|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: October 12, 2002 NetTrends: Fighting Spam Becomes Top Priority -- "Naked women performing oral sex with guns pressed to their heads, naked women with large dogs clutching their backs, naked women in pigtails pretending to be daughters having sex with their fathers." (Comments: Yes, of course I pulled this quote out of context. However, I probably have your attention now. Thanks for the tip Daniel Szuc.)
Reader Comments...
You grabbed out attention, but failed to convey the meaning of the link. You blog spammed us. Posted by: Contrarian on October 12, 2002 10:31 PM
"NetTrends" is a nebulous term. I thought it referred to a specific spam fighting software product or was the similarly named popular software product called WebTrends. There's even a NetTrends web design company. I also vaguely associated "NetTrends" with the name of a specific e-mail newsletter that reports Internet statistics (I don't recall if the newsletter actually has that name). "NetTrends" is written as if it's a company or product name (note the two words bunched together, no apostrophe on 'Net, and the capital "T"). However, the article merely is referring to trends in the Internet industry. So no, the link name was not self-explanatory. It can easily be confused. If you want to make it self-explanatory, spell out the words instead of being crafty. Say "Internet trend: fighting spam is becoming a top priority." The fact that Reuters wrote a poor headline and WebWord repeated it is not an excuse. Blogs (usually) weed through the crap to tell us what's important -- what to read -- even if the nugget of truth is located in the last paragraph of a linked article. Revise link names to make them more usable. Hopefully the revised names are similar to the linked page titles, but that may not always be possible. In this particular case, it was possible. Posted by: Contrarian on October 12, 2002 11:48 PM
Now that the US wants to make it legal for music companies to hack into peer to peer music neworks, why not make it legal to hack into junk mailers systems to disrupt their activities. If they abide by a strict code of conduct we leave them alone. If not then its open season. Posted by: Mac on October 13, 2002 09:02 AM
"So no, the link name was not self-explanatory. It can easily be confused." Ya, I agree that the name was not self-explanatory. I was just trying to be annoying. Oh, and I wanted you to say more groovy stuff. And say things contrary to what I said. Slip slidin' away. Oh, slip slidin' away... - Puff Out Posted by: Annoying Puff Cat on October 13, 2002 11:23 AM
I agreed MadMan, Jack is back ... Jack ... is that you? *waves hand in front of face* Posted by: daniel szuc on October 13, 2002 12:57 PM
Maybe the spirit of Jack drifts from person to person, possessing them for a while before moving on...
Am I someone else because I can write more than two reasoned sentences on a subject? If so, I'll be anyone you want me to be, honey. Posted by: Contrarian on October 13, 2002 10:38 PM
*Removes sheet* and says "Jack lives! He is alive!!" *evil laugh* - Young Frankenstein. Posted by: daniel szuc on October 13, 2002 11:09 PM
I enjoy enlightened discussion as much as the next person, and believe me, your hairy boy toy fantasies are intriguing, but what does this banter have to do with the content of the linked article, or the presentation of the linked article? Posted by: Contrarian on October 14, 2002 07:38 PM
In my brief absence due to spending days digging out from under a mountain of work, I see that I have missed much! First of all, Contrarian, you shouldn't be alarmed by the people here. These guys are kind of wild, but the idea is to have fun with usability (imagine, FUN with usability!). It's a good thing, so I humbly suggest that perhaps joining in on the fun would be good and hostility would be bad. Second, I am intrigued by technology that would consider the entire content of the message. I know someone who sends out a couple of letters to email subscribers but can no longer send emails to people who have Hotmail because anyone coming from the IP address of her mailing list service have been banned by Hotmail because of the actions of one of the companies using the service. That was about 40% of her mailing list alone! She isn't selling anything, so it's no skin off her nose that way, but the people who subscribed are very disappointed. It's good to block spam, but it can go too far. Posted by: Lydia on October 15, 2002 05:03 PM
Lydia, these people are alleging my birth certificate is fraudulent, as if my parents have reason to lie about my name. Meanwhile, the consensus of this group is that I'm a visually-impaired hermaphroditic poltergeist taking possession of living bodies, moving from person to person in a search for sexual gratification, and also someone willing to shave my back so that my skin is smooth and silky. And all of this is derived from a discussion about Internet trends. You don't want me to be alarmed? How am I supposed to feel? Ya'll are freaks. Posted by: Contrarian on October 15, 2002 08:49 PM
Freak on :) Gamellian.
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |
