Again with the Hotlinking

By Jennyjinx | Published: February 21, 2011

I don’t like content thieves. I don’t like sites that scrape other sites for content. I don’t like when spammers just re-purpose one site’s content to fit their own site. And I really don’t like bloggers who hotlink images willy nilly. I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who spends time and effort into creating their site and their content feels the same as I do.

Today I read a post on Daily Kos1 about the differences in pay between public and private sector employees in Wisconsin and Ohio. The post talks about a study done by the Economic Policy Institute and links to the page on their site with this information. It also contains graphs that the EPI has put up showing these differences (the validity of the study and/or the graphs isn’t the subject of this post, by the way). I thought it was really interesting and so I tweeted it. A little while later I saw a link retweeted to another blog that contained the same information. Because I’ve seen this blog repost information without giving credit to outside sources previously2, I wondered if they perhaps have mended their ways. So, I followed the link.

Nope. The post mentions the study and links to tweets that have accused the blogger of lying and misrepresenting certain facts. So, the blogger was linking to opposition tweets. This particular blogger is one of those that will take the credit to get the traffic. That’s why I stopped following and reading during the primary. I’m old school. I think that when someone sees a story and decides to blog it that there should be a link crediting the original story. Most people that have blogged for any considerable amount of time do that. We’re not of the SEO school that says linking out is wrong. We don’t believe that it’s bad to send traffic to other sites that we’ve found so interesting we use their ideas. They’re ideas are good for us, for our voice and for our traffic, right? There’s no reason not to give credit.

I left a comment asking the blogger to please credit the original story (not me because it’s not my story), because I just couldn’t ignore it anymore. For some reason, yesterday and today really chapped my ass. Maybe because I saw the stories before they were published on that blog. Maybe because it’s time for Blogroll Amnesty and I really want to see bloggers linking out to each other3. I don’t know why I decided to leave that comment4. But then the post was amended to include a link to the original work.

I don’t like to see bloggers building their own audience by watching for links to other stories and not giving credit. That just seems dishonest to me. Is it? Probably not. We all tell stories that have probably been told elsewhere, we discuss the news we saw somewhere else, we do what bloggers do. But it used to be that when we gave our opinion on a subject, joined in the “conversation” we let others know where the fire for that conversation was lit.

However, that doesn’t solve the hotlinking. All down the front page of that blog are images that are hotlinked from other sites. This tells me that the blogger is helping herself to even more work belonging to someone else. It doesn’t really matter where she’s getting it, because it’s someone else’s intellectual property unless they’ve specifically offered it up as Creative Commons– and then it should be uploaded to the blogger’s own server or image hosting account. Some of those images are specifically copyrighted. At the bottom of the EPI page is:

All material within this site Copyright © 2010 Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.

There’s that violation. Then there’s the matter of driving traffic to a post that is stealing bandwidth from another site via that hotlinked image. I thought about looking at all of the Copyright information for every stolen image on the front page, but I didn’t. I looked at the source to see where it was hosted and that was enough to fire me up. This person is not ignorant. She’s not an internet novice. That’s just sheer laziness, pure and simple. It’s a lot easier to add the <img> tag to her posts than it is to download a copy of the images and add them to her own folder.

Honestly, half the reason I don’t put many images on my site is because it’s such a pain in the ass for me. I’ve got to check the licensing (I prefer to use my own images or something with a CC type license), left click to “save image as”, rename it and then upload the damned thing to my site. I’d really rather not have an image in my post than to steal the image and/or someone’s bandwidth.

The thing about this kind of theft, is that she’s probably just googling for an image or using a plugin to scrape images from Google. So, she doesn’t know who holds the copyright to some of them. Maybe some poor photographer, from fotolio.com for instance, has work for sale and has sold a one time license to a site. Here she comes, hotlinking, and cutting into that photographer’s profits, while the site she’s hotlinking from actually paid money to be able to use that image. She’s hurting the photographer and the site where it’s hosted. As for vectors, well, those take some work too. Did she get a license for them? Considering one of them (on the front page as I write this) is hotlinked, I’m going to say no. So she hurt that artist by stealing the work, perhaps from someone else who stole the work, and totally bypassing the person who did all the work to put it online.

Shit, she can’t even say she got them from a “free graphics” search on Google. She’s linking to them directly. And to make this even more rich: she appends each post with a Creative Common License that prevents use without attribution and on commercial websites. Hmm.

