I've figured out how to do things in the new beta blog! I am so excited. It only took me most of last night and all of today, to this point. And I am amazed at how slick it is. Because I write about so much junk, I was really looking forward to getting the 'labels' on the sidebar! And Voila! Let it be so! And I can mess with my fonts, colors, CONTROL WHO VISITS MY BLOG...hehehehe, arrange my sidebar with just a click and a whole bunch of other features. Whew, I am one happy woman today.
Yeah, I still have some tweaking to do here and there but the biggest feat was getting my haloscan commenting ability back. With an hours worth of searching and another 2 or 3 of copying, pasting, deleting, and cussing, I finally got things working!!!! And I managed to do that without losing all my other comments!
I have added a couple of things to my side bar--One is Wednesday Hero and the other is MOB.
'Wednesday Hero' is a group of bloggers who post a tribute to a fallen soldier every Wednesday. I don't have the link off hand of who runs this but should have one next Wednesday when I put up my first tribute. Long overdue. I took part in the 9/11 tribute and really felt good about learning about some of the victims.
The other addition, MOB is the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers. Proud to be a member. They host parties occasionally, have a radio show called the Northern Alliance, and a variety of bloggers posting all sorts of different things.
Now though, it's time for me to go scour the internet, in the mood for some complaining!
Showing posts with label Blog Tweaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog Tweaking. Show all posts
Friday, December 08, 2006
HELP!!!!!!
I finally have access to the new Beta Blogger....is there anyone out there who can help me figure out how to get all the codes on the template?????? Paaaaaleeeeeeaze? How to convert to the widget dealy mabob? Would sure love to get it up and running! Yes, this is a major hint for a little expertise in the field of someone with much computer/template knowledge!!! I have all day tomorrow to mess with it but if there's some simple, easy, solution and I'm just missing it....clue me in.
I'm tired now...
I'm tired now...
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Time for a little change
BOO!!!!!!!!!
I have been so tired of that old template and ran out of other changes that I could find to make on various other things! Just wish I could figure out more fun things to do with these templates!! I bet from all the words, codes and numbers the choices are endless...or, almost!
Have a great day......
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Something interesting......
Just found this article to be of interest. Although what one may find an annoyance another may find great pleasure in. However, in the case of what was, well, this is good to know.
hat tip: Declan McCullagh (CNET News.com) http://www.news.com/
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
hat tip: Declan McCullagh (CNET News.com) http://www.news.com/
Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
AOL and it's wonderful ways
Lawsuit Accuses AOL of Illegal Billing
Thanks to Bon and Mal at Of Mice and Puzzles, I was apprised of this loveliness. Of course I still must subscribe to AOL as a internet provider but hopefully within the next month, that will all change. But I wonder just how many of these gems will come out of the woodwork now that journalers are crying foul and speaking up over the Ads placed on their very precious journals without the customers consent. Of course to some, we who have left are being petty and childish and then there are others who are just undecided and then still others who just don't care. For myself, well, I happen to care.
As one of many who pay for AOL's service, I would like to believe that I pay for what I ask for and that is it, not for any extra. It's like paying at the cash register and the cashier throwing in one of those little gadgets that they display at the register and myself not having a choice as to whether or not I wish to purchase it. Frustrating thought for myself and others who work hard for our money and try to be as frugal as possible simply just to survive. We dig deep in our pockets every month to have the luxury of the internet, and to exploit our personal journals for other money mongering companies to display their ads and in some cases things that I don't support without my knowledge, and/or approval well, geez, I should have a say in that very decision, at least one would think. But that is not the case. As a good friend of ours once said in passing, "Don't s*** where you eat!"
There is a paragraph or two in this article that I would like to highlight due to the hypocrisy of it all.
1. "The important thing is that we deny the allegations now as we've done several times, and we will defend this case as we have other cases accordingly," he said, noting that AOL "takes extraordinary efforts to resolve any issues the members raise."
Um, how extraordinary are their efforts in solving this really big problem in J-land? Or do they even care? As one who still goes back to my AOL journal at least once a week now just to see if they are really listening, well I don't get the feeling that they go to EXTRAORDINARY efforts to resolve a damn thing. They are simply ignoring this 'small' group and alienating each and every one of us.
2. "We have safeguards in place now that prevent unauthorized charges, and we have credit and refund policies that do justice to the consumer," he said.
