PhotoDude.com

I’m the last person who should be offering opinions on how someone should administer his/her website. Like you, I’ve been “blogging” for an eternity, but from my complete lack of archival material, I could never prove it. But you asked for my opinion and I shall give it.

I do NOT like the quotes mixed in with the content. I liked when you had such things in the sidebar—they weren’t lost there. In the current layout YOUR words and thoughts get lost, I think. (The comments in the links and quotes I can do without, but that’s me. I come to read what you have to say and seldom follow along with the commenters.)

Comments on links and quotes? Phooey, say I.

And you know my final comment, it’s probably the advice you’ve given to countless people (including me), do whatever-the-hell you want with your site. It’s yours. Again, I come for what you have to say. And it’s one of the precious few sites I visit daily.

(Okay, I’m going to kiss a little ass here, forgive me world.) This is one of the best personal websites on the ‘net. I sincerely believe that. It’s good because it’s you. (God, that was insipid … but it was better than writing it on my own website where my readers would think I became a weenie.)

“Newbies want the whole world to visit, oldsters just want a select few…” Umm. Ditto.

Hmm… Ten years on the web. It makes my four years of weblogging seem like a blip on the radar screen.

Because you’ve solicited opinions, I’ll give you mine. It’s your space and you can do whatever the hell you want with it, when you want to, however you want to. Go ahead and delete off-topic comments. They’re not so different from the comment-spams I’ve been drawing lately.

Like Jim (who’s space is another locale I frequent), I come here for YOUR words, not the quotes and links, which are OK, but not where the real value lies. (Yes, accuse me of being a sycophant if you like…) It doesn’t matter to me if you leave comments turned on or off. I’ll still be by to read because I like reading your words. If you didn’t offer comments and I had something to say, I’d post it on MY website with a link back to your observations.

I guess I’m a chickenhawk too. Although I could have enlisted, I did not. If I had been drafted, I would have served. I guess that means I’m not entitled to an opinion either.

I like to think of myself as just a plain old Chicken. Fightin’s not for me. I prefer the safety and distance from the clamor of battle that a clear blue sky affords. [sniff]There’s also a better class of people up there.[/sniff]

I like the quotes in-line with the commentary. As far as comments go, I’ve become much more rigid in my treatment of them. I don’t allow “You’re a doodyhead”-type comments, which has virtually eliminated all of the right-wingers. I’ve also instituted a 4th-grade grammar standard for all comments, which has virtually eliminated the Lefty Kooks. What remains is within my comfort zone.

First of all, please do not feed compliments to the zookeeper. You simply cannot find anyone more awkward at dealing with them than me, and that wasn’t the goal of this little rant. This was:

The Anti-Google wrote: “I do NOT like the quotes mixed in with the content. I liked when you had such things in the sidebar—they weren’t lost there. In the current layout YOUR words and thoughts get lost, I think.

And, ruminator: “I come here for YOUR words, not the quotes and links, which are OK, but not where the real value lies.”

Fair enough. Here’s the problem. On average, I’ve got maybe two or three posts in me per week, depending on inspiration. Client demands can even cut into that.

At the same time, I come across a larger number of things I find interesting, that in a world of enriched leisure I might indeed write about. But in this reality, I only have time to post a link and/or a quote from it. As has always been the case, it’s my way of filtering what I have time to view, and saying “hey, this might be worth your time to check out.”

I hate for people to come here and think, “hmm, he hasn’t added anything since that spastic rant about comments a week ago.”

And Jim, I did feel like they were lost in the sidebar. And I felt like they had as much to say as I did, due to either a lack of time or inspiration.

Also, I’ve enjoyed doing it this way. If you look back 5.5 years to the second and third months I was blogging, I think you’ll see kinda the same mix you do today.

For now, I’m diggin’ the retro appeal. But I have a feeling there may be a sizable redesign later this year, as I’ve sensed some are less thrilled with this setup than I am. Some research has been set in motion…

Paul: “I like to think of myself as just a plain old Chicken.’

Chickenhawk; the other white meat.

