Disqus - Latest Comments for yegg

Re: How-to stop most people from spidering your site and stealing content

yegg — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:34:57 -0000

I should have mentioned initially that these are static sites, like http://www.ivegotafang.com/ that just involve just static HTML. I could of course still do some session stuff via JS, but what I was trying to say above is this method has worked well in practice for the last few years. I have my logs tailed all the time, so I usually see anything egregious immediately.

In the Apache config, recognized robots currently get sent a redirect to the Pakistani governement site, which is really slow. I've considered doing that for all returns, but just haven't yet. I did that for the reasons you said.

With regards to getting around it, certainly it's pretty easy to do so, and I mentioned Tor at the end of the post. All I can say is repeat that I watch the logs and at least for my site this simple super system deters most. Now maybe that has to do with the nature of the content and if I wanted to add something for say Duck Duck Go I'd have to get more sophisticated.

Re: Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz.org on Traction

Luc — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:27:24 -0000

Yes of course,
but the search engine of archive.org doesn't work

really, something doen't work anymore with google

Re: Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz.org on Traction

yegg — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:21:18 -0000

Thanks for the suggestion. Have you heard of the Way Back Machine? http://archive.org

Re: Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz.org on Traction

prakashswami — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:17 -0000

Thanks!

Re: Rand Fishkin of SEOMoz.org on Traction

yegg — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:24:20 -0000

http://blip.tv/file/get/Yegg-RandFishkin819.mp3

Re: Traction with Steve Barsh

yegg — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:53:21 -0000

Thanks!

Re: Obama "Fatherhood" commercial sends terrible messages

yegg — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:25:34 -0000

I fully admit my original post was about diction, and not message. I should have made that more clear initially. I liked the message, but felt it could be easily misinterpreted because of the poor choice of words. When I hear a commercial over and over again, eventually I start commenting on it. I can’t help it. And I think it is good to criticize diction. Doubtful, but maybe they will revise it in the future and end up conducting a more effective campaign.

Also, I really wasn’t trying to project, and I apologize if my statements came across as such. I’m now more interested in the theoretical question of what distinguishes a good from a great parent. The commercial is an example of many situations where these words get used interchangeably, but they are not interchangeable concepts.

Your logic above seems to imply that you could be a great parent on just a few minutes a day if you meet all the basics (loving, listening, keeping promises, etc.) and also gave your children decent experiences, like Obama. Where is the line in your mind? What if you sent your kids to the best boarding schools and visited on parent's day and called them a decent amount, i.e. met all the basics + good experience, but from afar? Could you still be considered a great parent? Can it be done most of the time remotely?

You said "Those kinds of things really matter, but what job the parent has or how busy they are, can all be worked around if the substance is there." Work is a reality and I think even both parents can certainly work and still be great parents, especially when their kids are in school. But job choice matters, and that is the point, it is a choice. I think your comment gets to the heart of a good parent vs a great parent. You can be a good parent with any career if you put effort into it, as Obama seemingly has done. But I don't think you can get to great parent status with all careers, and certainly not President of the United States. You seem to think it is possible in any career and that seems to be a remaining point of difference.

It seems the line is really putting your kids ahead of you. Those aren't the exact right words, but that is the sentiment. When you think about decisions in that context, I think things become clearer. Great parents shouldn't smoke, which Obama does by the way. Great parents wouldn't commit adultery if they were thinking of the implications on their kids—they would get divorced first. Great parents would choose a job that affords them more time with their kids, even though it might compromise their careers.

I'm also not trying to suggest that we are now or will become great parents. On the contrary, we've already chosen work in some cases. I feel bad about it, but the choice was made. Granted these were one-off hours or nights and not career decisions, but I can recognize the choice.

The other aspect of this that is really interesting me is the sexist double standard being applied. I don’t think there are any great parents in the boarding school example above. It seems at least one parent needs to spend more than a few minutes a day with the children. But society still seems to assume this is the mother and if it isn’t then that person isn’t a great mom while the dad can still be a great dad in the same few minutes.

As for my TV habits, that was my point—they shouldn’t be broadcasting those commercials on those shows (or hulu at all for that matter) if they are intended for deadbeat dads. The more I look at the campaigns I think they are not just intending them for deadbeat dads. Yes, that was the original core of the message, but it seems to have been expanded to cover all dads. Given that expansion *choice* I would like to see a useful broader message, like we already discussed.

As for Obama, he could have a cushy professor job in Chicago and spend tons of time with his kids. I think that is the choice where he separates from a great to a good dad, and the smoking, which really bothers me. Instead, in choosing to run for President, he essentially went on the road for two years straight. He put his family, including his children, in the media spotlight. Yes, he tries to protect their privacy within that spotlight, but he put them in it in the first place. He then uprooted his family. They all have bodyguards. He is constantly traveling and constantly has “more important” things to deal with than them, as we should demand of him (being our President). This career choice was certainly not made solely with the kids’ best interest at heart. If that is indeed the line, then that is where it was crossed.

Re: Obama "Fatherhood" commercial sends terrible messages

yegg — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:05:17 -0000

I completely agree with you with regards to the quality of the message and its intended audience. I've spent some time today at http://fatherhood.gov, which bears this out.