A specific journaler comes to mind with this statement. Armand at Un-Common Sense. Now, here is a guy who's entire journal was lost, taken from him and he was falsely accused of a TOS violation. It took him weeks to rectify this problem and he lost YEARS of posts, ones in which he put a lot of himself into. In the end, he never was able to recover all of his posts and was forced to do a google search and pull what he could find in the cache and repost. They deleted his whole journal and in the end, gave him 18 months of free service. Wooohooo!!! Bring out the champagne glasses and the party hats. 18 whole months of free service. I'm sorry but that does not come nearly close enough to replacing all of one mans musings, rantings, photos, and life. And it certainly doesn't 'do justice to the consumer'.
3. To maintain its customer base, according to the lawsuit, AOL has instructed customer-service contractors such as ICT to prevent AOL subscribers from canceling their accounts "at all costs" and to resist giving refunds. Customers who complain are offered at least one month of free AOL Internet service instead of refunds or credits, while "unsatisfied customers who insist on canceling or terminating their AOL memberships are obstructed and delayed from doing so," the lawsuit claims.
I guess that Patrick and I best watch our backs. We are planning on a switch to our local server and switching to MSN or some other provider. Nothing like locking up honest, paying, and loyal customers who wish to move on to greener pastures and throwing away the key!
4. AOL long was seen as a drag on Time Warner due to the steady decline of the dial-up Internet access business. But in recent months AOL successfully has been revamping its business model, moving away from the subscription business and selling more online advertising.
Well, I wasn't aware that us dial-up folks were fodder for the ad industry, were you? If only we could've been aware of this small but important tid-bit maybe our decision would've been different on this computer deal that they were advertising. Get the computer for $299 if you use the service for one year. Well, that in itself made our decision but what a horses*** way to snafu a possibly loyal user of your service.
AOL can shove it where the sun don't shine.....
Thanks to Bon and Mal at Of Mice and Puzzles, I was apprised of this loveliness. Of course I still must subscribe to AOL as a internet provider but hopefully within the next month, that will all change. But I wonder just how many of these gems will come out of the woodwork now that journalers are crying foul and speaking up over the Ads placed on their very precious journals without the customers consent. Of course to some, we who have left are being petty and childish and then there are others who are just undecided and then still others who just don't care. For myself, well, I happen to care.
As one of many who pay for AOL's service, I would like to believe that I pay for what I ask for and that is it, not for any extra. It's like paying at the cash register and the cashier throwing in one of those little gadgets that they display at the register and myself not having a choice as to whether or not I wish to purchase it. Frustrating thought for myself and others who work hard for our money and try to be as frugal as possible simply just to survive. We dig deep in our pockets every month to have the luxury of the internet, and to exploit our personal journals for other money mongering companies to display their ads and in some cases things that I don't support without my knowledge, and/or approval well, geez, I should have a say in that very decision, at least one would think. But that is not the case. As a good friend of ours once said in passing, "Don't s*** where you eat!"
There is a paragraph or two in this article that I would like to highlight due to the hypocrisy of it all.
1. "The important thing is that we deny the allegations now as we've done several times, and we will defend this case as we have other cases accordingly," he said, noting that AOL "takes extraordinary efforts to resolve any issues the members raise."
Um, how extraordinary are their efforts in solving this really big problem in J-land? Or do they even care? As one who still goes back to my AOL journal at least once a week now just to see if they are really listening, well I don't get the feeling that they go to EXTRAORDINARY efforts to resolve a damn thing. They are simply ignoring this 'small' group and alienating each and every one of us.
2. "We have safeguards in place now that prevent unauthorized charges, and we have credit and refund policies that do justice to the consumer," he said.
A specific journaler comes to mind with this statement. Armand at Un-Common Sense. Now, here is a guy who's entire journal was lost, taken from him and he was falsely accused of a TOS violation. It took him weeks to rectify this problem and he lost YEARS of posts, ones in which he put a lot of himself into. In the end, he never was able to recover all of his posts and was forced to do a google search and pull what he could find in the cache and repost. They deleted his whole journal and in the end, gave him 18 months of free service. Wooohooo!!! Bring out the champagne glasses and the party hats. 18 whole months of free service. I'm sorry but that does not come nearly close enough to replacing all of one mans musings, rantings, photos, and life. And it certainly doesn't 'do justice to the consumer'.
