Disqus - Latest Comments for louismg

Re: louisgray.com: MyBlogLog's FriendFeed Integration is Fouling Up Google Vanity Searches

http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/08/mybloglogs-friendfeed-integration-is.html — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:07:32 -0000

Louis, we just added code to keep the search engine crawlers out of the New with My Neighborhood and New with My World pages. Give it a week or two to clear itself out of the indexes and that should clean stuff up.

Ian

Re: louisgray.com: The LDS/Facebook Rumor Didn't Pass the Common Sense Test

louismg — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:34:31 -0000

Sorry if you think I crushed my credibility with linking to the "Are Mormons a Cult" site. When I wrote that story at the end of last year, I definitely thought it was one of the many anti-Mormon sites that do exist out there, unfortunately.

Rather than dig them up, a quick Google Search on the subject brings up a number of points of view.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=...

As for "are they a cult", the fact they have very open meetings and open curriculum and documentation and are clear about their beliefs should end that discussion immediately. There's no hidden agenda. The church is a Christian faith that shares 90+% of its beliefs with other similar religions, and it's become very attractive to people who are looking to find a family-centered religion that has answers and doesn't always threaten its members with hellfire and damnation.

Re: louisgray.com: The LDS/Facebook Rumor Didn't Pass the Common Sense Test

louismg — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:28:44 -0000

Colby, Steven posted a note this morning responding to my story, and he didn't like my phrasing of the word "nonsense", which is fine. I've got a great relationship with Steven and really like his writing. It's just that this specific story didn't hold water. I commented the same on his blog.

Re: louisgray.com: The LDS/Facebook Rumor Didn't Pass the Common Sense Test

louismg — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:27:47 -0000

Dean, thanks for the note. In addition to your comments, I've received a number of positive e-mails from people in the church and not in the church who were pleased to see someone not stoking the flames. Jesse Stay also added some great points:

http://staynalive.com/articles/2008/08/21/faceb...

Re: louisgray.com: The LDS/Facebook Rumor Didn't Pass the Common Sense Test

louismg — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:25:56 -0000

Mark, it's common to trust an individual you know over a big corporation or religion. I don't profess to be an expert on the many other religions out there, but in this case, had somebody started a rumor that the Presbyterians or Methodists or even the Scientologists were going to buy Facebook, or Digg, or some other property, it would clearly be false, and I wouldn't have blogged on it. E-mailed it to friends? Probably. But not blogged it as a rumor or potential news.

Feel free to ask me or Jesse Stay any questions on this. I know I'll probably get some small nits wrong every once and again, but I try to be transparent without beating anyone over the head.

Re: louisgray.com: The LDS/Facebook Rumor Didn't Pass the Common Sense Test

louismg — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:23:22 -0000

Duncan, I don't fault you for having some fun with the rumor. I had some thoughts in my head along the same lines of "10 changes for Facebook if the Church bought them", but of course, you were first. As for the comments on the church having a bias against non-whites, or hatred of gays, that's not true. It'll take more than a Disqus comment to wrap that one up, but suffice it to say we have a fairly diverse congregation where I attend each Sunday, and my two best friends, who came out in college, have attended church with me on more than one occasion. Should they ever marry their boyfriends, I'll be there, and not to object. :-)

Re: Mormon Or Not It was Still News

louismg — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:50:39 -0000

Mark's comment is appreciated. I did reference Duncan in my story.

The issue here wasn't so much that religion was involved, but that with a little detective work, the rumor could be declared DOA. I've got a long track record of enjoying your work and your posts, Steven, as well as Cyndy, which you know, so I'd never paint you with a broad brush in regards to "nonsense". The story was nonsense and had no validity.

As for morning coffee, again, you probably know that as a member of the church, we abstain from coffee. :-)

Re: The Mormon Church Looking To Buy Facebook?

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:36:36 -0000

Jared, I'm a member of the LDS church, and I understand the focus on family history. But to believe that the church would want to acquire or scrape data from Facebook or any other application is wrong and well outside their goals. Family history and temple activity takes place when names are provided from direct members of the family. I can't submit names from strangers or celebrities, for example. The church also has no history of this type activity, and they wouldn't start with Facebook, which runs contrary to their goals and objectives.

Re: The Mormon Church Looking To Buy Facebook?

http://www.winextra.com/2008/08/20/the-mormon-church-looking-to-buy-facebook/ — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:02 -0000

Actually, this isn't too far-fetched as you think it would be. Mormons are big on genealogy as part of their religious beliefs. Facebook has many records of how people/family members are connected to each other. This is something Mormons would like to have in their hands as part of their genealogy project.

Re: The Mormon Church Looking To Buy Facebook?

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:42:47 -0000

That is a fantastic rumor. But it makes no sense. What an amazing fever this person must have.

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/08/why-embargo-process-is-broken-and-why.html — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:45:02 -0000

i'm not surprised people mention names in email and private message but not in their public complaints... it simply enforces the immaturity of the whole debacle. But like you said before "pics or it didn't happen".. period. I am still convinced that no embargo was broken and a bigger more established leader (like TechCrunch, VentureBeat, PaidContent, ReadWriteWeb, GigaOM, etc.) got the scoop and the little guys (and gals) just can't take it... they get so overcome by jealousy that they go off. Why? Because that's what history tells us happens... why should this time be any different?

You said yourself that "In my day job, I've never had a site break an embargo that I can remember" ... so it's not as "common" as these complainers want us to believe... it's just not. The places that get the scoop have earned them.