This isn’t bad enough, in my opinion. This is a respected Liberal blogger. Would it be better if she weren’t? Not really, but I wouldn’t feel so angry. I feel like she’s pimping her blog for traffic on the backs of other people who are doing the work and that goes against my principles as a Liberal. I find it hypocritical that a blog that is calling out the Right for their every wrong doing is also guilty– if only because of laziness5. We cried foul when N.O.M was caught hotlinking an image by Zach Weiner for their own nefarious purposes, but I’m the only one to point it out when one of our own is caught helping herself to all kinds of images? By the way, his solution was gold.

Most of my favorite political blogs have very strict guidelines against hotlinking and copyright infringement. If you get caught at the Daily Kos, for instance, you’ll get banned. As a matter of fact, all of the blogs that I visit regularly host their images on their own sites or on an image hosting service (Photobucket or Flickr, for instance). They are usually good about only using portions of another story in a quote and then linking to the original (even though the bigger blogs will only really link to each other). It goes back to high school, really. If you write a paper for school cite your sources and don’t help yourself to too much of someone else’s work. The real world analogy for the bandwidth theft is best explained by Webweaver:

Bandwidth is a bit like gas for a car. Every time you drive (or a file is loaded), a bit of fuel (or bandwidth) is used up. Now imagine if each night one of your neighbors siphoned out a tiny bit for their own car… then other neighbors thought “I’ll just take a couple drops as well”… by morning your fuel tank is empty. Your neighbors each thought taking just a tiny bit would be unnoticeable.. but added all up it left nothing for you.

I told her that she was hotlinking and gave her a link to a site explaining what that is. As of right now, she hasn’t changed those images out. She’s changed the images on the front page out and the graphic images which caught my attention. However, on page 2 of her site there are still other images hotlinked, including this one– which is for sale as a postcard. So, we’ll see if she changes those out at some point. Considering she changed one image on the second page but none of them around it…*fingers crossed* I’m on the fence as to whether to link to her or not. I want you to see what I’m talking about, but even a single hit from a link from me (and the PR juice that link would pass) is too much right now. I’ve got a couple of screen grabs that I’ve taken with my element inspector showing the coded link to images, but I’ll probably wait to post those6. It doesn’t really matter if I’m frustrated by this or not, though. I’m not that important. What’s bothersome is that people that are important to our side– such as Keith Olbermann and David Schuster– are sending traffic to that site (which is hosting BlogAds, by the way). That’s bothersome to me because we call out these things if we find them happening on the other side and we should do the same for ourselves.

By the way, the images on my sidebar are either hosted by me or are linked with permission. Just so ya know.

  1. Wisconsin, Ohio public employees are not overpaid by Meteor Blades [↩]
  2. I used to follow the blog host on Twitter, but stopped when I saw that this blog preferred to get the traffic associated with various stories. This is also the reason why I mentioned the retweet instead of the original tweet. [↩]
  3. Once again, this isn’t about me per se. I could easily play blogwhore, but I don’t. If someone follows my link on Twitter, so be it. Otherwise I do pretty much no self-promotion. [↩]
  4. It didn’t make it past moderation and that’s perfectly fine. [↩]
  5. And not because of ignorance. Not now. [↩]
  6. Mostly to see if anyone else wants to see them. [↩]
Posted in Adventures of Jinxi, I'm Pissy, PSA, Slap Upside the Head, Stumblin' | Tagged , , | Comments closed

I Stand with the Unions

By Jennyjinx | Published: February 20, 2011

There are protests against union busting going on in Madison, WI and Columbus, OH. The one in Madison is getting the most press because there are somewhere between 70k and 100k people there. Americans for Prosperity, a group created by the infamous Koch brothers, managed to bus in all of around 1-2k1 teabaggers to “counter” protest. The people protesting against Scott Walker are fighting for the right to bargain. Walker and the teabaggers are trying to bust up the unions, not because of some made-up budget shortfall, but because unions are the top donors to Democratic candidates. Out of the top ten 5 political donors (See video at 7 min mark), only two regularly donate to Democrats– SEIU and the AFCME2. It makes sense, of course, because teabaggers don’t want Democrats to register new Democrats to vote, they don’t want Democratic candidates to have the funds to win, they want all the toys.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And their grassroots movement? Bought and paid for by Koch Industries, who have operations in Wisconsin and would probably like to see the prevailing wage come down and eventually the end to all worker’s right. Think not? Think that billionaire owners and CEOs want what’s best for the average worker? Think they won’t fight to put us back in Company towns? You’re wrong. They’ve taken their production overseas because they can get workers they can exploit for $2 a day, who work without breaks and safety measures, who can barely feed their children on what little they make. They would take us back there in a second. It doesn’t matter if you’re part of a union or not. If you enjoy any laws and regulations that protect your employment– including bereavement days and not being fired for being a woman– unions have brought that to you.

