Disqus - Latest Comments for RexHammock

Re: Always grateful

RexHammock — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:48:01 -0000

Thanks, Jim. Who uses IE7? -- just kidding.

Re: Rex’s prayer

RexHammock — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:22:35 -0000

Thanks, JalapenoBob. You made my day. Yes, I "wrote" it. Although I guess I did have some help from St Francis of Assisi.

Re: An important lesson in business success: Use your product

RexHammock — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:40:12 -0000

Nick. You're da man when it comes to this.

Re: Is there a future for business magazines?

RexHammock — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:30:58 -0000

I think the money-losing vanity magazine projects of billionaires category has legs. Indeed, I'd be happy to supply a wide range of content and design services to any of them.

I don't read Gourmet, but its the first time I've had people from the real world (meaning, non-media and non-tech) ask me what I thought, as they were fans of the magazine and didn't understand its closing. As I've said, its overhead structure was out of whack. I also believe it probably strayed away from its core focus (food) and had ventured into topics its readers enjoy (travel) but are not central to the advertisers' comprehension of what the role of the brand is. That's purely conjecture on my part, however.

I think magazines like Cooks Illustrated (more tightly focused) was encroaching on the space significantly and Conde Nast decided to quite now and refocus rather than ride the magazine downhill. Which, as a business person, I think is smart.

Congratulations on your new job. I think the future of business-oriented wire services is swell, as long as they're not run by the idiots who seem to be in charge at AP. Whenever I can, I point to stories from your new employer rather than stories from them.

Re: Is there a future for business magazines?

RexHammock — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:37:56 -0000

Every thing you said, I agree with, except one thing:

I didn't say the future for b2b trade publication looks bleak.

My post is about general business magazines.

I think -- if they do the types of things you say -- the future of narrowly focused b2b media can be very successful.

Unfortunately, those companies are not run by people who have ever heard of StockTwits.

Re: Sign up for my incredible, amazing and great Barcamp Nashville session about Wikis

RexHammock — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:23:28 -0000

There's no entry in Wikipedia for hot chicken? That's an outrage.

Re: Sign up for my incredible, amazing and great Barcamp Nashville session about Wikis

RexHammock — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:22:54 -0000

@b2blog - Barcamps (or unconferences of any type) are delicate balances of structure and chaos. The Nashville Barcamp is pretty amazing in its sophistication and structure (thanks to some amazing volunteers), but it's still "free." Personally, I like less structure and more chaos...and I like it when the people in the audience are recognized for knowing as much as the people talking. I think electrical engineers are already having barcamps: They take place in bars during the official conferences they attend -- that's where all the *real* information is shared among people.

Re: Here’s who will run the internet if the nuts have their way

RexHammock — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:24:14 -0000

Oh come on, Shannon. You know where I was born.

Re: Here’s who will run the internet if the nuts have their way

RexHammock — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:43:28 -0000

Thanks, Zach. I now remember seeing that post when you wrote it. I think that's a fine strategy -- I guess when read literally ("We content creators must quickly and decisively act to take back control of our content.”), the meaning of what he said (i.e., what you wrote about) does not come through as clearly.

Re: It’s not magazines that need saving

RexHammock — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:04:41 -0000

@dylanstableford - "if it were marketed right" = this is an industry that takes six weeks to get a magazine subscription started after someone pays for it.

Re: Why do some book publishers seem intent on wandering off a cliff?

RexHammock — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:17:39 -0000

In my post, I linked back to another post that explores those costs -- so no, I don't suspect anything, I know exactly what it costs. It links to the work of Peter Olson, the former CEO of Random House, who breaks down precisely those costs.

I assume he knows what those costs are as well as you or I may know them, as he ran the worlds largest book publishing company for many years. He's the one I'm depending on to inform my understanding of the costs of "a book" vs. the cost of manufacturing and distribution of a physical product -- and the wastes related to current book industry business model.

Re: Why do some book publishers seem intent on wandering off a cliff?

RexHammock — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:51:42 -0000

>Doing all that isn't free, you know.

I don't understand what you mean. When I say charge for something, I mean don't give it away for free. Do I need to explain this again: If a book is not being printed on paper, don't charge me for the printing and paper.

Re: Why I use Wikipedia to follow major news events like the Samoa earthquake, tsunami

RexHammock — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:07:55 -0000

Perhaps if you weren't commenting annonymously, I could take you more seriously. And, first warning, this is my blog: You can call me dim-witted anyplace else you like, but not here.

Re: Why I use Wikipedia to follow major news events like the Samoa earthquake, tsunami

RexHammock — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:30:51 -0000

I am very aware of the anti-Wikipedia crowds. And I've written on this blog about valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia. I don't need conspiracy theorists and followers of certain cults to attempt to convince me that anything as successful as Wikipedia must be evil.

