Year: 2002

Categories
Weblogging

Vancouver works for me

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Since this is weblogging and we do everything bass-ackwards, I thought I would put the postscripts at the beginning of the posting instead of the end:

Speaking of exclusivity: I’m up for a weblogging get together in Vancouver. We don’t need to formalize this, to tack on ‘conference’, or find a sponsor. We just need to agree to get together and pick a date and time. So, who’s up for a get together in Vancouver, BC in 2003?

Final, final note: I’m going to sic Zoe, the trained attack kitty, on anyone who types that obscenity Barney’s “I love you” song in my comments. I mean it, I’m gonna have to hurt ya.

Now, on with the show:

In the comments attached to my Elitist only need apply some good points were raised. In particular, Dan Lyke brings up the question about elitism and blogrolls. This coincided with some private correspondence that addressed this same issue. Repeating some of that here:

Blogroll associations are no more elitist than friendships or love. I don’t choose my friends because I think they’re superior to the world at large, or more beautiful, erudite, and definitely not because they’re richer. And I don’t link to anyone based on status, but for some indefinable attraction. I choose them and/or they choose me because there’s something that clicks, that attracts, that connects.

In weblogging, putting a person into a blogroll is our way of saying that we read the person’s weblogs for the pleasure of the words, a pleasure that re-occurs daily. We cross-post and comment in a give and take that comes with any friendship regardless of the medium in which it is spawned — a virtual evening out at the pub if you will. And since this is weblogging, anyone can pull up a chair and join in the conversation.

There are webloggers who post mostly about technology, such as Sam Ruby, Phil Ringnalda. Joe Gregorio, Mark Pilgrim, and Dare Obasanjo, who read my weblog; yet I don’t post all that frequently on technology. In fact, my choice of subjects for this weblog is quite eclectic. Sometimes incendiary. So why do Sam and Phil and Joe and Mark and Dare read me? Not because I’m one of the technical elite or because I’m rich or famous; not because they think I’m beautiful or brilliant. (Well, I wouldn’t mind if they thought that.) And we know that it isn’t because they always agree with me.

We just connect. This isn’t elitism — this is the magic that occurs through this ‘social software’ we call weblogging. This ‘connection’ is repeated with every person who comes to my weblog on a frequent basis, and with every weblog I visit. It crosses political and social and religious membership, and transcends boundaries of state and country.

Take a look at my blogroll. One of my favorite webloggers is a folk singer from South Caroline, Shannon at Pet Rock Star. Is she a techie wiz? Is she rich? No. Though she is talented and I love her music, it was her wicked sense of humor, her honor, and her goodness that attracted me to her. I adore her. But she’s not ‘elite’, not as we know the word ‘elite’. And my putting her on my blogroll doesn’t imply ‘elitism’ — just that I like to read her weblog frequently. I connect with her.

I, an openly non-religious person, converse with and link to AKMA, a minister and professor at a divinity school. Now AKMA could be considered elite in some circles, but not in all circles. Definitely not in the techie realm I spend most of my time. It wasn’t his academic standing that attracted me to him on a regular basis — it was his humanity as demonstrated by the silliness about the Dishmatique cross-posting (Google on Dishmatique, you’ll see what I mean). That silliness was so charming, especially when interspersed with sophisticated and extremely well-written postings on postmodernism and theology.

That’s not elitism; that’s one of the purest forms of connectivity this world has ever seen.

I could go on, but the point is that we don’t link to people because they’re ‘elite’; we link because we like to read them on a regular enough basis to keep their links handy. Connection.

At this point, you might be saying, “But doesn’t that list form an exclusiveness? Aren’t these people made elite because you’ve linked to them, isolated them from other webloggers?” My answer to these questions is, No.

My blogrolling another weblogger doesn’t mean a reader is restricted to only reading that person; or, conversely, is restricted _from_ reading that person. Existence in a weblog blogroll doesn’t imply exclusivity. Existence in a weblog blogroll doesn’t even imply excellence, though I want to hasten to assure all of those people in my blogroll that I personally think they’re wonderful.