The right and those who oppose unions say that the unions are fighting against the taxpayers– the union members are taxpayers. They say the unions are fighting against the voters (presumably those who voted for Walker)– the union members are voters. They call the unions anti-American– the union members are American. These protests started when American voters and taxpayers went to the Wisconsin state capitol. They are exercising their First Amendment right of freedom to “peaceably assemble” and “petition for a governmental redress of grievances”. These are Americans who are fighting for their rights and they are being vilified by the teabagging right. Because the teabaggers are lead by billionaires who just don’t have enough power and money.

Today there were tens of thousands of protesters and hundreds of counter protesters in Madison. Even though the teabaggers would have liked to cause some disturbances, there were no arrests for violence. It remained peaceful. Will it work? Probably not. Because, even though the people have voiced their opposition to Scott Walker’s bill to bust the unions, the teabagging Wisconsin governor will do what he wants. He will continue to give Koch Industries billions of dollars in tax cuts, while cutting the pay of teachers and other public employees, all the while falsely claiming that there is a budget shortfall. And there will still be people who blame that on the unions. They will argue that the teachers should sacrifice his/her pay, benefits and retirement to save taxpayer money, but ignore the fact that these corporations get a free fucking ride from the government.

I am not a member of a union nor have I ever been a member of a union. Neither is TheMan (though the GI Bill he used to go to college was fought for by a union). But I am a union supporter. I am a supporter of worker’s rights. I am aware that the billionaire GOP party would like nothing more than to dismantle the working class/middle class. They’ve been chipping away at wages and benefits for years and now people have had enough. Now they’re going to speak out. This is democracy in action and this is what we need to take our country back. Not some goddamned miracle worker in the White House (who was never going to be what the purists thought they had)– people saying “Enough!” and standing the fuck up. No one paid me to say that, by the way. I didn’t get an email or “talking points”. I see what’s happening and I stand with the unions on my own.

I don’t begrudge the union members for their wages and benefits. Shit, I wish I had them. They came together and worked for them. A lot of people say “If I can’t have it, why should they?” Because that’s just heartfelt generosity and empathy, right? No? Of course, I still am one of those people who don’t get jealous or begrudge anyone for their better life unless they got that from exploiting other people. Walmart brings down the prevailing wage in my town because it’s our county’s largest employer and so that gives a lot of the non-union employers a reason to deny giving a cost-of-living wage. That includes the hourly employees in my store and TheMan’s employer. The higher wages bring up the prevailing wage and give more people higher paychecks. Higher paychecks mean more income taxes coming in (no job= cities go broke) and more money going out into the community (the cities are able to fix infrastructure and the citizens spend money on extras like going shopping). See how that works?

Regardless of the value to my community that higher wages and more benefits brings, collective bargaining is a right of the members of the group. Taking away that power is taking away their rights. We’ve lost too many rights as it is.

  1. At the most [↩]
  2. NEA is in the top 10 [↩]
Posted in I'm Pissy, Ohio, Politics, Slap Upside the Head | Tagged , | Comments closed

Google Chrome Personal Blocklist gives me a Happy

By Jennyjinx | Published: February 16, 2011

I got some good news yesterday. Something that just about made me do a happy dance. Google came out with an extension for Chrome that allows users to block whole websites from their search results. Someone tweeted that link to me and I about fell over myself to install that damned thing. Have one for yourself if you’d like.

You can see the screenshots over at the Google blog, so I won’t post them here. Here’s the deal: When you do a Google search there will be a link below the results. If you’d rather not see 3 whole pages of eHow.com or Yahoo! Answers, then just click that link and voila! The extension takes all results from those sites and puts them down the sewer drain– where they belong. I mean, really, when was the last time you got any good information off of either of those sites? But do a search about “how to…” and you’re stuck sorting through that drivel to find your answer.