However, I still think he uses terrible diction to convey his underlying good message. As Erica on FB pointed out, he should have said something like "even a little time spent together can make a [huge] difference" instead of saying in just a few minutes you can be a great dad. A few minutes is a great *start,* but it doesn't make you a great parent.

Additionally, while the ad isn't targeting me, it is certainly targeted *at me.* I've seen it on Sunday morning watching political talk shows and on Hulu watching Royal Pains, a show about a doctor in the Hamptons. I've probably been forced to watch it over 20 times at this point. At some point I get entitled take issue with it :). I didn't seek it out; it seems to be seeking me out.

As for Obama being a good father, I've been thinking about that a lot today. Certainly he is a *good* father. He clearly cares about his kids, spends time with them, etc. But is he a great father? I don't think so. I actually don't think you can be a great father and also be president of the United States, or even a United States senator. I need to think more about it, and I'd be interested in your thoughts, but it seems being a great father (as opposed to just good) involves putting your kids well-being ahead of your own. In making the choice run for national office, let alone hold it, I think it is clear his kids' well-being is not his top priority.

Re: Obama "Fatherhood" commercial sends terrible messages

yegg — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:48:16 -0000

See my response to Jim.

There wasn't any *parsing* going on here. It is such a short commercial and so wrong on its face that there really isn't a need to do so.

Like I said to Jim, Obama may have a great fatherhood message underneath, but this isn't a good summary of it or a good choice of words for it. And yet these were the words he chose to distill his message and broadcast to millions of people, most of which will receive the commercial as his only message on the subject.

Re: Obama "Fatherhood" commercial sends terrible messages

yegg — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:43:26 -0000

Out of context generally means you take a sentence *out* of the context of other sentences or a whole speech. That is not what is going on here. I posted the entire transcript of the commercial.

Your concept of context appears to be everything he has ever said or done with regards to fatherhood. That is not the context with which most people hear this ad. In fact, this ad is most likely the entire context viewers see on the issue as most people don't know that much about or receive many political messages. They do watch TV though.

Obama actually chose this particular message to be his primary context on fatherhood, a fifteen second summary to broadcast to millions of people over and over again.

I am not disputing whether he is or is not a good father or whether he has or has not said other things about fatherhood that are OK. I am simply taking issue with this choice of message. I think it is a poor choice of words for the reasons stated above.

Just because you say or do something good doesn't mean you shouldn't be criticized when you don't, especially when you push a bad message in a commercial that gets aired as much as this one.

Re: Banned words in Google's SafeSearch

yegg — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:51:14 -0000

Not banned by Google :)

Re: Earliest still active twitter users

Tony Stubblebine — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:39:17 -0000

Cool. You didn't leave me out, you just put me higher than I deserve.

Re: Earliest still active twitter users

yegg — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:19:28 -0000

You are absolutely right. For people that were protected I couldn't tell if they were still active or not, so I just ignored them. I changed the post title and text to reflect such (added 'and protected').

Sorry for leaving you out :)

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

DeeBlackthorne — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:04:48 -0000

Yesh! Thank you!

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

yegg — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:26:42 -0000

Found the bug--compiled regex where it shouldn't of been. All better?

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

DeeBlackthorne — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:53:55 -0000

Un-uh, it's DBlackthorne. I just tried it again and it showed up as 0 favorites.

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

yegg — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:25:15 -0000

Is your username Dee? I was testing with that one and it got cached as 0 (for a day). Yeah, usually it works immediately.

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

DeeBlackthorne — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:36:18 -0000

Okay. I made a new widget with my StumbleUpon username. It shows a count of 0 favorites. Does SU work like the other services? Does it take a day for it to show the correct number? (Not sure. I recall Twitter and Linked-In giving me the correct numbers from the jump.)

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

yegg — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:52:26 -0000

This change has been made. I suppose this explains why stumbleupon hasn't been that used a service on the Karma widget. I hope it will be more now!

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

DeeBlackthorne — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:40:04 -0000

Not going to claim to speak for everyone, but I believe that's correct. StumbleUpon is my browser's home page, and I tend to notice only a couple of things -- (1) the visitors that have checked out your list of favorites and (2) the number of favorites and reviews. I don't really see the point of fans. You can visit their favorites and make those pages your favorites, too, but it certainly doesn't work on the same principle as, say, Twitter follows or Linked-In connections.

Do you think tracking SU favorites or visitors is a likely change to be made?

Re: Duck Duck Go Karma Widget

yegg — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:09:10 -0000

Yeah, people don't seem to use fans that much--is that a correct characterization?

Re: I love TV! There, I said it...

prakashswami — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:32:11 -0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbpikTuoLB0

Re: I love TV! There, I said it...

yegg — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:29:25 -0000

Yeah, I like Entourage. I've watched the first few seasons recently on Netflix, and will eventually watch the rest. What is Q!?

Re: Global innovation loss from lack of co-opting startup experience?

yegg — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:51:40 -0000

Sounds like a great group. I started something similar here in Philadelphia: http://startups.philadelphia.groupomatic.com/. We meet monthly.

Re: Thoughts on Yahoo! BOSS Monetization Announcement

Name — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:52:22 -0000

Well, I'm happy that the money aspect doesn't seem to be urgent ;-)

I've also come across 7search, which may also be applicable to you.