DISQUS

As I understand it, weddings are considered for inclusion in the Times because the newlyweds or their families ask for it and then the announcement is chosen out of all the others. That's not to say that they're not deserving! Maybe, too, it will draw some attention to the show and Jesse can get TSA picked up by a few more stations.

You're right: "You Look Nice Today" is great. Cracks my shit up. 45 minutes of hilarious lies and preposterous proposals. Who's faster on the quip than Merlin? Nobody. There's no way it'd make it on the air without a lot of bleeping or self-censoring, which might very well ruin it.

Thanks for the Jordan, Jesse Go! recco. I'll give it a whirl.

The difference between the NYT piece, which I wrote, and the Daily Candy factitiousness, is that I don't make up the words I include on my annual NYT list. Somebody else coins them, a bunch of people use them, I find them, research them, try to determine that they have some kind of decent level of currency, and then I define them. As I indicated in the piece, the ones on my list were were substantiated as being used by more than one person, as being the product something other than a marketing effort, and as already having a fair bit of lifespan. If that's not enough, then nearly every dictionary is a failure, since that's more or less the core of the inclusion criteria that they all use.

I agree: daily I see comments on the sites of dozens of newspapers around the English-speaking world and few have adopted any of the fairly successful models for raising the bar enough to keep comments down to manageable quantity, to weed out the trolls and the willfully ignorant, and to encourage commenters to develop (or extend) good online reputations. I think most newspapers would find appropriate a combination of the Slashdot karma model plus a good chunk of the Metafilter community model. So that means something like a $5 membership fee--a barrier to entry just high enough to stop the drive-by firebrands who aren't vested in the community--, a few heartless moderators to keep commenters on topic and civil, a way to rate the comments of others so that Cory Doctorow-style "whuffie" is accumulated, and personal profile pages that allow for a decent amount of modification so that commenters can include bio info, links to other web sites, location information, etc., and that include recent comments and their ratings by others.

You're missing the point, Ernesto: I already have redirects in place in htaccess of exactly that nature and have had for THREE YEARS. MInt DOES NOT HAVE doubletongued.org assumed as the URL. It's using WWW.DOUBLETONGUED.ORG on EVERY URL. That's how they're showing up in Prank, too.

Here's a screen shot of the malfunctioning Prank. Note that looking up the URLs individually shows that they do have pageranks higher than zero. The second one, for example, has a pagerank of 5.

I have the same problem: nothing but "NA" graphics next to the most-popular URLs. My www.domain.com has a pagerank of 7, all my urls point to www, and I do not use the "trim urls" feature in the Default pepper. All the URLs listed in the Prank pane include "www."