Re: http://www.sarahintampa.com/sarah/2008/08/19/for-love-or-not-of-friendfeed.html

http://www.sarahintampa.com/sarah/2008/08/19/for-love-or-not-of-friendfeed.html — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:56:07 -0000

Curious how the ratio would go on Identi.ca - I'm willing to bet it sides towards FriendFeed

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:19:11 -0000

Matt, to be 100% clear, when writing the post on breaking embargoes,
thinking of TechCrunch as the offender never crossed my mind. Though I
understand your point, I believe that their well-established
leadership position makes them more a candidate for services to give
them something first, before hitting other blogs, rather than having
them break any embargoes. Essentially, I don't believe they need to. So no, TC was not in my head, and that's not
what I was thinking.

This piece wasn't intended to present any examples where I'd been the
victim of a broken embargo. If it's happened to me, I'm not aware or
worked up about it. As you can guess, via e-mail and via Twitter
direct messages, others who are offended mention names, and to date,
I've never had TechCrunch come up.

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/08/why-embargo-process-is-broken-and-why.html — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:24:48 -0000

If history is any indication then I am given to assume that people are, as usual, pissed off at TechCrunch for scooping them yet again... which gets real old. (possibly PaidContent as well) Especially when the *majority* of the people complaining are nowhere near the same league as TC... regardless of how much we/you may respect the people you mentioned above Marshall is the only person who is in any position to lay claim to the title of "TechCrunch competition" .... and his story was broken by mainstream media, not another blog... so there, now that the cat is finally out of the bag let's talk about why TC gets privileges over other blogs and what those blogs can do to rise to the level of authority that Mike has earned over the years. (Not saying the history of TC is squeaky clean or anything, but there is no arguing the fact that TC is the be all end all of Web 2.0 blogging. It just is.)

*P.S.: I should NOT have used the phrase "we all KNOW..." .. i should have said, "we are all thinking the same thing". Again, it's assumptive on my part but my assumptions tend to favor reality... so I went ahead and said it... TechCrunch is the only blog that is ever really able to whip so many people into such a frenzy anyway... lol. All it does is underscore the importance of what Mike has built. Not saying it's fair or right or anything (or that it's not)... just saying that's how it is.

UPDATE: P.S. Kudos for admitting "we still need it"... yesterday I was getting real annoyed at my twitter stream and the deluge of bloggers yammering on about the embargo (As though this "trend" is something new) ... they come off as less than professional... that's jsut my opinion...

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:04:03 -0000

Matt, I noted above that the practice of letting a big target go first is commonplace. Just today I got an e-mail from one site I'd otherwise be interested in covering who said I could write it up "after TechCrunch covered it". No surprise there, but it was very specific. So, you say, "we all know who the "offending parties" are...", but you don't say who they are, which puts you in the same camp of the people I described. If we know... then who are they?

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/08/why-embargo-process-is-broken-and-why.html — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:03:12 -0000

That's so silly. My email sends autoresponses to Disqus? Sorry, Louis. (edited)

I don't disagree exactly, but what WOULD the best practice be? If you're the little guy, and someone comes along and scoops up your story and runs with it without a hat tip, at least, what SHOULD go next?

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:01:53 -0000

Chris, as fun as bloggers "pooping on each other" sounds, while I'm not calling for a verbal war, it's clear some people are very frustrated when they see it happen, and they're openly complaining about it. But it's like the meme, Photos or It Didn't Happen! If there's a legitimate beef, call it out, and keep a record.

For example, see how MG Siegler of ParisLemon is watching Ars Technica closely for following stories and parroting headlines. When it happens, he's called them on it. I'm not a fan of bickering, but I am a fan of best practices.

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:59:07 -0000

Allen, I'm sure you have examples of "the biggest sites" breaking an embargo, and yet being approached from clients again in the future. If I were to lay out every example of how embargoes can work well or can fail, this post no doubt would have been twice as long.

In my day job, I've never had a site break an embargo that I can remember. I've seen things incorrectly published, and one example where somebody took my raw notes and posted that as their story instead of doing an interview, which later got retracted, but I've yet to need to "stand up to a blog or news outlet" due to an embargo being broken.

Re: louisgray.com: Why the Embargo Process Is Broken and Why We Still Need It

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:56:39 -0000

Nick, I would assume that the reticence on some people's part to name names around those breaking embargoes is the same reason people don't "snitch". There must be some unwritten code of ethics or not bad-mouthing other bloggers/media. Also, if you start with an accusation, you'd have to make sure your own deck is clean and that you're ready to back it up.

Re: http://www.sarahintampa.com/sarah/2008/08/19/for-love-or-not-of-friendfeed.html

http://www.sarahintampa.com/sarah/2008/08/19/for-love-or-not-of-friendfeed.html — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:54 -0000

I asked on Twitter if people loved FriendFeed.

Of course the tweet on FriendFeed shows more YES's, but that was not the point. The Twitter poll was the point.

Re: http://www.sarahintampa.com/sarah/2008/08/19/for-love-or-not-of-friendfeed.html

louismg — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:37:41 -0000

So why don't use ask, on Twitter, "do you love Twitter", and see if you get an overwhelming number of Yes votes. If you ask people on one service if they love it, it sways the voting.

Re: http://broadcasting-brain.com/2008/08/19/google-reader-addiction-revisited-a-blog-rises/

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:06:27 -0000

Hah, well done Louis!

Re: http://broadcasting-brain.com/2008/08/19/google-reader-addiction-revisited-a-blog-rises/

louismg — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:27:00 -0000

Mark, are you testing to see how closely I pay attention? :-)

These stealth properties include being able to be aware of mentions even where keywords are not used, but instead, delivering an omniscient sonar of references Web-wide.

Re: New drewolanoff.com feature - Mac Tips from Mom

http://www.drewolanoff.com/post/46340683 — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:56:20 -0000

I know, I was like whoah, go mom! She just switched a day ago!

Re: New drewolanoff.com feature - Mac Tips from Mom

louismg — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:49:28 -0000

I ♥ this tip. ☃!