with if you put too much money in your TFSA.
My TFSAs are with ING Direct, so I went to ING's website to see if they had a suggestion box. I couldn't find anything that quite looked appropriate, but I noticed they had a Twitter account. I clicked on that and it really looked more promotional than anything else, but I noticed they retweeted an account called @CEO-INGDIRECT. Meh, what the hell, that's what Twitter's for! So I tweeted him, and got an answer back within an hour - on a Saturday!
I chose ING in the first place because they seemed easy and straightforward. I could figure out how to do what I have to do, and didn't feel like there was a secret extra layer of stuff I don't understand lurking underneath. So I'm very gratified not only that they already have a mechanism to protect me from messing up my TFSA, but also that the CEO will take a moment out of his Saturday to reassure me that safe.
Catching up on my tweets that day, I decided to tweet @TorontoPublicLibrary and ask them about the sign. It looked more like a promotional account than a question-answering account, but it's worth a try. After all, that's what Twitter is for! So I was pleasantly surprised to see that one Toronto Library person responded promptly and copied the tweet to another person who was able to answer my question!
It was a silly and inconsequential question, but they nevertheless took the time to answer it. Which, in a weird sort of way, is totally fulfilling the library's mandate.
2. I read an article that suggested that TFSAs don't work precisely how I thought they worked, and there might be financial penalties involved. I'm not super good at money stuff, but from where I'm sitting it looked like that sort of thing could be avoided with failsafes in the computer system. You know how if you enter the wrong number of digits in a "phone number" field on an electronic form, it simply won't let you proceed? They should be able to do the same thing with if you put too much money in your TFSA.
My TFSAs are with ING Direct, so I went to ING's website to see if they had a suggestion box. I couldn't find anything that quite looked appropriate, but I noticed they had a Twitter account. I clicked on that and it really looked more promotional than anything else, but I noticed they retweeted an account called @CEO-INGDIRECT. Meh, what the hell, that's what Twitter's for! So I tweeted him, and got an answer back within an hour - on a Saturday!
I chose ING in the first place because they seemed easy and straightforward. I could figure out how to do what I have to do, and didn't feel like there was a secret extra layer of stuff I don't understand lurking underneath. So I'm very gratified not only that they already have a mechanism to protect me from messing up my TFSA, but also that the CEO will take a moment out of his Saturday to reassure me that safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)