Tire fire

Rene Roy from Canada writes: What do you think about the Canadian Tire Guy being dumped?

Leah: I just heard about that. It’s kind of sad.

I’m glad Rene Roy asked this important question during last week’s Globe and Mail chat with Leah McLaren, what with boring topics like Crash-lash and intra- and extra-office romance getting all the press. 🙂 But I have to weigh in, and now’s as good a time as any: nothing against Ted Simonett or Gloria Slade, but their Canadian Tire couple ads were nothing but a ripoff of Home Hardware’s long-running earlier campaign featuring Keith Kemps and Kaya McGregor.

Kaya and Keith were superior in every way: they had realistic relationships and conversations between themselves and their neighbours, they weren’t obnoxiously condescending, and they each had (sometimes unexpected) strengths and weaknesses. (Among other things, I love the fact that she was the handy one.) I bought their characters and characterizations so much that I wrote to Stuart McLean at one point suggesting that, should his Vinyl Cafe stories ever be filmed, Keith and Kaya would be shoo-ins to play Dave and Morley.

So, with all due respect to Leah McLaren, good riddance to the CTC. May they be cursed with spending eternity with Canadian Tire’s equally- and always-obnoxious Scrooge and Santa.

Web standards

I find it somewhat ironic that both the Web Standards Project and advocate Lachlan Hunt updated their sites recently but failed to meet one of the goals of the web: that Cool URIs Don’t Change. Even if they did find that the URIs had to change, there are ways to prevent the existing ones from disappearing—but that’s exactly what happened to their feed links.

On a related topic, both sites also failed to preserve their unique item IDs in the new feeds.

Both are subtle points that affect what’s most probably a tiny minority of users… but is it setting a good example that they don’t/can’t/won’t take these implicit standards into account?

I don’t claim to be perfect in this respect—I have no idea if my feed item IDs changed when I last upgraded WordPress, for example, although I bet they did—but I’ve got a plethora of 301 Moved Permanently redirects on this site, my old one and others I manage to keep old content available. And both WaSP and Hunt kept the bulk of their URIs constant/redirected, so they’re still better than 99% of the other sites out there; the only reason I’m picking on them is that I just noticed that both feeds were dead.

More Leah

Since I posted yesterday, Google’s search algorithm has turned things around a bit: Leah McLaren‘s site for The Continuity Girl is still the third hit, but other pages have gotten a nice PageRank boost so there’s a little less bile immediately evident. I’d never even thought to look at Rotten Tomatoes for a list of Leah’s movie reviews (she’s seen a lot more than I have, but we share basically the same opinions on the ones that coincide), and this interview at Gremolata is an interesting read too. (There’s an all-salmon diet? Ewww.)

I think the funniest thing, though, is this line from her G&M bio: This is her first real job. That’s exactly how I describe the job I’ve held for a decade (ever since graduating), and I don’t plan to leave anytime soon.

Finally, for what it’s worth, Mark Evans sort of echoes my call for Leah to start a blog of her own. You know, it seems to me that a book tour would be ideal fodder for a few posts… I’m just sayin’….

Just a second

Apparently Canada’s record 24-medal haul at the Torino Olympics would have been higher but for a single second:

  • Short-track speed skater Eric Bedard missed bronze by 4-1,000ths of a second in the men’s 500.
  • Skier Kelly VanderBeek missed bronze by 3-100ths in the women’s super-G.
  • Francois Bourque missed bronze by 76-100ths in the men’s giant slalom.
  • Pierre Lueders missed bronze by 9-100ths of a second in four-man bobsleigh.

For those of you keeping track, that’s four medals and a total of .884 seconds.

But frankly, as one who has no athletic talent at all, I’m in awe of the whole team, medals or no (with the exception of the less-than-inspiring men’s hockey team).

Here we go again?

This evening, more than 1,500 employees of the CBC and its French-language service rejected contract demands from the network, prompting their union leader to warn the broadcaster it could soon have a strike on its hands. […] With two months to go before the collective agreement winds down, the union is claiming that negotiations are at a standstill and that Radio Canada is gearing up for a showdown. More at I Love Radio.

In defense of, and disagreement with, Leah McLaren

The day I decided to swear off the blogosphere was the morning I decided to plug my own name — and the names of several other writers I know and admire — into the search engine at technorati.com, a site known as Blogger HQ (it claims to itemize every new blog on the Internet; last time I checked, the head count was more than 28 million). The results of my search were grim: countless chat rooms full of bitter unpublished writers venomously slagging published ones — their terrible spelling, poorly constructed sentences and outrageous amounts of displaced hatred and envy a testimony to why they became bloggers in the first place.

With all due respect to Leah McLaren—and that amount is considerable, given how much I’m enjoying The Continuity Girl, which I bought based solely on her interview with Lenni Jabour—I believe a lot of what she’s run up against can be explained by Sturgeon’s Law: Ninety percent of everything is crud. It doesn’t help that there’s a legion of bloggers whose sole purpose seems to be to denigrate the mainstream in general and her in particular: taking Google as another datapoint, her own website is currently only the third link in a search for her own (uncommon) name, sandwiched between six pages by schmucks with hate-ons for her.

To those misguided souls, by the way, I say this. Look folks, Leah McLaren didn’t draw those anti-Muslim cartoons, she didn’t swindle her way into a cabinet position, she’s not a right-wing nutter like Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly, and she didn’t kill your beloved pet gerbil in grade three. She’s a talented, successful young writer who happens to create a lighthearted, inoffensive column in a national newspaper. The misogynistic vitriol that’s spewed at her—the stuff that’s halfway literate, anyway—is written for reasons and from psychological places that are incomprehensible to me. (And I’m sure you’ll all find your way here to explain them in abhorrent depth using as many abusive references to me and Ms McLaren as possible.)