Re: Happy “5th” Anniversary, Podcasting (well, not actually)

RexHammock — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:26:03 -0000

I agree, Doc. I see Dave's handiwork and influence everywhere. Too bad some people refuse to see it anywhere.

Re: Why I use Wikipedia to follow major news events like the Samoa earthquake, tsunami

RexHammock — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:47:08 -0000

History is a good place to look to learn that most posts are the work of a few people. In reality (this is my longer post) each entry on Wikipedia should be thought of as an individual website with its own community. Also, another tab to click on to learn about the "back channel" is the discussion tab. The "discussion" part of Wikipedia is about to undergo a radical overhaul with the introduction of "liquid threads" that make that page work more like a forum. Stay tuned.

Later: Yes, Wikipedia is built on the work of others, but in their case, I don't think newspapers or other news sources have the same type of argument that they have against Google. #1, it's a non-profit that carries no advertising. Fair use is a little more cut and dry in Wikipedia's case than in Google's. #2. I can't think of an argument a newspaper can make that would "show harm" related to linking to a news-source (this is a separate argument from someone aguing they were personally harmed by content found in an entry). #3. It's a wiki. Any news source that doesn't want to be linked to can edit the entry. Take 30 seconds to roll-back an edit. The news media can annotate the entry and explain why it disagrees with the usage of its material. Everytime someone edits an entry, they are required to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, one of which is to not upload copyrighted material. "Citing" and reposting are not the same thing.

Re: Why I use Wikipedia to follow major news events like the Samoa earthquake, tsunami

RexHammock — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:44:11 -0000

Writing this post reminded me to do just that. Thanks for "outing" me. By the way, we miss you in Nashville. Ever come back to town?

Re: That Strange Light you’re seeing is the future of magazines

RexHammock — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:54:49 -0000

I can assure you: Derek Powazek is a zen master on the topic of Creative Commons and rights clearance.

Re: The myth of what digital natives know

RexHammock — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:32:40 -0000

Thanks. I think I'll track down some that research so I can base my random theories on something more than my personal observations and a tendency to question conventional wisdom that does not sync with what I observe over-and-over.

Re: People who hang the title “MIT study” on a student project are likely fake science writers

RexHammock — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:00:38 -0000

This is a test post. We're working through some glitches on commenting.

Re: louisgray.com: My Top Ten Favorite Google Products

RexHammock — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:00:48 -0000

Thanks, Rick. I've just always wondered (worried about) where that link takes people. I'm sure whatever you come up with will take some of the worry out of that -- i.e., if I have some opportunity to suggest where it goes.

And by the way, let me add that you are one of the coolest customer service people I've ever known. (Note to those who don't know: Rick is one of the guys who run Blogger.)

Re: louisgray.com: My Top Ten Favorite Google Products

RexHammock — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:09:12 -0000

What? No Knol? Google throws so much spaghetti against the refrigerator, it's nice when they stick with something until it's right: Google Reader, for example. However, for my non-technical friends, I use iGoogle as a gateway drug to get them hooked on RSS. Going straight to Google Reader seems to overwhelm them. By the way, the thing I've never liked about Blogger is that thing at the top of the page that says "Next Blog" -- but you don't have it. It's been a long time since I've played with blogger. How did you turn that off?

Re: Multiple choice test: What lesson can we learn from the coach who doesn’t let his team punt?

RexHammock — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:41:29 -0000

This is merely a test. Do not adjust your sets. Do not unfollow me because I'm using you as a lab rat. Thank you. Test complete.

Re: louisgray.com: Automated Tweets Don't Always Mean Less Genuine Tweets

RexHammock — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:13:14 -0000

Great post -- and point, Louis. Whenever one tries to equate the function of a technology (automation) with the usage of a technology (porn spam links vs. breaking news updates), they run into this dilemma. No doubt, the intention of the Terms of Service were directed at spam. By the way, in addition to @r on Twitter, I have another "mostly automated" account ( @smallbusiness ) that I use to post links to stories I believe are relevant to the topic of small business. The reason it is "automated" is that I've done the same thing on delicious.com (delicious.com/smallbusiness) for years and rather than stopping that, I merely set up the Twitter account as a means to grab and repost the links I was currating. Lately, I've been doing some tweets directly to the account. Bottom line: The @smallbusiness account has 1,000 more followers than my @r account.

Re: Zee is spelled Zed Eee Eee (Scripting News)

RexHammock — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:06:34 -0000

@Zee -- Here's another idea: You can say, My name is Zee -- just like Ze Frank (zefrank.com) -- except he spells his with one "e" and I spell mine with 2.