Blogging

You are currently browsing the archive for the Blogging category.

Got some good hang-time this afternoon with William New of Intellectual Property Watch. William lives in Geneva and watches the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at close range, along with issues such as open access and intellectual property policy around the world.

Anyway, at one point I asked him if the term had ever been used. It was the first he’d heard of it. In fact, it was the first Google had heard of it as well. Be interesting to see how it does there. Also how fast Google and Technorati index it. I’m posting this at 11:05:16pm EDST.

Five minutes later. Nothing yet on either. Ten minutes later. Still nothing.

Half an hour. Still nothing.

For what it’s worth, I’m checking on “time to index” here. Neither is doing so good. It’s been close an hour now and I’m going to bed.

Woops, one last check on Google itself (not the presumably feed-fed Live Web-searching Google Blogsearch) yielded one result, but not for this post. It was for this here, which found it first. Feh.

As for Yahoo, its defaulted results include everything for “liposuction”. You can filter just for “wiposuction”, and it;ll give you a pile of results that include “wiposuction” as a misspelling of “liposuction” in scammy websites for the latter. No links to any of that because I don’t want to get your eyes dirty.

Night.

[Time passes…] Okay, it’s now 23 hours and 25 minutes later. Google Blogsearch now has the item indexed, saying it was posted 23 hours ago. Technorati has it too, and says “1 day ago”. No clear winner there.

Ranklings

Nice to see from Dave (and Gabe) that this blog is #97 on a new Techmeme Top 100 list — especially since this blog is currently #465,937 in Technorati’s Top Zillion, with an authority level of 14. My old one, which peaked in the top few at Technorati, is still at #877, with an authority level of 1647.

This here is the same blog, with the same name; just with a new URL and a new publishing system. Visitors run in about the same numbers (a few thousand a day). From my end it feels about the same, except for the publishing system differences. (It’s in WordPress now.) I still write it with the same outline editor. (And thanks to Dave for making it work.) But the differences in Technorati rankings show how tied we are to the URLs we use. Thanks to that fact, I have a long way to go, just to catch up to myself.

Odd not to see BoingBoing, long #1 on Technorati’s list, not present at all on Techmeme’s. Same with the new #1, Huffington Post. Not technical enough, perhaps? One can only guess.

It’s funny how we love these ranking systems, whether we like them or not. I think it’s because we like our world ordered in various ways: alphabetical, numerical, geospacial, chronological… But humans have always also been obsessively interested in ranking each other, in the notion of popularity, in who are the alphas and betas among us, and in stories about them. Witness tabloids. Or the fact that People magazine rakes in something like a $billion per year.

It’s something I’ve always understood, but never liked. As a kid in school I did poorly at academics and sports, and I lacked other distinctions that would have made me stand out. (Such as criminality, which was a popular option where I grew up in New Jersey.) Something happens to relationships when high ranking is involved. Those blessed with popularity risk feeling arrogant and entitled, while others risk becoming deferential or adorational. That’s why it rankles me when somebody says I’m an “A-list” or an “alpha” blogger. I’m just me, dude, not a number.

Bloggers are people, not institutions. We’re the publishing equivalent of single-celled animals. Being an alpha blogger is like being an alpha paramecium. And I don’t mean that as a knock on blogging. On the contrary, I think highly linky personal publishing amplifies the humanity of its authors. It puts in sharp relief our singular distinctions as human beings. Each of us is a #1 and Only.

Wonder if…

The reportedly late blog by Aedhmar Hynes is actually dead, or just schleeping. Or something.

The Santa Barbara Book & Author Festival started last night with an award presentation to local author T. Coraghessan Boyle, and continues tomorrow with, among other things, a panel titled What’s Next for Newspapers. On the panel will be: Jeramy Gordon, editor and publisher of of the Santa Barbara Daily Sound; Matt Kettman, senior editor of The Independent; Jerry Roberts, author of Never Let Them See You Cry and former managing and executive editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and the Santa Barbara News Press, respectively; Peter Sklar, publisher of Edhat; and Craig Smith, columnist, law professor and author of Craig Smith’s Blog. I’m the moderator.

