Skip to main content

What's happening, and a preview of the new patch

Joe's done a good job of explaining whathappened this morning; in technical terms, we pushed out a change, itgave us a surprise, and we hit the metaphorical Undo button. We're trying to figure out what went wrong now.

The interesting thing (from our perspective) is that the change waspushed out first to, and it works fine there. Which means that if you want to see a preview of the change, you canview your blog on beta (use "" instead of"" in the URL) and take a look.  My personalopinion?  Might help a little, but we need to do more.  (Therelease also includes a fix that will, hopefully, resolve the entrysaving problem for anyone who still has it.)

In other news, the Washington Post story "You've Got Ads" came out this morning.  Some reactions from the blogosphere are here. The press release from AOL got some facts wrong about ads on bloggingservices; I can't comment beyond that since that's an officialcommunication and this blog is highly unofficialBut,when AOL issues a press release that says the sky is green, I don'tthink it's against our communications policy to simply note that,looking out the window, the sky looks awfully blue to me.


  1. Thank you.
    Peace,  Virginia

  2. "I can't comment beyond that since that's an official communication and this blog is highly unofficial.  But, when AOL issues a press release that says the sky is green, I don't think it's against our communications policy to simply note that, looking out the window, the sky looks awfully blue to me."

    Thank *you*... This is far more than we've gotten from Joe or Scalzi, who seem to think if the company party line is that "the sky is green", then there is absolutely no way to have even a *personal* opinion otherwise... (with appropriate disclaimers)

    As for the "fix", too bad it wasn't planned to fix anything we have been complaining about most... (Like, say, banner ads...!)

    Good to know not everyone at AOL is a soul-less corporate drone... Kudos, john...

  3. Thanks for the tip on adding beta to get a look at the disclaimer. I did it on my blog and it looks maybe a little better. It's still a shock seeing the advert though, but it's got some separation.

  4. Oh, so you're one of those tech guys Joe is always talking about?  Well, I can't say that I envy you right now, but I do appreciate your efforts.  A request.... pretty please, make the disclaimer just a little bit bigger?  (Better yet, make the ads a little bit smaller... like so small I can't even see them.)  Enjoy your Thanksgiving and rest up.  We want you all refreshed and roaring to go so you can fix this mess.  Thanks.

  5. yeah.... the sky looks awfully blue to us too. You are a good man. judi

  6. And you know what is so simple?  All we want is to be told the sky is blue.  It's really that easy, but so seemingly difficult.

    I like you.  A lot.  

    ~~ jennifer


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with creation date metadata in PDF documents

Last night Rachel Maddow talked about an apparently fake NSA document "leaked" to her organization.  There's a lot of info there, I suggest you listen to the whole thing:

There's a lot to unpack there but it looks like somebody tried to fool MSNBC into running with a fake accusation based on faked NSA documents, apparently based on cloning the document the Intercept published back on 6/5/2017, which to all appearances was itself a real NSA document in PDF form.

I think the main thrust of this story is chilling and really important to get straight -- some person or persons unknown is sending forged PDFs to news organization(s), apparently trying to get them to run stories based on forged documents.  And I completely agree with Maddow that she was right to send up a "signal flare" to all the news organizations to look out for forgeries.  Really, really, really import…

Why I'm No Longer On The Facebook

I've had a Facebook account for a few years, largely because other people were on it and were organizing useful communities there.  I stuck with it (not using it for private information) even while I grew increasingly concerned about Facebook's inability to be trustworthy guardians of private information.  The recent slap on the wrist from the FTC for Facebook violating the terms of its prior consent agreement made it clear that there wasn't going to be any penalty for Facebook for continuing to violate court orders.
Mark Zuckerberg claimed he had made a mistake in 2016 by ridiculing the idea of election interference on his platform, apologized, and claimed he was turning over a new leaf:
“After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it.  This is too important an issue to be dismissive.” It turns out, though, that was just Zuck ly…

Personal Web Discovery (aka Webfinger)

There's a particular discovery problem for open and distributed protocols such as OpenID, OAuth, Portable Contacts, Activity Streams, and OpenSocial.  It seems like a trivial problem, but it's one of the stumbling blocks that slows mass adoption.  We need to fix it.  So first, I'm going to name it:

The Personal Web Discovery Problem:  Given a person, how do I find out what services that person uses?
This does sound trivial, doesn't it?  And it is easy as long as you're service-centric; if you're building on top of social network X, there is no discovery problem, or at least only a trivial one that can be solved with proprietary APIs.  But what if you want to build on top of X,Y, and Z?  Well, you write code to make the user log in to each one so you can call those proprietary APIs... which means the user has to tell you their identity (and probably password) on each one... and the user has already clicked the Back button because this is complicated and annoying.