3. To maintain its customer base, according to the lawsuit, AOL has instructed customer-service contractors such as ICT to prevent AOL subscribers from canceling their accounts "at all costs" and to resist giving refunds. Customers who complain are offered at least one month of free AOL Internet service instead of refunds or credits, while "unsatisfied customers who insist on canceling or terminating their AOL memberships are obstructed and delayed from doing so," the lawsuit claims.
I guess that Patrick and I best watch our backs. We are planning on a switch to our local server and switching to MSN or some other provider. Nothing like locking up honest, paying, and loyal customers who wish to move on to greener pastures and throwing away the key!
4. AOL long was seen as a drag on Time Warner due to the steady decline of the dial-up Internet access business. But in recent months AOL successfully has been revamping its business model, moving away from the subscription business and selling more online advertising.
Well, I wasn't aware that us dial-up folks were fodder for the ad industry, were you? If only we could've been aware of this small but important tid-bit maybe our decision would've been different on this computer deal that they were advertising. Get the computer for $299 if you use the service for one year. Well, that in itself made our decision but what a horses*** way to snafu a possibly loyal user of your service.
AOL can shove it where the sun don't shine.....
Links for AOL Deserters
As per the request of Ayn and my desire to help those who have already put so much effort into the AOL Exodus, here is an updated list of AOL journalers for readers to put those blogs that they would like to read, into their templates if they so desire. I tried to post them in as HTML's but since I am not real savvy with this blogger thing yet, don't know how to do that. So the best I could get out of the deal was simply a link/name of the journaler.
If however you would like to place one or many of these journalers into your template, click on the name, highlight the blog address, and proceed to paste into your template. I'm trying to help and hope that I haven't dug myself into being more of a hinderance......**sigh**
J-BLOGGERS 1rst ed. December 4, 2005
Alex
AlbGlinka
Alh
Amy (Diva)
Amy (Central)
Andrea
Angel (Pixie Dust)
Angel (Pleasures)
Angelia (Secrets)
Angelia (Dark Moons)
Angelia (Fallen Angel>
Anna
Ari
Antonette
Armandt
Astaryth
Ayn
Barbara
Becky
Bedazzzled
Beth
Boiseladie
Bon and Mal
Bookncoffee
Bosox
Bram
Brandy
Brenden
Candace (Searching)
Candace (Kicking)
Carly
Cat
Chance
Charles
Cheryl
Chris
Christina
Chuck
Colleen
Courtenay
Chris
Cole
Coy
Cynthia
Dalene
Darla
Dawn Allynn
Deb
Debbie
Deslily
Diva
Donna
Emily
Felicia
Flava
Floralilia Freely
Floralilia Wisdom
Gabreael
Gail
Gannet Girl
Gator
Gem
Gigi
Heather
Holly
Jacki
Jaime
Jamilyn
Jeff
Jean Marie
Jen
Jenn
Jennifer
Jessie
Jim
Jimmy
Jlandvoices
Jody
Judi
Judith
Karen
Kari
Kat
Katherine
Kathleen
Kell
Kelly
Kris
Kristal
Laura
Laurie
Levi
Lily
Lisa (Heart)
Lisa (Truth)
Lori
Loretta
Louie
Lynda
Mara
Marissa
Margo
Mary (Contrary)
Mary (Hunybea)
Mary (Midnight)
Mary (Woods)
Maryanne
Michael (All Things)
Michael (Dream)
Mortimer
Mrs. L.
Nelle
Nikki
Omz
Pam
Patrick
Paul
Peachy
Penny
Phinney
Promise
Rebecca Anne
Red
Remo
Rob
Robbie
Robin
Sandilee<.a>
Sarah
Shaz
Shelli
Shelly
Sie
Silk
Smukke
Swt Dlphn
Sylvia
Stacy-Lynn
Steven
Suellen
Suzy
Tammy
Tawnya
Thebludragoness
Theresa
Tianka
Tom
Trish
Vicki
Vince
Virginia
Vivian
Wil
If however you would like to place one or many of these journalers into your template, click on the name, highlight the blog address, and proceed to paste into your template. I'm trying to help and hope that I haven't dug myself into being more of a hinderance......**sigh**
J-BLOGGERS 1rst ed. December 4, 2005
J-BLOGGERS 1rst ed. December 4, 2005
AOL EXODUS
Now that I have settled into the Blogger world and accepted that AOL is just not going to budge, I have elected to contact those who are collecting the names and new homes of other journalers. It is really frustrating to open up this link and see ALL those who have left J-Land and to see that AOL is simply ignoring us. Regardless of whether or not they do give in and remove the ads from our old journals, well, I don't think that I will return. In fact, it has been far to long now, too much time has been invested in learning all the new things at my new blog. And blogger seems to have so much more to offer. Complicated? Yes but it is well worth the frustration.
