Tag, I’m it! May 2, 2008

I have been tagged by my friend RSG who apparently had QUITE the cuh-razy day today, what with the conferences and the appointments and the annual visit to the gyno. As a side note, I usually get myself so worked up over an impending gyno appt. that I have to take a nap afterwards. Sad, but true. We also had conferences here at my house and I found out that Emma? My 7 year old? She reads and comprehends at a sixth grade level. THAT’s why she’s so freaking bored in class and is starting to…ahem……cause a little ruckus. Unfortunately we don’t have a gifted program so I’m kind of at a loss as to what to do with her, other than just loading her up with books, books, and more books. The sweet thing has her nose in a book from dawn till dusk!

Okay, so the tag. Here’s the rules:

1. Pick up the nearest book.
2. Open to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people, and acknowledge who tagged you.

From “Surrender the Pink” by Carrie Fisher. Yes, THAT Carrie Fisher. I find the book to be a bit pretentious yet still entertaining; she says “fuck” a lot which always lightens things up a bit. Here we go:

“You know what I think?” said Connie.
“No, but I’m sure you’re gonna tell me.”
“I think that it’s dangerous for you to be idle,” pronounced Connie.

Huh? Huh? PROFOUND, I tell you. Let’s see, who shall I tag……okay, here we go: Lelo, Rose, Leora, Heather, and Doc.

Twitter Etiquette - Or How I Learned To Stop Blogging And Love 140 Characters March 2, 2008

If you don’t know about Twitter, then you A)are like most of the people on the Interwebs and B)probably have a life. For the rest of us, we spend our days furtively checking in on this microblogging service, penning our thoughts from the most mundane (”I like cheese”) to deeper (”I like cheese a LOT”) to really intense (”Cheese and I are getting married”).

This service is relatively new, and so there really isn’t much in the way of etiquette or anything. Which is probably good, but I’d like to put a few guidelines out there for consideration. These are just thoughts, not rules by any means. However, if you decide to follow them you will surely increase your chances of getting a crown in heaven. (Maybe.)

1) If someone @’s at you, please respond. I like Twitter because I can carry on conversations with people in real time; somewhat like IM but without all the awkward “I gotta go” “no I really need to go” stuff that inevitably happens. However, it is VERY RUDE to ignore someone who tweets directly at you. Try to answer people who do this with at least a brief acknowledgment. Otherwise, you kind of look like a dick.

2) Do not auto-Twitter. For the love of seven pound, 2 ounces baby Jebus: turn off your auto-Twitter notifications. We understand that you feel the need to let everyone know that you are “streaming live…come chat!” but don’t you have the technical aptitude to, you know, make it so this doesn’t happen like every five seconds for 12 hours straight? Your followers don’t want to unfollow you, but after a couple weeks straight of this crap they might have no choice. And it’s not their issue, IT’S YOURS. Get over it, fix it, move on.

3) Don’t carry on embarrassing public arguments on Twitter. If you must spar with someone, do it on Twitter for a little while, you know, just to whet our appetites? And then redirect it to your blog so we can enjoy a true nerd-fight. Twitter just does not lend itself to extended conflicts.

Actually, on second thought, IT TOTALLY DOES. Carry on.

4) Do not use Twitter to have meaningful conversation. It is very, very easy to misunderstand someone’s Tweets, and it’s very, very easy to come across as abrupt and uncaring about someone else - not because you mean to, but simply because the Twitter medium doesn’t allow you to elaborate. If you want to say something and don’t want it to be misconstrued, use another form of communication. If you don’t really care about being misunderstood, then by all means go about your business. However, don’t come to me when you get that flaming bag of poop on your porch.

5) Don’t Twitter while under the influence. Actually, this one is negotiable.

Can you think of any other Twitter rules of etiquette you’d like to see followed? Or broken?

I’m kicking myself out of the game. January 27, 2008

For a while now, misguidedly, I’ve tried to interact with various bloggers who I’ve never met in real life but have a lot of influence on the Web. This has been a very frustrating experience, mostly because I’m a girl and girls aren’t allowed in this little clique of folks, and secondly, I put way too much emphasis on what other people may think of me.

Also because HOW LAME IS THAT??!?! What exactly was I hoping to gain from this? Links? Fame? Inclusion into the cool kids’ club? How stupid in hindsight this all looks, especially when I suddenly woke up the other day and realized that I was becoming a slobbering fangirl who puts up with anything - no matter how stupid or rude - in order to feel included in this male-only niche.

Case in point: I called out someone on Twitter who has 5000+ friends on Facebook, is at Davos for God knows why, and excels at pimping himself to everything that has a viable pulse for sending the same message on Twitter 35+ times in ONE DAY. I asked very nicely why he was telling us over and over again that he was live and we need to come chat, when once or twice was sufficient. He rudely accused me of accusing HIM of spamming, and that I should have known these messages were automatic. Huh? Did I miss the (rhymes with) Slobert Moble rules of engagment or something?

Anyway, long story short, it kind of sickens me how much I’ve been sucked into this very narrow scene the last few months. How ridiculous and petty it is, and how devoid of any real worth when compared to all the rest of what I’ve got going on.

What is the big deal? February 4, 2007

I don’t get it when people get upset about other people getting paid to do something. Like, uh, right here. I mean, people DO have to pay their bills, somehow. Most of us can’t get along on rainbows, puppy dogs, and lollipops, dammit. (I’m sure going to test this out, though.)

The Pay Per Post controversy has always seemed to me completely and utterly inane. It’s like “we’re just too utterly PRECIOUS to ask for MONEY for our WORK! We must be FREE from the MAN! DOWN with CAPITALISM!” I mean, give me a break - it’s not like we’re witnessing the freaking end of the world if some goober accepts $10 to write up a quick blurb about something. Geez, I remember when people went all apeshit on Jason Kottke when he took the donation jar off of his blog and went purely ad-supported; folks were all like “you’ve submitted to the capitalistic money making machine”. Dur - yeah, I guess I have, if it means I CAN PAY MY BILLS, DUMBASS. Same with Dooce - oh, the kerfuffle when she actually put more ads on her blog so she could, you know, put some food on the table. God forbid.

I don’t do Pay Per Post because I don’t have time to write up something for such little money in return. I guess that’s my official disclosure - the stuff that I work on pays me better. If it didn’t, I’d probably check it out. But for now, I think it’s pretty kickass that people can find something to help pay for their rent, or their kid’s diapers, or maybe a nice latte. We’re not all blessed with venture capitol or trust funds, after all.

I vote for a mandatory blogosphere naptime January 30, 2007

You know, getting mad at people for perceived insults is really easy. Not to mention gratifying! I mean, how AWESOME is it to get upset about something and blow off some steam? Feels good!

However, then there’s the backlash. People’s feelings get hurt. You feel kinda stupid (I know, because I’ve done this). And you would do anything to have thought about it just a leeetle bit more before you did the Grand Rant.

I think one thing I’ve learned throughout my blogging career (such as it is) is that you’ve got to really think how your words will affect other people before you say them. Because as fast as the Web is, it’s still not as fast as face to face communication. If I offend my husband, I can ask his forgiveness within seconds (well, let’s get real. He needs to EARN that forgiveness, baby!). However, once you write something out there, you can’t really get it back, and it comes back to haunt you again and again. Oh, and once more. Again.

I love that we can communicate with each other on the Web; it’s a wonderful medium for ideas, content, and accessibility. But sometimes, we get so obssesed with maxing all of those things out that we forget the primary factor in this equation: people. It’s not just data and page views and “transparency” and gadgets that makes the world go ’round, after all.

A crunchy haiku January 25, 2007

Affronted Mike A.
Seems to always be fighting
Think he needs a nap.

Most tasteless Technorati Buzz Monitor ever. January 8, 2007

Just got this in my email inbox:

Dictators, models, and ninjas.
They’re the buzz on Technorati, right now:
Hussein Execution Video Recorded on Cell Phone Cam
Best candid camera EVER
Model Daniela Cicarelli Sues YouTube Over Sex Video
Best candid camera EVER
Informative Ninja Hosts Omnibus Q & A
Entertaining despite lack of hanging or sex

Who is the jackaninny that wrote this? He or she needs a lesson in tact, let alone good taste.
Technorati Tags: technorati

And the blog fight of the year award goes to… January 4, 2007

Sigh. There’s a good Wired article on the various catfights and kerfuffles that happened in 2006. Among the ones that, you know, I actually PAID ATTENTION to were:

• Calacanis vs. Rose:
  

  Should social news sites pay the users who find and post the hottest links? Kevin Rose, co-founder of Digg and the current king of social news, thinks it’s a bad idea. Jason Calacanis, Weblogs, Inc. co-founder and blogging kingpin, liked the idea so much, he put it into practice at Netscape.com, which he re-fashioned as a social news site (and Digg clone). The philosophical debate remained mostly friendly until cash-for-post and gaming scandals tarnished Digg’s credibility. Calacanis, jumping at the chance to salt Digg’s wounds, put up a $100 reward for anyone who could unmask crooked Digg users. In the end, Calacanis quit AOL, Rose was humbled, and social news remains young and messy — just the way we like it.

  Wired declared Kevin Rose the winner, which I strongly disagree with. Digg hasn’t made any significant improvements (oh, yes - Digg Swarm! And so many people use that!) and while I still lurve me some Digg, could we please, for the Love of Google, get rid of the spammy submissions.