This is bad for me because if I’m trying to do something while I’m having a bad fog1 day I’ll jump on Google to give my memory retrieval process a kick start. That’s frustrating and time consuming. Have you read some of those articles on eHow? Holy shitballs! But then that’s one of those sites that the blackhatters like to game. And they don’t make an effort to make sure their milled content is helpful in any way. They want their $15. Anyway, when I’m actually looking for something I make sure to avoid certain sites, but then I’ll have to go to the 2nd or 3rd page of the search.

So, now I can eliminate those sites from my search completely. My geeky, Google-loving self went all kinds of giddy. And it works well. Be careful, though. If you eliminate a domain, it’s the whole domain. I’ve found useful stuff on About.com, for instance, but a lot of people don’t like it. Do you sometimes find good content on a domain? If you do, don’t click that block link below the result. Easy peasy.

Some say this is going to eventually hurt the content mills. I don’t know about that because this extension is working on an individual basis. Google, of course, is analyzing the results and will probably use them in the future for their various algorithms, but right now these sites aren’t actually blocked for everyone. And if you’re not using Chrome, you can’t use this extension at all (Matt Cutts did say that Google may adopt it on the search page itself, so it’s available to all browsers). So a lot of Googlers are going to continue getting those results– at least until they learn what’s what. I also don’t think Google is going to take these sites out of their search results completely. I’m guessing their going to eventually devalue their pagerank and that’ll knock them back a couple of pages. This is not a bad thing.

Demand Studios, who own eHow, pays their writers upfront. They don’t offer revenue sharing, so their writers don’t have to worry about getting pageviews. Associated Content, though, pay their content producers pageviews. That could potentially harm the very slight income that a lot of those writers get each month. I feel bad for them, but I hate that so much of what’s on those sites is crap2. They’re writing keyword rich articles for the sole purpose of getting pageviews from Google. This just mucks up my search results (though not nearly as bad as eHow).

Some folks have wondered if this is a bad thing, because site competitors can go to places like Amazon Mechanical Turk and pay people 5¢ to install this extension and block sites. This could skew the results, right? I think, though, Google’s probably smarter than that. I can’t imagine that even 1,000 users can cause them to completely devalue a site. That’s just 1,000 mTukers who don’t get the search results anymore (and who knows if they’ll keep the blocks in place after they get paid). Here’s what I’ve learned: Google actually pays people to sit at home on their asses robo calling and rate search results and individual sites for quality. From what I understand, they actually pay pretty damned good for this. They contract through various companies that actually employee these lazy motherfuckers3 fine folks to do this job. So, after they’ve analyzed their initial batch of data and begin getting suspicious blocks, such as would be the blocks from spammers/assholes, they’ll have a real person check the quality.

I think that’s pretty awesome. One, they’re not going to just take a site out of their serps without actually looking at it. And, two, they’re paying people good money to do it4. This also gives sites that have been lost in the search results a fighting chance against sites like eHow and Associated Content. With these sites removed from the search pages, a smaller site may end up on page 1 or 2. And they’ll be able to make money or get their voices heard/work seen more often. Another plus!

It’s all good, until the spammers figure out a way to make money from it, but whatever. Right now it’s beneficial to the honest folk and keeps my searches a little less spammy.

Again, I do feel sorry for the honest producers at these content sites. They’re just trying to pay the bills. And, really, at least they’re getting paid something, which is way better than the poor Huffington Post bloggers who won’t see a dime. I certainly don’t want to see anyone struggling to pay the light bill, because I know how bad that gets. I’ve been there. It’s not their fault. It’s the fault of the companies who have built a foundation on getting ad clicks/views by gaming another company’s system– Google. Demand Studios just went public and Yahoo! just bought Associated Content– oops. We’ll see how that goes. Well, I won’t because I’ve blocked their sites from my search results. Anyway, maybe the honest writers will be able to stick some ads on their own sites, put up their articles there and have a fighting chance to be found via search. I wish them luck.

I’m not sure why I find this so exciting, but I do. I find it all so very fascinating. I know most of my readers don’t and you’re probably bored to tears right now. Sorry about that. But this dynamic between Google and the companies who are making millions of dollars betting on Google’s search is incredibly interesting to me. The idea that Google, when they do things like remove pagerank from link selling sites and create extensions such as the blocker, is evil because it hurts working people just boggles my mind. Why would you bet so much on the whim of another company like that? And then get angry when that company does something that hurts your bottom line? I haven’t read yet anyone crying because this extension is going to cost them money, but you can pretty much bet someone is going to at some point. And the writers who are relying on revenue sharing are going to be convinced that it’s not the fault of the companies built on Google’s search, but Google’s evil intentions, that made them lose their revenue stream (should it come to that).

