Disqus - Latest Comments for annavera

Re: The Google Sidewiki Controversy

annavera — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:24:11 -0000

Thanks Alelm. I tool your advice and left the following comment at the link you provided:

"I request Sidewiki be abolished or be severely modified.

From the viewpoint of a visitor, sidewiki looks just like a part of a webmaster's website. According to a survey done on Google and posted on YouTube, most people don't even know what a browser is, let alone a browser addon.

A webmaster owns his domain and has the right to decide what appears on his webpages.

But, in effect, Sidewiki adds a section to a webmaster's website which uses up his site real estate and which HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER.

The webmaster can not decide whether he wants to opt in to accept Sidewiki on his site. He is not given a choice.

He can not even moderate the comments which appear on his website.

This tool can be used for the following purposes:

- To blackmail a webmaster (if you don't ___ I will write ___ on your sidewiki).

- To cause accidents, injury, and death (a "prankster" writes off-label instructions on a pharmaceutical website, saying to take X drug in such-and-such a fashion. Result: Visitors who think this is part of the actual official website can overdose, wrongly mix drugs, and worse. The visitor gets ill or dies, the webmaster get sued.)

- To control and bias the apparency of public opion - all one has to do is get control of the moderators. Comments of one viewpoint get deleted, comments of the opposing viewpoint get approved. Voila, the internet and the projected "viewpoints of the people" can now be controlled by vested interests.

- To steal - a webmaster creates a sales page for his product and drives traffic to it. The thief adds comments to the sidewiki, with a link to his own sales page for the same or similar product, and thus redirects some traffic to his own page to earn money as a parasite.

I could say more but I think anyone else could think of a myriad of other examples.

Until the day Sidewiki was created I had nothing but good things to say about Google ... and all I can say now is, remember, don't be evil. Whether intentionally or otherwise."

Re: The Google Sidewiki Controversy

annavera — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:53:34 -0000

Ughh! This is disgusting. But it's almost cyber-1984 in the making. Think of how much control someone could exert over the entire internet, just by gaining control over SideWikie and having the ability to decide which viewpoints to delete and which to leave intact? In fact, one could target any business, organization, religion, political group, or otherwise. Whether by using libel, by distracting visitors, by embedding download links or even links to dangerous websites/porn, etc. It reminds me of the old methods used to get rid of political opponents - just label them insane and have them shipped off to a mental institution.

In other words, once someone has control of this tool, all he has to do is decide who to go after.

One of the beauties of the internet is that it can't be controlled like the media can. I personally would not be surprised if this is just another way to get around that and make the internet controllable.

Until now I have never had much but good things to say about Google. In the interest of their own motto, I truly hope they realize this mistake and change it before it gets too late.

Re: An Open Letter to the FTC - mediabistro.com: GalleyCat

annavera — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:27:24 -0000

Well - maybe if you disclose that you receive spiritual gain by discussing this, you can get by ...

Re: An Open Letter to the FTC - mediabistro.com: GalleyCat

annavera — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:26 -0000

Wait a minute ... why do newspapers and media not have to follow all the strict rules that bloggers (normal people) have to follow? Should the FTC perhaps disclose any connection it has with to the media? Wait ... shouldn't the FTC disclose any financial benefits it receives BY WRITING THOSE RULES?

Re: Social Media Isn’t Dead, But It Can Be Deadly

annavera — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:12:13 -0000

I agree fully. I saw the recent "blogging is dead" rumor and I thought, that's ridiculous. The Riff Raff is moving to Twitter and Facebook so the rest of us have more room to breathe. Good!

Not that it is all riff-raff - some people really just don't need a blog anymore, and that's okay. They want to tell stupid jokes to high-school friends, that's what Facebook is for. They want to share links and one-liners with online acquaintances, and get a bit more exposure - that's Twitter. Well, both Facebook and Twitter can be a lot more than that, but you know what I mean.

I also FULLY agree that a lot of us spend way too much time off-site! Trying so hard to get backlinks and traffic that we forget the most crucial element of the whole equation - our own blogs!

Re: Flustered by Fake Friendly Comments

annavera — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:56:07 -0000

I think this is a bit silly. Michael obviously gets tons of comments on his posts and is being polite by answering them as much as possible. He doesn't need to write a book. Plus, it is his OWN blog. 1. He does not have to wonder if his own comments are genuine and he does not have to worry about spamming himself. 2. He has already written a full post and is perfectly well in the position to write shorter follow-up comments, 3) it is his own blog. I am sure he would never leave a "neat idea" comment on someone else's blog. Just like we do things in our own homes which we would not do as a guest.

Comment etiquette on one's own blog is not the same as it is on others. Spammers have created this situation we find ourselves in of having to moderate out brief empty comments. It has evolved into a matter of netiquette, that's all.

Re: Flustered by Fake Friendly Comments

annavera — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:34:49 -0000

I never leave comments like that on blogs. 1. I know how prevelant the comment spam problem is and I know I can easily be mistaken for one by a HUMAN BEING - not by a spam blocker. 2. If I don't have time to say something valuable I should not waste the blogger's time moderating or checking my comment to see if it is spam. 3. If I don't have something valuable and original to say I should not waste the readers' time (who don't want to wade through one-liners to try to find useful feedback). 4. If I don't have time to leave a comment but I want to acknowledge the blogger for a good post I can simply retweet it or bookmark it. That shows recognition, and even promotes the post to others, without wasting anyone's time.

Re: Flustered by Fake Friendly Comments

annavera — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:52:04 -0000

Hi - sorry I missed this question 2 hours ago. Yes it is blue now. And it is no longer stretched all the way across the screen.

Re: Flustered by Fake Friendly Comments

annavera — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:12:17 -0000

I want to add that I had a hard time leaving a comment, probably due to the same. The little scrolling box where I could put in a username and password ... wouldn't scroll. I had to go to IE to get it to get a bit bigger and even then I had to do some guess work and blind typing. You make people WORK for their comments Michael! That's one way to keep out spammers ...

Re: Flustered by Fake Friendly Comments

annavera — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:56:57 -0000

Hi, this is a great post! (And I mean it :) ) I have had quite a time dealing with the types of comments you mention here on my own blogs - and I don't get the kind of traffic you get - so I can only imagine.

I have also started to make a habit of checking the sites of first-time commenters so that I can make sure I am not linking to anyone I don't want to. Sometimes I delete the whole comment, sometimes I just delete the link.

The worst one was a guy who was linking to a site promoting Paxil, which is one of the drugs known to cause suicide, murder, and other interesting side effects. I deleted his link and told him why. But at least it inspired me to post about that subject - do you know what you are promoting?

I also don't agree with people who say you should let all critical comments through. Just like you said, debate and respectful intelligent conversation between adults is fine. Empty, rash, pointless, or inpolite criticism is not.

It's my blog! I wouldn't let someone come in my own house who just wants to criticize my decor - so why allow it on my blog? Go bug somebody else, that's what I say :)

Thanks for a great post!!!