I wrote once a while back about how links can become a weapon; not linking to a specific post can shut people out of a conversation. I still believe this: when a conversation among webloggers occurs around a specific topic, deliberately not linking to another person is shutting that person out of the conversation. That, to me, is elitism. That’s also why I support technologies such as Trackback and comments — to enable others to include themselves in the conversation whether I choose to link to them, or not.

Blogrolling a person, or not, does not shut them out of conversations.

Most of the weblogs on my blogroll are there because people have pulled up a chair and joined conversations that have occurred at this weblog. That’s how I’ve met them. That’s how we’ve met them. I didn’t invite them, they invited themselves. We connected.

Half of the weblogs I visit relatively regularly aren’t even on my blogroll, primarily because I haven’t updated it or because I can easily type the blog URL without needing the link; or because I visit them when I see them in weblogs.com or blo.gs. For instance, you don’t see Scripting News on there and I visit it relatively frequently. Does my not having them in my blogroll make them less elite? No, just means I haven’t updated my blogroll in a while. Makes me lazy, not elitist.

(Between us, don’t think Dave’s position in the blogging food chain pages is suffering because his weblog is not on my roll. )

There is a world of difference between weblog blogrolls and conferences that only encourage or allow ‘the elite’ to speak or question. The former is nothing more than a convenience; the latter is nothing less than a closed door.

As for any of us discovering new weblogs, drop a comment and introduce yourself. The door’s open. Everyone’s welcome.

Categories
Just Shelley Weblogging

Perils of YASD

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I’ve had a weblog since 1995, my own domain since ’96. My first domain was yasd.com, based on my company name at the time: YASD, inc. YASD stood for “Yet Another Software Developers”, which I thought was a chi-chi clever take on YACC — Yet Another Compiler Compiler. Trust me, you had to be have there at the time.

What I didn’t know when I signed up for this domain is that YASD is a common term used in electronic gaming, meaning Yet Another Sudden Death or a variation, Yet Another Stupid Dead. As in, “YASD I was eaten by an Ochre Jelly”.

YASD is also related to something Japanese, I have no idea what because I can’t read the web sites. Same with several Iranian sites. A common translation is “Young Adult Services Division”. In fact, if you Google on YASD, you’ll see about a hundred different interpretations for this acronym/word.

This wouldn’t be bad, except, on an average, I get about 20 emails a day related to someone using a ‘@yasd.com’ email address to sign up for software or other services. It’s bad enough getting spam because of spam, but I’m also getting hit because my domain is a popular acronym.

Sigh.

Perhaps I should auction the name off. Anyone want to buy a domain name?

Categories
Just Shelley

I test therefore I am

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Returning home from my walk yesterday I ended up coughing so hard my head started to pound, and I could literally see stars. I awoke this morning feeling as if a steel band is wound, tight, around my chest.

Between that and anxiousness about the new babies to be (who now have their own weblog — post ultrasound pictures, Dads!) I am falling behind in the schedule to complete the RDF book, which must be finished next week or no bills will be paid this month.

(If I post, yell at me, okay? Must focus. Focus!)

To compound my difficulty in focusing, Loren is writing about a new poem that is proving to be quite interesting, though his site is going down so frequently that one has to read in snatches. Jonathon compounds the problem by writing a post on personality types, tests, and his own listing of traits he feels best describes himself (he being a weird Sensitive Idealist). In particular, the areas he grays out on the listing of traits is just as telling as the areas he leaves in.

Sigh. How is a woman to work?

Returning to the personality tests and Jonathon’s post, what a door opener to discussion in how our perception of Jonathon compliments or contradicts his own. This leads to a discussion of our own test results and discussion of same; thereby allowing each of us to learn more about each other.

That’s the purpose and the power behind personality/psych tests, a favorite subject of mine, as it happens.

One of the requirements for my Psychology degree was a class focusing on psychological tests: how they are made, interpreted, weighted, and scored. This might sound dry but it was one of the most fascinating classes I had. These tests are much more complex then one might guess at first glance.

For instance, well designed psych tests always include ‘lie detector’ questions. These are questions that can help the evaluators determine whether you’re skewing the results of the test by not answering truthfully and consistently. This isn’t a matter of a person lying on the test (though some employment tests have questions focused on that); it’s that we don’t necessarily see ourselves with crystalline clarity at times.