A few questions running through my mind…

  Will all newspapers eventually be free?
  How can papers, which have a daily or weekly heartbeat, keep up with the hummingbird-heart pulse rate of Web-based journalism?
  Do you see the newspaper becoming Web publications with print versions, or (as they mostly are now) vice versa?
  Is there enough advertising for all of you?
  Will advertising survive as a business model? What will be the mix of advertising and other sources of revenue?
  How do you see the emerging ecosystem that includes bloggers and expert locals who are in good positions to participate in the larger journalistic process?
  What will be the complementary or competitive roles of radio and TV stations in the future local journalistic ecosystem? Bear in mind that analog TV will be a dead chicken in early 2009.
  Is it possible, really, to replace a once-great institution such as the News-Press?
  How do you see each of your roles playing out in the event of an emergency such as an earthquake, a wildfire, a tsunami?
  What do you see as Santa Barbara’s role in the journalistic world? Are we leaders? Followers? Both? Neither?

Be interesting to see how it goes. Hope to see some of ya’ll there.

Okay, so Bob sold out. But he sold out for me. All is forgiven.Sheila Lennon

R.G. Ratcliffe in the Houston Chronicle: Suit against blogger tests limits of speech, privacy; Such lawsuits on the rise as blogs proliferate.

It begins,

  Friday, September 21, 2007
  Paris, Texas, population 26,490, may be an unlikely Internet frontier. But a defamation lawsuit filed by the local hospital against an anonymous blogger is testing the bounds of Internet privacy, First Amendment freedom of speech and whistle-blower rights.
  A state district judge has told lawyers for the hospital and the blogger that he plans to order a Dallas Internet service provider to release the blogger’s name. The blogger’s lawyer, James Rodgers of Paris, said he will appeal to preserve the man’s anonymity.
  Rodgers said the core question in the legal battle is whether a plaintiff in a lawsuit can strip a blogger of anonymity merely by filing suit. Without some higher standard to prove a lawsuit has merit, he said, defamation lawsuits could have a chilling effect on Internet free speech.
  “Anybody could file a lawsuit and say, ‘I feel like I’ve been defamed. Give me the name,’ ” Rodgers said.

Here’s the blogger. The ISP (actually, hosting service) is Blogspot. In other words, Google.

It’s complicated, and there are lots of threads to follow. Be more than interesting to see how and where this goes.

I got a jump on OneWebDay with an autobiographical post at Linux Journal. In the spirit of (in this case, unintentionally) disclosive autobiography, I posted it yesterday in the mistaken belief that yesterday was actually OneWebDay, and not just the day on which the Berkman Center devoted its customary Luncheon to OneWebDay. So, rather than yank the piece and park it until Saturday, I left it there with an asterisk and a footnote explaining what I just explained here.

I just got this email from The New York Times:

Dear TimesSelect Subscriber,

We are ending TimesSelect, effective today.

The Times’s Op-Ed and news columns are now available to everyone free of charge, along with Times File and News Tracker. In addition, The New York Times online Archive is now free back to 1987 for all of our readers.

Why the change?

Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment. Readers find more news in a greater number of places and interact with it in more meaningful ways. This decision enhances the free flow of New York Times reporting and analysis around the world. It will enable everyone, everywhere to read our news and opinion – as well as to share it, link to it and comment on it.

We thank you for your support of TimesSelect, and hope you continue to enjoy The New York Times in all its electronic and print forms.

The spin here is that times have changed while The Times has not. This is worse than misleading. It’s delusional. Yes, “the Web has evolved”. But it had already evolved to a state where charging for archival editorial was a bad idea, long before Times Select was created. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bloggers and smart publishing professionals had the clues, and kindly passed them along to the Times, which chose instead to remain insular and clueless.

Is it still? Follow the money. The “evolution” that matters here is the rise in the advertising money river, which now flows away from traditional media and into the Google Sea. As that river rises past flood stage, newspapers stand in its midst, guarding their precious “content” within dungeons behind paywalls, peering down from the parapets as the flood fills the moats and washes the foundations away.

For insight into the mentality behind paywall maintenance, read this, from David Weinberger’s Hyperlinks Subvert Hierarchy chapter in The Cluetrain Manifesto (written more than eight years ago):

Inside Fort Business

Somewhere along the line, we confused going to work with building a fort.

Strip away the financial jibber-jabber and the management corpo-speak, and here’s our fundamental image of business:

  • It’s in an imposing office building that towers over the landscape.
  • Inside is everything we need.
  • And that’s good because the outside is dangerous. We are under siege by our competitors, and even by our partners and customers. Thank God for the thick, high walls!
  • The king rules. If we have a wise king, we prosper.
  • The king has a court. The dukes, viscounts, and other subluminaries each receive their authority from the king. (The king even countenances an official fool. Within limits.)
  • We each have our role, our place. If we each do the job assigned to us by the king’s minions, our fort will beat all those other stinking forts.
  • And then we will have succeeded — or, thinking it’s the same thing, we will say we have “won.” We get to dance a stupid jig while chanting “Number one! Number one!”