Google has done a lot as a company to make my life easier and so I’m kind of on their side by default. This extension is just another way that helps me personally. So, I’ll probably write more about this topic in the future. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Update:

I was visiting driftglass and he was talking about the HuffPo not-going-to-pay blogger model. I felt a little inspired5 so I said:

I was watching the reaction to Google’s new Chrome extension yesterday and wandered what was going to happen to content mills (who, it seems, Google is targeting). I feel bad for the revenue sharing producers/writers, because this could cause that stream to dry up. At the same time I was glad for this extension.

Then I realized that the writers at Associated Content and places such as that have it way better than the bloggers at HuffPo, only because mill producers get paid something.

If Silver’s analysis of the traffic to the individual HuffPo blogs is right, then those who are writing for “exposure” aren’t getting any. In fact, they’d have been better off writing for Associated Content because they’d at least earn pennies for their few pageviews. As it stands, these bloggers are getting neither money nor exposure (and this publicity is ruining the validity of the clips they may use when trying to get paying gigs). Heh.

Nate Silver said:

At this 50:1 ratio, the average blog post, which received 43 comments, got about 2,150 page views. This distribution, however, was highly inequitable. The top-performing blog post — one by the former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich — had received 547 comments (tantamount to about 27,000 page views) as of Friday morning. By contrast, more than 40 percent of the blog entries received 5 comments or fewer.
[...]
Do the multiplication, and you find that the average blog post — which we estimate generated a couple thousand page views — was worth about $13 in advertising revenue. The median blog post, with several hundred views, was worth only $3 or $4. Even Mr. Reich’s strongly-performing post was worth only about $170, by our estimates.

[...]

Another reason, perhaps, that the “slave ship” allegation sometimes sticks to The Huffington Post is because there is a discrepancy between the “250 million unique visitors” that Ms. Huffington pitches her bloggers on, and the much, much smaller number who have any realistic chance of encountering, yet alone reading, any given post. Their median blog post, by our estimate, gets only about 550 page views. That equates to about 1 in every 450,000 of the unique visitors that Ms. Huffington says AOL and The Huffington Post will have each month once they combine forces.[emphasis added]

That is all.

  1. Fibro fog is one of the worst symptoms. [↩]
  2. Produced by people who don’t give a flying fuck or blackhatters spinning/”re-writing” articles. [↩]
  3. This is sarcasm, by the way. Some folks think that this kind of work isn’t valuable and is only done by lazy people who can’t find real jobs. [↩]
  4. And, honestly, there is nothing shameful about this kind of work. There is nothing shameful or debasing about working from home. There is nothing wrong with anyone trying to make an honest living this way. [↩]
  5. Actually, I felt this way a couple of different times today. I’m thinking this flare might finally be letting up. [↩]
Posted in Geek Side, Internet Drama | Tagged , , | Comments closed

I Remember When…

By Jennyjinx | Published: February 10, 2011

Today I was reading over at Balloon Juice and came across a post that mentioned Huffington Post started on Movable Type. In the comments someone asked why HuffPo didn’t start on WordPress and someone answered that WordPress didn’t support large sites.

Except that’s wrong. WordPress could support larger sites and I specifically remember Times and People Mag blogs being featured on their site– though I think they may have been hosted at WordPress.com. I couldn’t find any references to back me up, so… I can remember that, though, because the first time I decided to try WordPress was when I was moving to self-hosted and I was trying multiple free blogging programs. It was after Lil’lady was born and I’m pretty sure it was the winter of 2004 or early 20051. I was looking through the web archive and had a giggle at the memory of trying to figure out how the hell to get that thing working. I tried WordPress and Textpattern and something else that I can’t remember2. I settled on WordPress because of the sites using it, their available themes and the support forum. At the time, the WP.org support forums were really popping and users were happy to help noobs get their footing.