By my standards, the asides that you make after the quotes are ‘posts’ Your posts are more ‘essays.’ Therefore, I like the quotes and links in the body. If it’s not linked here or on one of about six other sites, I don’t see it. So I’m pro-link.

For some reason, a vestigal form of “nettiquete” has managed to survive usenet. That was more appropriate when the boards and newsgroups were quasi-public forums, and people had more of a right to protest when something got moderated. Now that the sites are run by their proprietors, I don’t think those “rules” still have any value.

I say do whatever you want with the site. Toss us all out. Ban comments that aren’t made in pig-latin. Require that all visitors log in with an oath of fealty to Trotsky. Whatever.

If somebody doesn’t like it, offer a triple-your-money-back guarantee.

My opinion is that you’ve sure spent a lot of time and energy on one off-topic comment. Other than that, I have no opinion on how you run your website.

Probably so. But, one off topic comment?

One, two, three, chickenhawk.

That’s on one page. But there’s a history here before that.

I will feed compliments to the zookeeper if I damned-well please. :p If you delete my comment here, I’ll just post it on my own weblog, and to top it off, make it sticky. So there!

It wasn’t my intent to set research in motion, just to offer the observation of one of your semi-regular readers. I skim very fast and can find the content I’m looking for right away. Furthermore, I’m OK with a post-rate of two or three per week. I know that’s antiestablishmentarian, but this isn’t a mercantile website where sales are driven by traffic. (I have the same trouble on my own webspace—much to say, too little time to say it if I give attention to my other responsibilities…)

That said, the results of your own web-wandering should absolutely be posted on your weblog. It is, after al, your webspace and if you want to post remainders here (nods to Kottke), that’s perfectly OK. I use the occasional linkfest on my own site, partly as filler (ahem) but partly just to share interesting things I found while wandering the ‘net myself. So, I’m not-at-all complaining about that. I simply wanted to convey, in no uncertain terms, what it is that draws my attention here, and that is YOUR words. (So there, now I’ve done it again… and I can’t stop saying “it!”)

I appreciate what fleshy had to say as well. I think you’ve covered the nettiquete issue pretty well with your standard disclaimer.

Oh yes, one final comment: I had to go hunting for the definition of chickenhawk. You’ll never guess where I found it—on Moore’s website [shudders].

First off, the research was set in motion prior to this little fiasco. And it starts with the window width of people who visit this site. Right now my dataset is too small, but I’m hoping to find an arrangment that might better accommodate the content, yet still give it the emphasis I want.

And your opinion is validated by Jim, and others who’ve made comments to me outside this context. My problem is that I want the quotes and links to be emphasized more than they were, in the sidebar below the fold.” It’s the typical dilemma. I want it all emphasized, above the fold. Can’t have that, so I’m looking for a better mix. Still, I like this better than the old way.

As for “Chickenhawk,” it threw my wife as well. She said she knew I was neither a large bird that killed chickens, nor an older gay male who liked young guys, and otherwise she was stumped what it meant I was.

When I explained it meant my opinions were irrelevant, well, let’s just say it came as no surprise to her.

Oh, and emcee, the “triple-your-money-back guarantee” is only available to those who fax me a signed copy of their contract obligating me to live up to their expectations. And it will be pro-rated according to length of contract.

Otherwise I’d go broke doing this.

One OT comment that could have been ignored. Once you respond, then it turns into this WebHippie 2.0 “conversation” hogwash. So the mandarins tell me, anyway. And now this is getting OT.

“One OT comment that could have been ignored”

Nope. It should have been deleted without comment. As off topic comments will be in the future.

I’ll admit, it probably got a special sized burr under my saddle because I think the issue of Iran is critical, and it would seem the lack of solutions would mean there’s plenty to discuss without dragging cavemen into it.

Besides, if I’d just let it pass, how would I draw out curmudgeons like you?

WebHippie 2.0 “conversation� hogwash.

Very Nice.

The Chickenhawk thing: I understand why people use this word to describe what DanS calls “armchair generals”, but I think this is a case where a better term already exists, but isn’t used because it’s old and busted.

