Disqus - Latest Comments for andytlr

Re: Brown to El Prieto

Andy — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:49:51 -0000

Bit rough as source was low res.

Re: Butterfly Chairs – Replacement Covers

Andy — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:17:50 -0000

I got some canvas covers from Circa50 in the mail yesterday and I couldn't be happier with them. They're far more comfortable and far better made than the shitty ones that came with my frames.

Re: Ghetto coffee roasting

Andy — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:38:16 -0000

In the food court at the market.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/1500996497

Andy — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:50:43 -0000

There are a few examples here: http://tlr.name/1140usage

Re: Lamb pasta with mushrooms, anchovies, capers & rosemary.

Andy — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:49:02 -0000

I didn't realise it was going to be so yum before I ate it. Will take a photo next time.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/4037117332

Andy — Tue, 17 May 2011 01:31:35 -0000

Interesting. I've never seen one that does that.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/1500996497

Andy — Sun, 01 May 2011 22:30:27 -0000

Hey,
This was implemented in the last couple of versions. I just forgot to update the site.

Re: http://www.catchingelephant.com/post/1033443029

Andy — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:50:06 -0000

Hey,
Yep I didn't renew the domain. It's still on Tumblr though:

http://catchingelephant.tum...

Re: How Google should go social

Andy — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:04:35 -0000

Yep. Posting this a week before they announced +1 was quite fortuitous. It's not the same and not as good as I'd hoped. But interesting none the less.

Re: Catching Elephant Theme Info

Andy — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:43:18 -0000

It has a sidebar by default. I don't really understand the question.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/4037117332

Andy — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:58:59 -0000

Yeah it would probably effect other lifts. But maybe not if the toggle happened straight away. Realise you've made a mistake and turn the selection off straight away.

Re: How Google should go social

Andy — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:10:42 -0000

You already "heart" items by sharing them on twitter or saving on delicious.

What about all the people who don't use Twitter of Delicious. That's the thing, you're coming at this from a nerds perspective. So's Benny. Delicious would be perfect for this, if any of my friends had ever signed up.

...so don't you make selection of those really best links here again? Isn't that enough?

As I said to Benny, non-nerds don't first look over their friends blogs, they either don't know that their friends have blogs, or they don't care. They use Google to find stuff.

When we introduce "hearts", the result would be the first one will have 300 "recommendations" and the second one would have 150 - You get bigger dataset to arrive to slightly more precise result, the question is whether such preciseness is needed.

If you have a contact list of <100, it would be incredibly rare for one page to have any more than a few recommendations. It's more about whether a page has 'a' recommendation or not, and who that's from. Delivered in context, when you're searching for that kind of information.

It's absolutely not a list of public recommendations. It'd only show recommendations from your friends. Not everyone.

I think one huge problem is context - a tweet/link about agriculture from someone who has 50 followers may well be much more valuable than a tweet about agriculture from Zeldman. Just because the first guy is a specialist in the field. Your search results will be hugely biased, if you follow both those guys. Because those you follow is just one homogenous group, not sorted by context.

Again, I think a smaller contact list would be better. You don't follow people because they're funny (like some on Twitter), you follow them because you think they'll recommend good stuff. If you work in Agriculture, then you're probably following that person who only has 50 followers, because he's the expert, you know who he is. You see his name next to the search result and see that it's valuable.

There's clearly complicated algorithms to be worked out. I just think that it could be an interesting way for Google to improve search over time.

Re: How Google should go social

Andy — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:28:53 -0000

Don't disagree entirely. But what about all your friends that aren't nerds. Or all the people that aren't nerds in the first place.

When you say 'bringing excellent content to the top of the internet pile'. You're right. That's what Twitter is great for. And why Buzz failed because it just tried to copy Twitter, when Twitter already existed.

This isn't about what you think of as a social network. It's about enriching search, with the help of friends and people who's opinions you respect.

It's why I mentioned a standalone site as an 'extension'. Not the core idea.

Facebook is friends. Twitter is the nerds you describe. This would be a mixture of both, but absolutely not like either and not leveraging off either.

Re: How Google should go social

Andy — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:00:30 -0000

Interesting. I'd never seen that before. But, it doesn't do the same thing at all. That requires your friends to create content. To write blog posts, to take photos (of the specific place you're thinking about going to go on holidays) etc.

That's all good and well for us nerds. But normal people don't write blogs. They do use Google though.

That finds things ON social networks. This completely excludes them, except for probably importing your contacts to start with.

Re: Short URL’s on your own domain.

Andy — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:51:12 -0000

Thanks for the schooling.

So there are 14,776,336 four character slugs. I doubt I'll ever get past two.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/1500996497

Andy — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:32:47 -0000

It's because IE rounds up sub-pixels. Safari & Chrome round down and Firefox rounds some up and some down.

So because columns are in percentages a column might actually need to be say 212.5px wide. But that isn't possible. So when IE rounds them up, the last column drops down onto the next line, breaking the layout.

So IE gets slightly narrower columns to accommodate the rounding up.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/1500996497

Andy — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:25:47 -0000

I agree to an extent. Many, many sites could benefit from a version that fits onto a smartphone properly. But many sites have far too much content to simply hide some information and display it on a phone. Large sites should really have a dedicated mobile version and use media queries the other way around – dumb phone to smartphone.

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/1500996497

Andy — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:53:29 -0000

Nope, unfortunately. Fixed grid's can use a repeating background image. But you can't do that with this because the column widths vary slightly from browser to browser. And it's completely different when you make the browser smaller.

Re: Ask me anything

Andy — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:47:07 -0000

Yep that does it, except then the sidebar and content column don't line up. This should do it:

.masthead {display:none;}
.shadow {margin-bottom:0px; margin-top: 20px;}
.search {margin-top:20px;}

Re: http://www.catchingelephant.com/post/1094065656

Andy — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 19:10:35 -0000

This is a different thing to the user pic you see on the dashboard.
Go to Customise > Advanced and upload an image there.

I'm using chrome too and have never had an issue. I've never heard any other reports of people having problems, other than not knowing where to upload the pic.

The image 'should' be 300 pixels wide. But it will shrink down if you upload something slightly larger. Although it isn't recommended as people will still be downloading the larger image each time they go to your blog.

Re: Ask me anything

Andy — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:42:54 -0000

Yep, the opposite :)

.nav a {text-transform:lowercase;}

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/579982370

Andy — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 05:01:11 -0000

Ha, yeah dude I love that photo. And that meredith is the one that the nought jefferies saying came from.

How have you been?

Re: http://www.catchingzebra.com/post/1105378433

Andy — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:50:24 -0000

Ay Bones,
Yeah it's just a watch band for the new iPod Nano. The new Nano is like the old shuffle with a clip. And it has a clock app. So you just clip the nano onto a band and you've got a watch.

Re: http://www.catchingelephant.com/post/492447986

Andy — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:52:34 -0000

When you click it, or when you hover over it? The on-click thing is a browser thing to indicate that the form field is active. Can't change that with css.

Re: Ask something

Andy — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:25:03 -0000

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. It looks like you've got Disqus enabled.