I was still happily blogging on Blogger with my political blog3and was getting more serious with the politics. So, I wanted to put my personal stuff somewhere else and why not self hosted? I was reading at different places that you were teh sux if you didn’t self host. Of course, back then I didn’t know shit about anything except basic HTML and how to fix up my Blogger blog. So I had to learn all of that shit. It was tons of fun. I remember picking out the name of my first “rea”l site. It was stupid and long and, actually, makes my head hurt just thinking about it. I don’t remember exactly. I remember my first Yahoo! Geocities site. Mwahaha! That was horrific and pitiful. Anyway, I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to my WordPress blog, but every so often I’d write something about the fam or my religion or something. Then I decided that the name sucked donkey balls and came up with something different. The whole time I was learning how to theme WordPress and add plugins (back then users had to add lines of code to get plugins working. That’s where my tagline came from, you know. “I like to break things” refers solely to my breaking the crap out of my site every time I “updated” my theme. I remember how many times I changed my pseudonym, my site name(s) and, holy shitballs, the themes. I was a theme slut, for sure.

Ah, the memories! What is it about this time of year that always makes me want to walk down blogging memory lane?

So, I was looking for proof of WP being able cache pages and, of course, I went back in time and, well, lost a few hours of my day. I used to be such a WP fangirl. I mean, after I figured out how to do this and that and then I got really into the WP community. I remember I was going to blog for this WP “magazine” and sent a couple of posts in to the dude. He was supposed to pay us. He didn’t pay me4 and I stopped writing for him. I think it was 5 posts? That motherfucker has a popular theming company now, by the way. Gods, I hate him. Mostly because his “magazine” idea fell through but he never did pay me.

Anyway, so my point was that it was possible to cache WP powered blogs when HuffPo went live back in May 20055. I don’t know why Huffington chose to start her blog on MT because she’s a huge fan of getting whatever she can get for free– content from other sites and content from HuffPo bloggers, for instance. MT wasn’t free back then and it wasn’t that much easier to publish with it, though it did use static HTML pages. I can’t imagine Six Apart gave their software to Huffington out of the goodness of their collective heart. According to this article, though, they didn’t seem to care. Personally, I think Six Apart fucked up by not forcing them to pay the fee. Whatever Arianna’s reasons for picking MT I doubt it was because WordPress couldn’t do the job. I guess it could’ve been a security issue as MT was closed source and WP was open?

I wanted to leave a comment on the Balloon Juice post because of that comment. I didn’t really care what software HuffPo was using to scam the left blogosphere, but it irritated me a bit to read that WP was incapable of running that it. That reaction was based on my years of being a WP fangirl, of course. Since I needed proof that I was right and my beloved WP didn’t suck6, I had to go digging. And, well, when I go digging I tend to get lost in what I’m reading which means this post has taken a long time to write. At least I’m consistent in that.

Just for giggles, go back to the June 1,2005 edition of HuffPo. Now look down the middle column. What do you see? Lemme help.

SF 49′s Training Video: Lesbian Porn, Racial Jokes, Anti-Gay Slurs

And there’s a picture of blurred-out boobies.

I only mention this because the new argument against HuffPo is that they’ve only recently started using sensationalist headlines. Isn’t it nice that they’ve just amped up their use of sensationalism rather than just adopting it? Aww… So, here’s a look at it two years later. They’ve added the content scraping, the gossip column and the boobies.

All this digging around about WordPress v. Movable Type with regards to the left’s favorite online gossip mag has stirred something in me, though. I’m going to redo my site. Aren’t you excited?

  1. I thought I started on version 1.4, but that’s wrong. So maybe 1.5? I’m going to look around and see if I don’t have a copy on a disk somewhere. [↩]
  2. I only remember Textpattern because I really liked it and Google is my friend. [↩]
  3. I was going to put a link here to the Wayback Machine archive of my old blog. And then I was going to point to another blog that had me linked in 2005. And then I decided to say fuck it all because why the hell do I need to prove any damned thing? [↩]
  4. I seem to get that a lot. [↩]
  5. At the link you’ll notice that the first comment is from 6 years ago. That’s 6 years ago from today– February 2011-6= February 2005. Don’t ya love math? [↩]
  6. Besides the fact that WP is the most popular self-hosted blog software in use right now. I’m of the mind that, considering MT went partially OS, that they didn’t suck that bad back then. [↩]
Posted in Blogging, Meta, WordPress | Tagged , | Comments closed

Bad Behavior has blocked 10915 access attempts in the last 7 days.