When I first saw it used, I thought they were talking about that little dude who was always trying to knock-out Foghorn Leghorn and drag him back to his home and eat him. He’d always say, “I’m a Chickenhawk and you’re a chicken!” and Foghorn would say the kid was about as sharp as a bowling ball. I couldn’t figure out what people were trying to say. Were the war-happy crowd little idiot dudes trying to take down a bigger opponent? It didn’t make sense until I actually saw it in context and I researched it from there.

I think the biggest mistake that people make is applying archaic terms (like “Chickenhawk”) to modern circumstances. There’s no more draft -it’s all-volunteer now- so the term shouldn’t apply to those who advocate for war yet choose not to fight in it. We already have a term for that: Warmonger. Or, if you prefer, “Armchair General”. Those who actively avoided military service in the 60’s when there was a draft and a war, yet who are now in power, aren’t chickenhawks, either. They’re draft-dodgers. Whether you went to Canada or used your family connections and dubious disqualifications, you’re still a draft dodger. It just so happens that the former was the option available to the poor and unconnected, while the latter was the preferred method of the wealthy and connected. Cheney is a draft dodger. Hastert is a draft dodger. Anyone who actively avoided military service in the 60’s by pulling strings is a draft dodger.

People use the word now not because of its historical connotation, but because it combines the words “Chicken” and “Hawk” to perfectly describe someone who’s a Hawk in word but a Chicken in deed. It’s a rhetorical flourish stripped of prior meaning and employed merely because it’s a nice word-picture. I personally think it’s a cheap one-off, but obviously there are always those lesser minds who take the ball and run with it until it gets really obnoxious. Not everyone who advocates an aggressive foreign policy is a chickenhawk or armchair general. Not everyone who explores alternatives that might include the use of violence against an opponent is a chickenhawk.

I think it’s a word that can be used for a select group of people whose aim isn’t to reasonably ponder or explore different ideas, but to actively influence foreign policy in aggregate, meaning that they use the combined voice of hundreds of people all saying the same thing in different forms of media to influence those in power without sacrificing anything of their own. At least our leaders have to be held accountable for the consequences of their choices. These dirtbags don’t want that: they just want to influence those who put their necks out on the line and who will take the fall should things backfire. They want the power but not the responsibility that comes with it. They want to make the choices, but not have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

So, yeah, call them Chickenhawks. Call them whatever you want. I call them chickenshit.

Very well said. All of it.

Dittoes, Rush.

That’s Mega-dittoes, buddy. Me-ga.

Now you’ve made me regret not saying, “Long time reader, first time commentor” however long ago it was that I made my initial comment here.

Um. If I shouldn’t have posted my comment about Joss Whedon where I did, my apologies. I hadn’t read down here yet. (And, of course, I might never have gotten down here.)

It’s probably a good idea to keep in mind that most people do not memorize the commenting policies of any given blog, but you already know that.

Gary: “It’s probably a good idea to keep in mind that most people do not memorize the commenting policies of any given blog, but you already know that.”

Memorize? How about even read them. I mean, you can put a line right directly above the comment box that explains how to make a link, and people will still say you don’t allow embedded links when their usual “a href” manner doesn’t work.

Any extranous text around a user’s goal (placing a comment) is tuned out … like I tune out billboards. You could put up a billboard in a place I drive by daily that said “Reid, you’ve won a million dollars,” and I would never ever see it.

My history over the past couple of years at this site indicates that I tend to swim upstream at times. Choose the fast flowing currents of being a Democrat or a Republican? No, no, that’s far too easy, I’d rather be roughly cast upon the rocks of centrism. More technically, not so long ago I thought it was proper to syndicate excerpts only in my RSS feed, and putting photos there seemed absolutely obtuse. I finally gave in to the greater trend in both cases.

One other “trend” has now become clear to me, after three months of evidence since I changed the layout here. If someone wants to comment on anything I post on this site, even the tinest scrap of content … they will find a way.

If it’s a link or quote with no comments, they’ll find a comment form somewhere (anywhere) else and place it there.

If I remove comment forms from articles, they’ll email me.

If I remove email contact from the site, they’ll do a WHOIS on my domain and phone me. Or show up at my door.