Here is a post that I have copied and pasted from Ayn's Multiple Word blog for those who visit here siting numbers of journalers who have left.
Numbers Like Friends Can Be Counted On
The Exodus Report Generates Something AOL doesn't have: Reality numbers of Journalists who do make a differenceIn an effort to survey the AOL Journal Community in the wake of the Advertising Scandal, we divided the community into six categories. They are:
People we know are staying at AOL journals because they have written in the last two weeks since the brouhaha. These people we called “stayers”
People we are not sure will stay at AOL journals because they have written in the last month, but not since the last two weeks since the brouhaha started. These people we called “On vacation”
People who we are pretty sure aren’t too involved because they haven’t written in their journal for over a month. These people we can call “MIA’s” Missing in action.
People who have stated in their journal they are moving out of AOL journals to another service. These people we can call “movers.”
People we are unsure of because they have gone private. These people we can call “private”
People who have quit entirely leaving only a blue box. These people we can call “quitters” (of AOL Journal Service)”
Ok, now … We surveyed 995 people (journals) – all the names were registered in Pam’s directory. This is a fair presentation of the J-Land Community. It is kept by Pam, who has been with the service the entire 29 months of operation. It can be assumed Pam has over the years already pruned from the directory, people who no longer maintain journals. Due to Pam's cancer, the Directory has added new people in the comment section, but the directory has remained fairly fixed for the last 8-9 months while Pam recovers.
Note that AOL provides no directory of journalists, although at one time, they had at least maintained a list of the last 500 people having posted an entry, so there had been a means of finding others. Now AOL service utilizes a front "Journal" advertisement listing Scalzi's and Joe's (Two AOL journal editors) sites and 5-6 regular journalists (Editor's Picks). The remaining credit for community promotion is credited to the individual journalists who gather as J-Landers to look outward and support others who post regularly, or are new to the community (posting and linking).
It has been stated that AOL hosts 600,000 journals. Even if AOL included all countries hosting the journal service, this number would seem overpowered and over-inflated by AOL marketers. The largest known gatherings of AOL Journalists in the US has been numbers closer to a thousand, but even giving AOL the benefit of the doubt by multiplying the known number by 100, which is to say 99 out of every hundred journalists are hiding, reasoning would still demand AOL isn't and hasn't been paying attention to their Journalists. This is what the numbers have to say:
Of these 995 journalists surveyed by having registered at one time in Pam's Journal and the most popular journalist in J-land:
323 (32%) journalists are stayers. Of these 323 stayers, 273 (85%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journal accounts for 15.44 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 4986 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 2,847,439 (52%) of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 10,430 visit hits.
84 (8%) journalists are vacationers. Of these 84 vacationers, 70 (83%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journals for 14.89 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 1,251 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 513,881 (9%) of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 7,341 visit hits.
298 (30%) journalists are MIA. Of these 298 MIAs, 244 (82%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journals for 10.54 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 3,141 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 1,177,942 (21%) of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 4,828 visit hits.
59 (6%) journalists are movers. Of these 59, movers, 47(80%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journals for 18.12 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 1,069 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 939,912 (17%)of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 19,998 visit hits.
80 (8%) journalists are private. Of these 80, no visit counts or months utilizing AOL journal service were able to be surveyed.
151 (15%) journalists are quitters. Of these 151, no visit counts or months utilizing AOL journal service were able to be surveyed.
Collectively, giving the most benefit of the doubt, we can calculate through Exodus Report:
Stayers, Vacationers, and Private people are more pro-AOL and amount to 487 (49%) of the people or a known factor of 3,361,320 (61%) site visits
Quitters, MIA’s, and Movers are more anti-AOL and amount to 508 (51%) of the people or a known factor of 2,117,854 (39%) site visits.