• Mike Arrington vs. pretty much everyone: Oy, vey. Even when he was on vacation he managed to pick a fight - I enjoy a good scuffle as much as the next girl but Michael Arrington takes it to a whole new level.
  

  2006 started out pretty good for Michael Arrington, King of Web 2.0 Geeks. His blog, TechCrunch, was a bona fide runaway success, and it quickly became the go-to site for Silicon Valley startup news, industry gossip and insider information. But while every entrepreneur in the Valley was scrambling to touch the hem of his garment, Arrington came under attack. His editorial integrity was half-heartedly questioned by Jason Calacanis on an episode of “The Gillmor Gang” (fast forward to 21:30), but Arrington took the slight seriously. Then, Gawker’s Valleywag accused Arrington of giving good reviews to companies he’s invested in while ignoring their competitors. Arrington’s vocal attacks against mainstream news outlets didn’t win him much love, either. In the end, Arringtennui set in — and Arrington entertained thoughts of ditching his kingdom and escaping to the hills. “I can’t believe blogging hasn’t driven me to drink yet,” he wrote on his personal blog in December, in a post which has since been deleted. “The days of just meeting entrepreneurs and writing about their companies seem to be long gone, and politics has taken over nearly every aspect of what we do.”

  Let me give you a quick piece of advice that my Mom always told me, Mike: you’ve made your bed, you’ve laid down and wallowed in it, now you NEED TO GET UP AND GET GOING. I think you’ve lost your way a bit this past year, but it’s a new year now, new start. Don’t let 2007 be a repeat of the mistakes and enemies that you made in 2006.

Search for the spoken word in YouTube via Podzinger January 4, 2007

I’m going to write this up at the workplace today, but I do think it’s quite a nice development to be able to search for the spoken word within any YouTube video. Now I can finally, FINALLY get my fill of David Hasselhoff!!!

Why Digg should absolutely be in Google’s search results. January 3, 2007

Big discussion going on at Search Engine Journal about this question:

Should Digg’s “diggs” be in Google’s search results?

My first response was “well, why the hell not?” At its most basic, Digg is a community-run search engine, much like the Wikiasari juggernaut that should soon be coming our way, freeing us from the chains of our Google overlords and heralding in a whole new way of searching the Web, making information available, finding my lost cell phone cable - heck, it probaly could do pretty much ANYTHING, people. You’ve been warned.

What was I talking about? Oh, yes - Digg. Well, let’s look at a few things here:

• Digg helps make searching productive.Type in freeware to Google and you’re going to get a hot mess. Jumbles of pretty much crap that the uninitiated (read: those who actually have a life outside the computer world) will have little patience sorting through. Type in freeware to Digg and you feel like you just entered the Members Only club in Disneyland. No waiting, no crowds, and you’re riding the ride you want to ride. Of course, you do have to put up with quite a few wankers, but that’s a small price to pay for instant access.
• If Digg shouldn’t be in search results, then neither should Wikipedia. Shoot, if we’re going to go all hardcore on Digg results, then let’s kick out all the community-oriented stuff, shall we? So no more Wikipedia, no more Flickr, no more Slashdot, no more anything that has links. Which, I’m pretty sure, cancels out say about 99%of the Interwebs. Huzzah - let’s party like it’s 1991! Go Tim Berners-Lee, it’s your birthday, it’s your birthday!

Honestly, I find this very perplexing. Sure, Digg could stand to clean up their system QUITE a bit (see above for wankers explanation), but actually kicking them out of Google? Kind of a pointless argument to bring up the fact that Digg SERP’s are links pointing to links, because golly gee whillikers, Bobby: that’s what the Web is, you know, kind of MADE OF. Links.

Now, if you really just can’t live through the day without getting your panties in a bunch about something, then I suggest that we all move on from the whole non-issue of Google and Digg SERP’s and move on to the very real issue of HOW INCREDIBLY CRAPPY GOOGLE’S RESULTS ARE STARTING TO BE. Holy Spamalot, Batman. I mean, seriously.

See, once upon a time when the Web was (relatively) new and Web 2.0 was just a distant buzzword, you typed in something to Google and you got something back useful. Wild, eh?

I’m a big Google fan myself - in fact, you won’t find a more fanatical Google cheerleader then this chick right here. But I think it’s time to take the old girl in for a tuneup: flush the spam filter, tweak the peripheral services, and maybe take off some of the “useful” widgets and put on something more useful, oh, I don’t know - say like ANYTHING. I can’t stand cute little widgets that don’t do anything but suck my system resources.

Well, enough rantings. To summarize:

• Digg in Google SERPs: Good!
• Spam in Google SERPs: Bad!

Technorati Tags: digg, search, results,, google, search, results