Those last two haven’t actually happened. Yet. But I think I have decided, for the sake of my own sanity, that I will enable comments on every scrap of new content placed on this site.

So, I give up. It’s now on my “To Do” list, I guess. But there’s a lot of much higher paying items on that list, so don’t expect it anytime soon.

C’mon Ried, would Don Rumsfeld want you to give in like that?

Capitulation? What happened to swimming upstream in the fast currents???? [gdr]

emcee: “would Don Rumsfeld want you to give in like that?�

No, in the face of voluminous evidence from multiple non-partisan and reliable sources, Rumsfeld would continue to insist “there simply is no problem here.� Rumsfeld would pull his head from the sand long enough to suggest that a free comments policy … can be messy. And that it might take some people a while to get used to it. Like me, the site owner.

ruminator: “Capitulation? What happened to swimming upstream in the fast currents????�

Reality is the Great Teacher. And the Reality is that no one reads comments policies until they are accused of violating them. Which pretty much voids their effectiveness. The Reality is that if people want to comment on something, they will find a way. If you do not give them an appropriate place, they will find an inappropriate place, and do it anyway.

And I don’t mean the above just to pick on Dan, or Gary. They are not the only ones who’ve provided evidence over the time since I put quotes and links in the central flow. Nor is it restricted to my site.

I’m going to add this quote later, but it’s relevant here:

“Liberal blog readers expect that a blogger make space available on their site to facilitate discussion, whereas conservative argue that anyone can start a blog and it’s not the responsibility of the blogger to give others a soapbox. It’s their soapbox, of course. The difference here is one of conservatives touting the virtue of ownership and individual initiative vs. liberals expressing a desire for community.�

Once again, I split the middle between liberal and conservative. I have a desire for discussion on the topics I find interesting enough to write about here, choose to allow comments (unlike a lot of sites), and welcome opposing views. But I also think if you’ve got a lot to say about a lot of topics, rather than try to force your views into someone else’s site (especially in an off-topic manner), you really ought to think about buying a domain and opening your own word shop.

Of course, when you offer that as a sincere suggestion, because creating your own site has been such a rich and rewarding experience that you’d like others to find that out for themselves … well, that’s usually when you get accused of censorship. Which is semantically impossible.

From the first time I heard the idea that “the web is a conversation� many years ago, it struck me as wrong on several levels. It still does. However, I am vastly outnumbered by people who think it is. And they will do their damndest to make it the conversation they insist on having.

Another thing I remember from years ago, when Anil and Kottke first started doing “sidebar links.� One of the things they clearly revelled in (as did I when I adopted the practive) was the ability to make a link with a short snarky comment … and not make it a conversation. Meaning, you couldn’t leave a comment to respond to their snark.

It was freestanding.

Well, we apparently can’t have that anymore. Clearly, I’m not doing this because I want to. It’s admittedly the path of least resistance, and I only take that path when I’ve finally decided the issue is not worth the amount of energy needed fight it.

Swimming upstream in the fast currents is one thing, if you think you’re still making progress. But at some point, you have to realize the stream is winning, and you’re just wasting energy.

Although I was just kidding when I left the comment, there was also a serious side to the joke. (Isn’t that what makes good jokes?)

And again, I’m not about to tell you how to run your webspace—that’s entirely up to you. It should be.

I find the notion of the web as conversation interesting. I’ve heard it stated before, but not really thought about it. Maybe it’s a conversation in a meta-sense, like walking into a room full of people and listening to all the voices, picking out bits and pieces here and there. It’s not like talking to your wife or kid, though. The web-relationship is not fully developed and the dialogue therein comprises only one part of a more complete relationship.

Still, it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m not quite sure what to make of it yet, and I’ve been blogging for over four years. I sometimes ask myself “why?”

I’m responding to a comment left here. This is my clownish attempt to herd comment content into the right place, so, laughing is quite appropriate.

ruminator said “I’ve considered shutting down the comments completely. I may do that yet [...] I’ve considered giving up blogging for the time being and concentrating on my off-line journals [...] What do you think, Dude? Should we drink the Kool-Aid together?”

