Obsidian Wings

Dear Web Advertising People ...

by hilzoy

Dear web advertising people,

You know those animated thingos you've recently started putting on pages I visit? The dancing Wii remote that absolutely nothing can turn off, and that consistently blocks content at any number of otherwise wonderful web sites (cough, TPM, cough cough)? The bunch of rockets that just shot themselves across a NYT article I was reading?

They're very annoying. They prevent me from reading what I want to read. Moreover, because they're so hyperactive, it's usually pretty hard to tell what they're an advertisement for. The Wii remote is pretty clear, but only because I already know what a Wii remote looks like. Who sent the rockets streaking across my NYT article? And why? I have no idea.

And that means that they're pretty bad advertising. The fact that they move around on top of my content does get my attention. But if I can't tell what they're supposed to make me buy, they cannot be working as ads, just as total annoyances.

They don't work for me. They don't work for you. Please make them go away. Thanks,

hilzoy

Public Service Announcement

by publius

Just a quick note to point some changes to the sidebar on the left. First, we've created a Twitterfeed. If you use Twitter, just start following "ObWi" and you'll get a tweet when a new post is up. Second, we now have a functional search bar for this site.

I'm also pleased to report that I've gained approximately 22.5 pounds in the last week, largely due to fudge and cookies.

Computer Gods Are We

by publius

Only about, oh, years too late -- the technical wizards at ObWi are pleased to announced the "sharethis" widget at the bottom of our posts. 99% of you probably know this, but (as I keep trying to explain to Vint Cerf) the widget allows you to email the link to others or share the post on various social networking sites. (Note that Twitter is under the "Post" tab, not the "Social Web" tab.)

Site Update

by publius

We're currently working to get rid of the comment pagination (Typepad suddenly decided to limit the number of visible comments at any one time to 50). I put in a request, and then noticed Hilzoy had already done so. In short, we're working on it, and we'll get it fixed.

A Modest Proposal

by hilzoy

By virtue of the authority vested in me [Ed.: what authority? Me: Hush, I'm trying to do something useful], I would like to propose a New Internet Tradition, to wit:

For the first 24 hours after a story breaks, bloggers shall feel free to use any headline they choose. Thereafter, they can use headlines taken from popular songs and musicals only after checking to make sure that fewer than a hundred thousand other blog posts have used similar titles. And, yes, you do have to count them all.

Why? Exhibit A: The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On McCain The Plain. Exhibit B: Georgia On My Mind.

Open thread.

May I Just Say ...

That having my computer stolen is seriously annoying. If anyone canthink of anything I should do to minimize the risks of identity theft, do let me know.

It was my own fault, naturally. I put my bag down ...

Heads Up!

by hilzoy

Starting on Friday, I'll be blogging both here and at the Washington Monthly. (Generally, cross-posting things, though I can imagine the odd open thread that won't appear there.) I'm really honored to have been asked by the Monthly, and excited to be working with Steve Benen, not least because I might finally be able to figure out the answer to one of life's burning questions: how does he manage to write so many really good posts every single day?

Filling even a tiny part of Kevin Drum's shoes, though, is a bit daunting. Luckily, having had to take over from Katherine, I have practice in replacing the irreplaceable.

I will, however, still be here. I love ObWi, and especially the community here, too much to leave.

I'm A Guy??!

by hilzoy

Andrew Sullivan posted a link to this site that tries to figure out your gender based on your web browsing history. I tried it, with amusing results:

"Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 5%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 95%"

Sigh.

It does provide some indication of what its conclusions are based on. In my case, the Financial Times seems to have been a big tip-off to my alleged male identity, along with MacRumors (which I can't recall having visited in years.) RealClearPolitics and the National Review are also pretty heavily male.

I suppose the moral of this story is: stereotypes are dangerous. Also: if you want to make a widget like this, it's worth giving some thought to identifying and overweighting sites that might be dead giveaways. In my case, the guy-ness of the Financial Times seems to have outweighed the fact that I bought bras online, which I don't imagine many guys do. I suppose the fact that I read financial news more often than I buy clothes explains why this wasn't the obvious clue to my gender that it ought to have been.

Now This Is Funny...

by hilzoy

After I wrote my post on McCain and Obama's websites, I got an email pointing out that McCain's website seems to be having some issues with its comment filters. I tried to check it out for myself, but after spending something like twenty minutes trying to post a comment, without being able to get far enough to so much as engage the comment filters, I gave up. (Even after I got an account, an ordeal in itself, clicking 'Post a comment' or 'Reply' made the 'Take Action!' page appear.) So I'll have to let those determined souls who somehow managed to post comments describe the problem. One writes:

"If someone can help me understand, there seems to be an automatic moderation in place. The most innocuous of words seem to be off limits, but I'm having a hard time figuring out which ones. I find myself editing my posts until they become almost meaningless and barren of information. Any ideas anyone?"

And gets this reply:

"The filters are indeed very frustrating and incomprehensible! I am pretty good at finding the offending words after many, many hours of practice. Many of us have complained to the folks who run this site, but for whatever reason, the problem has not been completely resolved. It seems they do not like words that contain common URL suffixes, like plan et, Geor ge, intern et, or ganize, etc...Other common words iclude treat ment an ni ght. There are too many for me to list here.One way to isolate the offending word is to post a comment piecemeal. In time, you will learn the taboo words. If you would like me to help you, you can e-mail a comment to me at [Email address deleted] and I will try to fix it for you and send it back. Good luck."

Apparently, any word containing combinations of letters like 'net' or 'org' or 'gov' gets rejected. Likewise: "Just to add a couple more that trip the filter: words that contain the three letters such as in com.p.a.s.s as well as anything requiring an .a.n.a.l.ysis." This leads to considerable frustration: people find themselves posting comments like this:

"Y e p, h e a r d i t a c o u p l e d a y s a g o. S e e m s t h e y w a n t t o a d d m o r e t a x e s to f i x r o a d s. The s a d p a r t i s, i f y o u c a n 't a f f o r d t o d r iv e, r o a d s a r e k i n d o f a m o o t p o i n t, d o n 't y o u t h i n k? Y e t t h e y w o n' t r e l e a s e t h e b u d g e t on w h a t h a s b e e n s p e n t o f t h e r o a d s, n o r w h a t i s a c t u a l l y n e e d e d m o n e t a r i l y t o f i x t h e m."

Which got the following reply:

"Armymom: Filtered word is n.e.t. in mon.e.t.arily"

So to those of you who are (quite understandably) bothered by our stupid comment filters, which seem to mark anything with five links as spam: things could be worse.

Posting Rules Change

by hilzoy

We have decided to add something to the posting rules. Here it is:

"We have no desire to censor people whose views we disagree with. However, there is a difference between stating and defending an unpopular position on the one hand, and repeated drive-by insults on the other, and the fact that we welcome the first does not mean that we must accept the second. We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one's views or engaging in reasoned argument about them."

Speaking for myself: I really mean the part about not wanting to censor anyone's views. In particular, it's not an attempt to prevent people of good faith from engaging in discussion, even if the things they say might strike others as thoughtless or politically incorrect or the sort of thing you couldn't possibly say if you had thought about things at all, or whatever. The point is not at all to block discussion, or to set up a list of things people can't say, but rather to be able to deal with people who are insulting without having any discernible interest in defending or discussing their views. It's meant to target repeated drive-by hatefulness unleavened by any attempt at argument or discussion. At present, the rules don't give us any way of dealing with this.

For my part, I intend to be pretty sparing about applying this rule. I think of it as analogous to the rule about civility, which rarely leads to banning, but is good to have around on those rare occasions when there's a need for it.