Discussion Posts to follow.
Ann and Tianka, surveyors
Link here to Acutual Numbers used in the Exodus Report
Click here for preliminary ExodusReport.xls (Excel)
Click here for preliminary ExodusReport.xls (As Text)
posted by Ayn 6:46 AM
7 Comments:
Bon & Mal Mott said...
This is quite an undertaking you have going here. What will be the ultimate result of the survey, if we may ask?
Bon & Mal
9:50 AM
ckays1967 said...
Looks to me like you have methodically proven that the best of the best left and took their "advertising" money with them.I can not wait until you forward this to Jason at Weblog, John and Joe.
I wonder what they will say?
Good work Ayn and Mom.
11:45 AM
V said...
Ayn & T !!!Great work!!V
2:45 PM
Gabreael said...
Hi,Thanks so much for the email update. Not only will I post that for you folks, but I will also check the message board. If it is not posted I will also post it, if it is posted I will comment on it there as well as posting it.
Take Care,
Gabreaelhttp://gabreaelsbodymindandspirit.blogspot.com/PS- Love the kitties in the sink pic below.
8:30 PM
amy said...
Ayn, great work!A couple of things...I am private, but have also chosen to move:)As for the hit counters, mine was wiped out twice, so wouldn't represent the real number of hits anyway, plus the numbers are also inflated by our own visits to our journal, edits, comments, etc. It would be interesting to look at the journals based on links to that journal, but that would be a massive undertaking. When they had that "What is your blog Worth? thing going around, mine was like $77,000... That's a lot of linkage over two years, and I am sure there are people who have moved with way more links...
11:48 AM
TJ said...
This is absolute brilliance ~I know where this is going....LOL!Thank you very interesting facts.Wishing you health, happiness and Peace.
Love TJ~http://paisleyskys.blogspot.com/
7:27 PM
Karen Funk Blocher said...
Hi, Ayn! Haven't talked to you in a while. Maybe we'll reconnect a bit because of all this.Overall, I think this is good and valuable research, but I have a few questions and concerns. I posted then to Vince's AOL-J, but of course they got truncated. If one of you could look into them for me, I'd really appreciate it!
1. I meet the stated criteria to be a stayer, since I have posted on Musings since Black Tuesday (about 4 or 5 times, I think, with big ad disclaimers and promos for http://outmavarin.blogspot.com), and have not yet overtly stated on AOL that I'm leaving AOL altogether, once I repost everything (which will take a long time to do). I only reached a final decision last night, after Bill the Veep's open letter on Magic Smoke. Yet I started my replacement blog either Black Tuesday or the day after, and have posted there 1 to 3 times a day. So, would I have been counted as a "pro-AOL" stayer? If so, the criteria seem a little iffy, because I doubt I'm the only one with that experience. Where are the "fence-sitters," people with one foot in each world until they were ready to make a final decision? I really don't think Musings, with its 17994 hits, will be a boon to advertisers much longer. And the spreadsheet does not seem to list me, except on Judi's links list. I think Musings was in Pam's directory, thanks to your efforts, Ayn, circa July 2004.
2. Of the people I know who went private, at least two had high hit counts, and both immediately went to Blogspot. Again, where do they fit into your results? If they didn't say on AOL where they were going, do they count as pro-AOL? They surely are not - at least, the ones I know aren't. (I see you show RYanagi as a mover, but not OndineMonet. She went private with no goodbye post, but her move is no secret.)
3. Where do all the temporary blogs (as for a specific event), the single-use blogs (someone started it and never went back), other abandoned blogs, the test blogs (so the journaler can see how it looks before posting publically), and blogs that never sought to be listed anywhere fit into the equation? There have to be quite a few blogs that exist but have no readers, or virtually no readers. Not remotely 600,000, I'll grant you, but probably a few thousand at least!
4. You have 59 "movers," but listings of off-AOL refugee blogs now top 100. Do the extras represent people not in the survey sample, or people in non-mover categories, or both?
It sure would be nice to have access to solid numbers. AOL's spin doctors have been grossly overstating some numbers and grossly understating others. This survey, despite my questions, is a step in the right direction. Thanks to everyone who worked on it!
Karen
soon-to-be ex-AOL Journaler
Here is a post that I have copied and pasted from Ayn's Multiple Word blog for those who visit here siting numbers of journalers who have left.