As I’ve expressed to you in an email, there is no generic answer to this, only very individual ones.

Here’s the options I see for myself right now:

[1] Leave things exactly as they are, with comments only on articles, not on links and quotes. The way I’d wanted. However, how well does that seem to be working out? Not worth a crap. I end up with comment threads which aren’t about the contents of the article, they’re about everything else.

[2] Add comment capability to every article, link, and quote posted here, in hopes people will post their comment in the appropriate place, and stay on topic. Right now, I don’t have much hopes for this option either. It assumes people will follow comments policies that they clearly do not even read until they are accused of violating them.

[3] Ban individuals who for whatever reason cannot or will not respect or follow the simple requests I make of commenters on this site, no matter what they may be (option 1, option 2, etc.). I’ve never banned anyone for anything other than spamming in the over five years this site has allowed comments. But I think I’m reaching that point.

[4] Shut down all comments on individual articles, and post one shabby “open thread” each week where people can have a free for all and comment about whatever they want. Since that’s what often happens anyway as things are now.

[5] Shut down comments completely.

[6] Start the blog over at another domain, and leave this one for solely professional use. Inform a select few who might want to follow me to this new domain. Let the rest find go find some other site.

I’m still thinking about it. But if I had to make a choice this afternoon, I’d go with option [2] plus a ruthless dose of option [3]. And if that course failed over time, I’d go straight to option [6].

That’s the Kool-Aid I’m thinking about mixin’ up, ruminator. Want some?

If you’ve spent much time reading my site, you’ll know that I’ll try about anything once.

My situation is slightly different, however. For one, I have a lot less traffic than you do. Hence, I have a lot fewer comments to deal with. Because of spammers (I’ve had a rash of comment-spam lately), I just implemented the moderation process and limited comments to the most recent six weeks. I hate it, however, because I prefer to have a more open discussion and some of my older (sometimes much) entries were still drawing interesting comments. But there seems to be no way to eliminate the comment spam and I don’t feel like baby-sitting the weblog all the time.

I’m right with you, though, on policing your site. I think it’s a shame you’re being forced into allowing comments on everything when it’s clear that’s not your preference. It should be your call. But the frustration level can be pretty high and it’s not worth the stress. Lord knows I can find plenty of other sources of stress besides my freakin’ weblog. :)

I have a case-in-point that I may post on this week. I was surprised yesterday evening by an email from a colleague about a recent course change we requested. But, I digress.

I’ve been tempted to change both my domain and my personal email address (yet again). I even sometimes wonder at the reasoning behind even having a web-presence precisely because of such instances as you cite.

I would say simply, “Go for it.” Sleep on it for tonight (it’s now about 2300 your time) and see what the morning brings. Whatever you decide, I’ll still be hanging around.

OK, it would appear there are now comments on the links and quotes as well as the articles.

Along with this, there’s been a modification of the comments policy that most people don’t read. It boldly and redly states a few things in hopes of standing out a bit more. And where it once said, “This is very much my Digital Home, so please act as though you were sitting on my couch, and so will I” ... it now says … “Papa don’t take no mess.”

Times change. The couch is gone. Those of you who drop by here regularly already know where the good chairs are hidden away anyway.

For the time being, I’m going to play it like the big boys do. The Washington Post delete comments, Daily Kos and Redstate delete comments, everybody under the sun deletes comments. For language, for content, for all kinds of subjective reasons.

Never done it myself. Gonna give it a try, if I need to, though.

Otherwise, there’s now hardly two electrons joined together on this site that do not allow you to leave a comment on them. A container for every opinion. I hope everyone can find a way to make that work for them.

from earlier in this thread –

Liberal blog readers expect that a blogger make space available on their site to facilitate discussion, whereas conservative argue that anyone can start a blog and it’s not the responsibility of the blogger to give others a soapbox.

Hold up now! Remember that the local liberal troll told you to do whatever you want!

emcee: “the local liberal troll”

You’re going to have to work a lot harder to claim that crown.

George Bush is Evil!
Eugene Debs was framed!
Max Cleland! Max Cleland!

how’s that?