I make mistakes
I admit it.
So if you happen across a post on the Interwebs accusing me of being underhanded because I cut and pasted a dumb link (damn Google with its random redirect codes), no, I'm not being evil. I'm being sloppy (if you do find a bad link here, by all means, let me know). Also, I wish the Globe did a better job of linking blog posts I cite on their Web site. But they don't; maybe if even more people complained than already have, they would.
And if you keep reading that post, in which I'm accused of selling out because Universal Hub ran a post that was a blatant ad, well, that's because UH lets anybody set up an account and post items and, yes, unfortunately, sometimes people try to take advantage of it and yes, unfortunately, sometimes they've succeeded (and sometimes that's coupled with my sloppiness - like I delete the post from the front page but not from an internal page). Blatant advertising on Universal Hub should only be on the right, under the heading "From our sponsors."
Still, it is nice to know that somebody cares enough about what I write to go through several months' worth of my posts to find all the mistakes I've made!
But enough about me. How about those sites with "blogrolls" that only point to other sites owned by the same person? Or that hotlink images sitting on other people's servers? Tsk.
| 
| 
Hotlinking!
Hotlinking!! Baaaaad! I try to only hotlink to Amazon and Flickr and sites like that.
---
http://praoctivebusybody.com
It wasn't meant personally.
as I noted in an email to you my post was not meant as a personal attack, merely a playful poke, certainly nothing worse than the globe folks getting a laugh at bwp.
The blogrolls are up for the bloggers to add to as they see fit, I only prefill them with network sites as any other blog network does. Perhaps I should seperate the BWP network sites from the "blog roll" and try to pre-fill it myself with relevant non-commercial blog links.
Isn't it a bit like UH linking to boston blogs?
I was not accusing you of selling out, just wondering why an ad like that ran on your site when I remembered you had spoke against them, and the same thing happened when I was pointed to your globe piece and I remember the whole thing about linking in the globe. Its not like i dug through your archives searching for mistakes, I came accross to oddities in a short amount of time.
I got an answer about both things, neither one was under your control, and I understand that working with the web.
Yay!
I love it when people make nice!
---
http://praoctivebusybody.com
OK, truce
Maybe I am being thin skinned, and maybe I shouldn't be composing posts when I really should be shutting down my laptop for the commute home. But, yeesh, perhaps be careful when writing something that someone might think is impugning on their character?
"Isn't it a bit like UH
"Isn't it a bit like UH linking to boston blogs?"
Do you mean BostonBlogs.com? No, Adam doesn't own that domain. But we are collaborating on the next incarnation of the website. When in doubt, check the whois record.
I get the impression you are trying to take a trip on the express route to notoriety by being sassy/snarky/etc. I guess it might work but it's a curious way to get to know (and possibly collaborate with) others.
It's like when you wrote a quip on your Puritan City blog about my game night and the food/drink minimum request. You said that's like a seedy comedy club. If the bar/restauarant doesn't make money because no one is making any purchases, we'd have to charge a cover fee. There is *nothing* seedy about that. I was disappointed you did not post a followup to my comment.
It was not meant as an attack but a playful poke
The only reason Puritan City talked about it, at all, was to generate interest in the website and increase traffic.
By you posting a link to their website, you've probably increased their web traffic ten times the regular daily flow.
Oh, wait, by me posting this, I'm hoping people will go to my site.
Oh, guess I suck, too.
Links
OK, the person who let me know about the original post gave me some excellent advice along the lines of "don't be drawn into a stupid argument." Did I listen? No, alas. But I was oh so clever and didn't actually link to the post. See how much good that did me (plus, hypocritical jerk that I am - I hate it when people do that on blogs I read; so no more mysterious posts from me - I hope).
And now I'll get back to the business of linking to people who hate the Green Line :-).
Hotlinking to photos is bad?
Hotlinking to photos is bad? I do it fairly routinely, such as for the recent Porter Square accident photo, which came from someone's LiveJournal.
Hotlinking
Some people think so. Also, I find that if you minimize hotlinking by uploading the pictures you use to your own site, your site is more stable. You don't fall prey to other people removing their photos, thus making your site look bad.
---
http://praoctivebusybody.com
Well, it's not considered the best of things, no
LiveJournal probably has so much bandwidth (and Universal Hub is so small) it probably never noticed. In general, though, hotlinking does have a bad rep. For example - say somebody is using one of your images as their forum icon on a popular forum (which has happened to me). Or some fraudster in China is using your site banner as part of some scheme to defraud online ad agencies (which has also happened to me). All of a sudden, you see your bandwidth usage skyrocketing, to the point you might actually start getting charged by your Web host for excess bandwidth usage (this has not happened to me, but I came close with the Chinese scheme; fortunately, I'd noticed it in time and got some advice on how to block it).
Hotlinking
Honestly, I didn't even know that was the term for stealing photos, even though I've had a blog for two to three years.
It is bad. People almost always give attribution to others if they quote from a story on another blog, but don't seem to have any problem lifting photos from those other websites and posting them on their own sites, without attribution and without mentioning the original site?
Meaning, I think it's more unethical not because you're costing the original website money by increasing their server traffic, but because you're taking a photographer's work without mentioning his / her name.
Having said that, I have done it. Like, a lot. I just checked the first page of my blog, and there's a photo I took from boston.com. (At least I made the photo a link to the original Globe story, so it does at least encourage you to go there.)
I don't think I'll hotlink any longer. Probably not a good idea to steal the photos either.
Hotlinking
I think it's just good to be cautious about it. So, if I'm going to link people to an episode of Drivetime, I'll link to the page where Ravi presented the whole thing himself, rather than directly to the video itself. If someone is posting pictures on Flickr, I'll hotlink, but then I'll have the click go to the Flickr picture page where it has all the info about who took it, their Creative Commons stuff, etc. So in doubt, link to the other person's presentation of their image if you can using "a href" tags in addition to the "img src" tags. And if you're REALLY saintly, upload the picture on your site, then if anyone clicks on the picture, have it go to their presentation of their image. Then you're giving them publicity AND not stealing their bandwidth!
---
http://praoctivebusybody.com
Whoah!
Sooz is takin' names! Having a minimum was totally cool with me. Way better than a cover. How on earth is that like a seedy bar? Sounds like someone needs to shape up!
---
http://praoctivebusybody.com