Numbers Like Friends Can Be Counted On
The Exodus Report Generates Something AOL doesn't have: Reality numbers of Journalists who do make a differenceIn an effort to survey the AOL Journal Community in the wake of the Advertising Scandal, we divided the community into six categories. They are:
People we know are staying at AOL journals because they have written in the last two weeks since the brouhaha. These people we called “stayers”
People we are not sure will stay at AOL journals because they have written in the last month, but not since the last two weeks since the brouhaha started. These people we called “On vacation”
People who we are pretty sure aren’t too involved because they haven’t written in their journal for over a month. These people we can call “MIA’s” Missing in action.
People who have stated in their journal they are moving out of AOL journals to another service. These people we can call “movers.”
People we are unsure of because they have gone private. These people we can call “private”
People who have quit entirely leaving only a blue box. These people we can call “quitters” (of AOL Journal Service)”
Ok, now … We surveyed 995 people (journals) – all the names were registered in Pam’s directory. This is a fair presentation of the J-Land Community. It is kept by Pam, who has been with the service the entire 29 months of operation. It can be assumed Pam has over the years already pruned from the directory, people who no longer maintain journals. Due to Pam's cancer, the Directory has added new people in the comment section, but the directory has remained fairly fixed for the last 8-9 months while Pam recovers.
Note that AOL provides no directory of journalists, although at one time, they had at least maintained a list of the last 500 people having posted an entry, so there had been a means of finding others. Now AOL service utilizes a front "Journal" advertisement listing Scalzi's and Joe's (Two AOL journal editors) sites and 5-6 regular journalists (Editor's Picks). The remaining credit for community promotion is credited to the individual journalists who gather as J-Landers to look outward and support others who post regularly, or are new to the community (posting and linking).
It has been stated that AOL hosts 600,000 journals. Even if AOL included all countries hosting the journal service, this number would seem overpowered and over-inflated by AOL marketers. The largest known gatherings of AOL Journalists in the US has been numbers closer to a thousand, but even giving AOL the benefit of the doubt by multiplying the known number by 100, which is to say 99 out of every hundred journalists are hiding, reasoning would still demand AOL isn't and hasn't been paying attention to their Journalists. This is what the numbers have to say:
Of these 995 journalists surveyed by having registered at one time in Pam's Journal and the most popular journalist in J-land:
323 (32%) journalists are stayers. Of these 323 stayers, 273 (85%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journal accounts for 15.44 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 4986 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 2,847,439 (52%) of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 10,430 visit hits.
84 (8%) journalists are vacationers. Of these 84 vacationers, 70 (83%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journals for 14.89 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 1,251 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 513,881 (9%) of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 7,341 visit hits.
298 (30%) journalists are MIA. Of these 298 MIAs, 244 (82%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journals for 10.54 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 3,141 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 1,177,942 (21%) of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 4,828 visit hits.
59 (6%) journalists are movers. Of these 59, movers, 47(80%) maintained visit counters. These people on average maintained AOL journals for 18.12 months. These people have “rented” AOL journal space for a total of 1,069 months. According to visit hits counted, these people represent 939,912 (17%)of the known visit business (representing activity for the advertiser). These journals average 19,998 visit hits.
80 (8%) journalists are private. Of these 80, no visit counts or months utilizing AOL journal service were able to be surveyed.
151 (15%) journalists are quitters. Of these 151, no visit counts or months utilizing AOL journal service were able to be surveyed.
Collectively, giving the most benefit of the doubt, we can calculate through Exodus Report:
Stayers, Vacationers, and Private people are more pro-AOL and amount to 487 (49%) of the people or a known factor of 3,361,320 (61%) site visits
Quitters, MIA’s, and Movers are more anti-AOL and amount to 508 (51%) of the people or a known factor of 2,117,854 (39%) site visits.
Discussion Posts to follow.
Ann and Tianka, surveyors
Link here to Acutual Numbers used in the Exodus Report
Click here for preliminary ExodusReport.xls (Excel)
Click here for preliminary ExodusReport.xls (As Text)
posted by Ayn 6:46 AM
7 Comments:
Bon & Mal Mott said...
This is quite an undertaking you have going here. What will be the ultimate result of the survey, if we may ask?
Bon & Mal
9:50 AM
ckays1967 said...