My own problem with the blogosphere is not that it’s selling out to the mainstream, but that most of it is spectacularly boring. The dominant quality is tedium: writers without editors, fact-checkers or paying subscribers to keep them in check. […] One tempting explanation is that what a blogger has to say is unfit for publication. This is usually true. Much like teachers who teach because they can’t do, the blogger blogs because he can’t publish.

Having said all of that, here’s where I think McLaren doesn’t grasp the blogosphere—at least, my blogosphere.

First, tedium is in the eye of the beholder. I find one of her touchstones, Gawker.com (a New York-based site that specializes in celebrity takedowns disguised as sightings), endlessly tedious; and I’m sure she’d say exactly the same thing about Slashdot, and perhaps even Boing Boing. (Even she would have to love the remixed TTC map though.) This to me is totally understandable, and to be expected: we don’t all butter our bread on the same side.

Second, I debate that corporate sites like Gawker, while being popular, have anything to do with the real blogosphere, the so-called Long Tail. The interesting weblogs are the ones that are written by individuals from all walks of life who just happen to be both passionate about their topics of discussion and sufficiently erudite to express that passion. (I count myself out of that group: Petroglyphs is interesting mainly to me, and often not even that.) To pick three at random from my blogroll, Tim Bray‘s wide range of interests makes Ongoing endlessly fascinating, I’m in some not-insubstantial awe of renaissance man James Tauber‘s various projects, and On the Road is a wonderful online rendition of she-who-is-Kristin Sweetland. None of them have editors, none use fact-checkers, and none are being paid to do what they do online.

(And editors and fact-checkers ain’t all they’re cracked up to be anyway: just look at Antonia Zerbisias’s azerbic for her great coverage of the things that the blogosphere has brought into the open, or read a bit about Jayson Blair.)

Third, the fact that most bloggers aren’t published—and, more, aren’t beholden to their subscribers—is often an advantage: once a blogger has his teeth into something, he won’t let go just because it’s past the news cycle, as well-evidenced by Mike Watkins and his continuing reportage on avaricious political defector David Emerson.

“The word blogosphere has no meaning,” [Choire Sicha] said. “There is no sphere; these people aren’t connected; they don’t have anything to do with each other.”

The final point that shows what I believe to be Ms McLaren’s fundamental misunderstanding of the blogosphere is stated in the quote she chose to end her piece. The blogosphere—the real blogosphere—is entirely about being connected. Comment pages, trackbacks, pingbacks, and the links and links and links between all of them, are the life’s blood of the blogosphere, and the main reason it grew so quickly. And much like the internet itself, the blogosphere routes around damage: that ninety percent crud will remain unlinked and unnoticed, at least in the long term, and its Google juice will slowly dissipate and dry up.

But I guess I’ll have to try to discuss all—well, some—of this with her in person, since she’s swearing off the blogosphere for good. And even if I don’t get a chance (or, more likely, chicken out when given it—me only grunt when pretty girl close) I’m going to keep reading her columns—and aren’t they, at their core, just paper-based blogs?—and her books, which I hope will be frequent and numerous.

An interesting little postscript: the blogosphere’s noticed that Leah’s gone. Right now "Leah McLaren" is the fourth of the top searches on Technorati.

And hire an editor, too

Our goal is to make [service name] a highly relevant source for finding information. Our topic structure is unique built from the ground up by staff and we do not use volunteers in the directory.

All listings require a review fee for possible inclusion. A paid review does not guarantee inclusion it only guarantees a staff member will review your listing to see if it meets submission policy. Your submission must meet submission guidelines to be accepted.

Please email Staff

  • If you still have questions
  • You want to suggest a new category

Thank your for your interest with our spider. [Company’s] spider is in its beta stages right now and it may come visit your site from time to time. We follow the rules of robots.txt and do not try to ‘spam’ your website with too many requests at a time. For information on how to control access to your pages by spiders in general here is a good starting point www.robotstxt.org. If you notice our spider misbehaving please contact us at [spider@domain] (attach log file entries of our spider if possible).

We use Google Sitemaps to inform Google’s crawler about all your pages and to help people discover more of your web pages.

All submissions require a one time review fee of $39.99. This money is used to promote the directory and to cover our daily operations cost. Buy promoting the directory we promote all listings in the directory. This alone makes a listing very valuable. Five years from now we will still be using submission funds to promote the directory so your one time review fee is a very good long term investment that could bring you traffic for years to come. We will not remove your listing from the directory unless the url pulls a 404 page or fails to meet continued inclusion guidelines.

  1. If your service require[s] a review fee, why is your spider visiting my site in the first place?
  2. Your spider reports the following User-Agent: [CompanyName] (Spider; [company domain]/spider.html; [spider@domain]). What name is used to exclude your spider using robots.txt, CompanyName or Spider? Did you consider that Spider is an excessive generic term?
  3. An additional word in each topic (sample: Arts & Humanities; Business & Industry; Careers & Employment; Computers & Internet) does not a unique structure make.
  4. I highly doubt you’re informing Google’s crawler about anything; and if you are, why have your own spider in the first place?
  5. You don’t use volunteers for your unique structure, but want me to define your categories for you?
  6. You’re allowing me the privilege of paying for your operations costs while building your directory for you. That’s a sweet deal… but somehow I don’t think a 404 is the thing being pulled.

No link to the offending site, even using a vote-against relation.