This fort is, at its heart, a place apart. We report there every morning and spend the next eight, ten, or twelve hours inaccessible to the “real” world. The portcullis drops not only to keep out our enemies, but to separate us from distractions such as our families. As the drawbridge goes up behind us, we become businesspeople, different enough from our normal selves that when we first bring our children to the office, they’ve been known to hide under our desk, crying.

Within this world, the Web looks like a medium that exists to allow Fort Business to publish online marketing materials and make credit card sales easier than ever. Officially, this point of view is known as “denial.”

The Web isn’t primarily a medium for information, marketing, or sales. It’s a world in which people meet, talk, build, fight, love, and play. In fact, the Web world is bigger than the business world and is swallowing the business world whole. The vague rumblings you’re hearing are the sounds of digestion.

The change is so profound that it’s not merely a negation of the current situation. You can’t just put a big “not” in front of Fort Business and say, “Ah, the walls are coming down.” No, the true opposite of a fort isn’t an unwalled city.

It’s a conversation.

As anybody who has ever tried to get a letter to the editor of the Times can tell you, the paper is not conversational. And hell, maybe it shouldn’t be. But that doesn’t mean it can’t, or shouldn’t, at least listen.

It’s time for the Times (and other papers) to put their ears, rather than just their walls, to the ground.

[Later…] Rob Paterson nails it on the subject of both relationships and what’s really scarce. Good stuff.

I’m back home in the U.S., getting online in the wee hours over a wi-fi access point that’s my wife’s laptop, which is on the Net at the moment using a Verizon EvDO card. The connection is highly asymmetrical (fast-enough downsteam, slow-as-dialup upstream), but it’s serving as our home connction until Verizon FiOS (fiber optic) cabling and service arrives on Thursday. Then we’ll have 20Mb downstream and 5Mb upstream.

Anyway, I spent my week in London at the Thistle Kensington Park, which lists high-speed Internet access among its amenities. It either failed completely or was slow beyond measure. I spent hours on the phone with tech support at the company that provides the service, and ended up refusing to pay the charges that the hotel manager insisted were not his to take off the bill. I’ve never had a heated argument with a hotel manager before, so this was a milestone experience for me. It was also the latest lesson in a series that keeps me coming back to Starbucks, where the Internet access experience is as predictable (and expensive) as its coffee. I hate to say its worth it to me to pay the monthly T-Mobile fee, but it is. Getting a fast-enough and reliable Net connection at pretty much any Starbucks one encounters is a mark of civilization, at least to me. (Though I do await the time when we look back on wi-fi access charges as a breed of extortion akin to that of the pay toilet. Meanwhile I do understand the economics involved.)

I’d give kudos to T-Mobile as well, but they charge 18¢/minute “roaming” fee for using their network at Starbucks in the U.K.  But I am grateful that Starbucks goes to the trouble of making sure that customers get Net access, somehow. And that the access is reliable.

My experience in hotels is highly varied. The worst by far was the Thistle Kensington Park, but I can’t say what the best is. Nothing stands out for me. Anybody know if there’s a Starbucks equivalent among hotels? After this past week of zero Net access from the Thistle, I’m ready to limit my patronage to hotels that have known reliable Net access for guests.

With apologies to those whose juice (or whatever) may be reduced by it, I’ve deep-sixed the blogroll. As a move this was long overdue. The ‘roll on my old blog had grown longer than Dumbledore’s beard, and was just as antique. When I moved the blog over here I carried along mixed feelings about having a blogroll at all, and then went through lots of uncomfortable questions about whose blogs go on it, in which order, and so on.

I don’t have time to explain much more at the moment, so here are the reasons I just gave in an email to a reader who asked me about it (while also providing some very good advice):

Fact is, it’s outlived its usefulness. I hardly use it. Others pay more attention to it than I do, and too often for selfish and/or trivial reasons. Maintaining it takes effort far out of proportion to its value. Blogrolling itself looks like advertising, gatekeeping, or both. Feh. Worst of all, it’s not live. It’s a stale relic of blogging’s origins in the Static Web era. Time to move on.

For what little it’s worth, I’ve sometimes been credited with coining the term “blogrolling”. But that was 10,000 blog years ago, before we had RSS and Live Web search engines that index everything posted within seconds, plus countless other ways to assist and participate in the public polylog.

I’m open to suggestions for what other things I might put in my sidebars. Guidance: I’d like it to be live, or at least current, engaged in Conversations, and (perhaps even) fun.

« Older entries § Newer entries »