For more on Twitter, including possible business applications, see Jennifer Woodard Maderazo’s recent posting at MediaShift.
Technorati simplified its blog rating and ranking system a week ago today.
The major change is one of emphasis. The headline figure for each blog is now its “Authority” rating – the number of blogs that link to it. This number was available to bloggers in the past, but things could get confusing because Technorati also quoted the number of links to the blog. The number of links is no longer being provided.
All blogs are then ranked, according to their Authority ratings. In other words, the blog with the highest authority rating is ranked number one, and so on, just as in the past.
Both numbers are useful to a blogger, but I think the ranking is the more useful. It shows just how far most of us have to go to break into the Top 100 out of some 70 million blogs. 🙂
How’s $67 milllion for a dry cleaning bill? A Washington, D.C., lawyer is suing an area dry cleaning business for losing a pair of his trousers. The business owners claim they have his pants, but he’s pressing ahead with his suit.
If you liked that, there are many more great puns in the ABCNews.com story about a bizarre lawsuit, launched by Roy Pearson, who is actually not just a lawyer, but a judge.
One poster on Digg.com suggests that Judge Pearson may need the funds for alimony, and provides a link to the divorce papers of one Roy L Pearson Jr at findlaw.com.
ABCNews also looks at seemingly frivolous lawsuits which are costing billions “and changing the way Americans live and function in society”.
Humour from the Onion:
NEW YORK—A feature on the New York Times‘ website that lists the stories most e-mailed by readers is destroying morale and escalating tensions among the once-dignified and professional Times staff, sources within the newspaper of record said Tuesday.
This week’s most frequently e-mailed story, titled “In Manhattan, Even Felines Have Therapists,” which detailed the growing phenomenon of clinical depression among indoor urban cats, provoked a fresh round of envy and dismay among reporters still stinging from last week’s top article, “Do You Really Have Time For Your Time-Share?”.
plus much more.
Lost Remote has tips on what viewers love about their local TV websites (tongue in cheek, but oh so believable). For example:
“My friends are forever asking “What do you suppose that anchor is doing in the community?” I’m glad I can find that.”
“Please tell me more about your weekend, overnight photog and how wacky he is. I want to see bios for everyone at your station!”
“This website would be better if it helped service the station’s brand more.”
And there are many more.
An agitated reader who called the San Francisco Chronicle to complain about the phrase “pilotless drone” in a photo caption got more than he bargained for in response.
The newspaper put his voicemail tirade into its audio podcast feature Correct me if I’m wrong.
Then someone remixed the audio with a dance beat and posted it on YouTube.
Then it was sliced into a set of comical telephone “whooptones“.
And now, as CBS Public Eye comments, we’re blogging about it.
All very funny, and something I can sympathise with, having listened to a few abusive readers over the years.
So, was the Chronicle justified in starting this whole thing by posting the audio in its podcast? In my opinion, yes. It’s not unlike a letter to the editor, which gets published, generally without rebuttal, in a newspaper.
I have a couple of concerns, however:
- Anyone who leaves a voicemail message that may be published in audio or text form should be informed of that possiblity at the outset. Presumably the Chronicle did this in its voicemail greeting.
- Publishers need to be aware that some people, particularly if they are not subject to identity verification, may complain loud and long and colorfully in hopes of getting their 15 seconds of fame. Any decision to publish the comments should be based on how much they illuminate an issue, not on how angry (or stupid) the person sounded.
Hat tip: CBS Public Eye
In its review of a soon-to-be released book about popular misquotations, Britain’s Guardian newspaper managed to misquote the name of the book.
From the Guardian’s daily list of corrections:
A report headed Beam me up Scotty – and misquote me for better effect, page 4, October 25, misquoted the title of the book from which it was quoting. It is not They Never Said That. It is What They Didn’t Say.
Hat tip: Regret the Error