Looks to me like you have methodically proven that the best of the best left and took their "advertising" money with them.I can not wait until you forward this to Jason at Weblog, John and Joe.
I wonder what they will say?
Good work Ayn and Mom.
11:45 AM
V said...
Ayn & T !!!Great work!!V
2:45 PM
Gabreael said...
Hi,Thanks so much for the email update. Not only will I post that for you folks, but I will also check the message board. If it is not posted I will also post it, if it is posted I will comment on it there as well as posting it.
Take Care,
Gabreaelhttp://gabreaelsbodymindandspirit.blogspot.com/PS- Love the kitties in the sink pic below.
8:30 PM
amy said...
Ayn, great work!A couple of things...I am private, but have also chosen to move:)As for the hit counters, mine was wiped out twice, so wouldn't represent the real number of hits anyway, plus the numbers are also inflated by our own visits to our journal, edits, comments, etc. It would be interesting to look at the journals based on links to that journal, but that would be a massive undertaking. When they had that "What is your blog Worth? thing going around, mine was like $77,000... That's a lot of linkage over two years, and I am sure there are people who have moved with way more links...
11:48 AM
TJ said...
This is absolute brilliance ~I know where this is going....LOL!Thank you very interesting facts.Wishing you health, happiness and Peace.
Love TJ~http://paisleyskys.blogspot.com/
7:27 PM
Karen Funk Blocher said...
Hi, Ayn! Haven't talked to you in a while. Maybe we'll reconnect a bit because of all this.Overall, I think this is good and valuable research, but I have a few questions and concerns. I posted then to Vince's AOL-J, but of course they got truncated. If one of you could look into them for me, I'd really appreciate it!
1. I meet the stated criteria to be a stayer, since I have posted on Musings since Black Tuesday (about 4 or 5 times, I think, with big ad disclaimers and promos for http://outmavarin.blogspot.com), and have not yet overtly stated on AOL that I'm leaving AOL altogether, once I repost everything (which will take a long time to do). I only reached a final decision last night, after Bill the Veep's open letter on Magic Smoke. Yet I started my replacement blog either Black Tuesday or the day after, and have posted there 1 to 3 times a day. So, would I have been counted as a "pro-AOL" stayer? If so, the criteria seem a little iffy, because I doubt I'm the only one with that experience. Where are the "fence-sitters," people with one foot in each world until they were ready to make a final decision? I really don't think Musings, with its 17994 hits, will be a boon to advertisers much longer. And the spreadsheet does not seem to list me, except on Judi's links list. I think Musings was in Pam's directory, thanks to your efforts, Ayn, circa July 2004.
2. Of the people I know who went private, at least two had high hit counts, and both immediately went to Blogspot. Again, where do they fit into your results? If they didn't say on AOL where they were going, do they count as pro-AOL? They surely are not - at least, the ones I know aren't. (I see you show RYanagi as a mover, but not OndineMonet. She went private with no goodbye post, but her move is no secret.)
3. Where do all the temporary blogs (as for a specific event), the single-use blogs (someone started it and never went back), other abandoned blogs, the test blogs (so the journaler can see how it looks before posting publically), and blogs that never sought to be listed anywhere fit into the equation? There have to be quite a few blogs that exist but have no readers, or virtually no readers. Not remotely 600,000, I'll grant you, but probably a few thousand at least!
4. You have 59 "movers," but listings of off-AOL refugee blogs now top 100. Do the extras represent people not in the survey sample, or people in non-mover categories, or both?
It sure would be nice to have access to solid numbers. AOL's spin doctors have been grossly overstating some numbers and grossly understating others. This survey, despite my questions, is a step in the right direction. Thanks to everyone who worked on it!
Karen
soon-to-be ex-AOL Journaler
Monday, November 28, 2005
Changes bring unfortunate events
Last night I took the plunge and added a site meter to my blog as well as haloscan/trackbacks. In the process of doing all of this though it is inevitable that one loses all the past comments that were left on my posts which is really sad. However, I figured that it would best to do these new additions sooner rather than later.
I apologize to all of you who have left such great comments, it was kind of nice to see the comment section with actual comments. ho-hum, this too shall pass.
Have a wonderful Monday.
I apologize to all of you who have left such great comments, it was kind of nice to see the comment section with actual comments. ho-hum, this too shall pass.
Have a wonderful Monday.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)