In one popular employment personality test (and I disagree with personality tests being used for employment), a set of questions were focused on finding people who were deliberately lying. The questions were along the lines of “Have you ever lied?”, “Have you ever taken home pens or paper from work?”, “Have you ever…”. In other words, unless a person is a saint, they would answer Yes to at least one of these “lie detector” questions. Not doing so was actually a strong indicator not to hire the person.

Tricky? Devious? Sneaky? You bet, which is what a good personality test should be.

Other questions are focused on clarifying an important characteristic by repeating the same question, but using different language or different words. Or they might use the the opposite of the question, such as “I always want…” and “I never want…”. In the PType test that Jonathon pointed to, the following two questions seemed to me to be an example of this technique:

19. I would most like to be seen as *

Successful
Genuine
Capable
Dependable

 

27. I most want others to see me as *

Competitive
Responsible
Skilled
Sincere

In many tests, individual questions are weighted, with some questions considered more ‘key’ to a specific trait then others. In the Myer-Briggs test, I felt one of the best examples of this type of question was the one asking which the test taker valued more: justice or mercy. This question, to me, seemed a particularly strong one for determining whether a person is Judging or Perceiving.

Update:
Liz thinks the question is a better indicator for intuition/sensing or perhaps thinking/feeling. A little search found this which indicates that the question is a determiner between thinking and feeling. Dead on, Liz. Guess my perceived view of the question was all wrong. Teach me to judge questions based on my own trigger words.
End Update

Regardless of the mechanics of the tests, what’s important about them is that they open a dialogue, with others and with ourselves. They’re not necessarily meant to be definitive, nor are they meant to be punitive or critical or complimentary. They are for awareness, only.

Personal example: In the Myers-Briggs, I’m an INTJ (Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging).

The Introverted rather than Extraverted result isn’t surprising — I think all webloggers are inherently introverted. The Judging over Perceiving result also shouldn’t be surprising to anyone because I’ve written of honor and justice extensively in the past. (A post or two on feminism, sexism, exclusion, and stereotypes comes to mind.) Judging people tend to impose their will on behavior, rather than adapt a more “live and let live” attitude.

My score between iNtuitive and Sensing is the weakest differentiator because I am somewhat experiential, being a sensualist. In fact my score in this regard probably echoes many in the computer fields.

If any score could be considered surprising to those who read my weblog on a fairly regular basis, it would be the score of Thinking over Feeling; especially considering the somewhat volatile nature of my weblog. After all, I am nothing if not passionate. However, this score shouldn’t be a surprise if you understand what the results mean.

I am most comfortable and in most control in a situation that relies more on thinking than feeling. This is one reason I’ve focused most of my writing on technology. In the realm of the feeling, of emotions, I am less sure of myself, in less control and less comfortable. This tends to be demonstrated by my quick temper, followed just as quickly by contrition.

Bottom line: I am not comfortable with writing or talking about emotions, something I’m aware of through self-assessment as well as tests such as the M-B. I really dislike anything related to “I’m Okay, you’re okay”. I can’t stand New Age philosophy. I recoil at love poems. I want to tell people how I feel, but am afraid of boring them with recounting of same. I’ll tell you honestly, and then I’ll tell you to forget it (sound familiar?).

The only way for me to overcome this inhibition about feelings is to deliberately write outside of my comfort threshold; to break down the barriers between thinking and feeling within myself. Sometimes I’m successful, and I burn with a clean, cool flame. Other times I’m not, and I most closely resemble a blowtorch. A really big, out of control blowtorch.

This understanding of self and each other shows the effectiveness of personality tests — they open doors.

In particular, the Myers-Briggs is quite popular in companies as a way of opening doors of communication within a group that is having difficulties among the members. Usually the technique is to have the employees go offsite for a day, as a way of putting all participants in neutral territory. The group would be broken up by name or some other random factor rather than let each person pick their own grouping and seating. This would break down cliques.

The sessions would start with each person taking the M-B test, or an equivalent, and posting their results for all to see. For the rest of day the participants would then discuss what these results mean from a work perspective, both within the groups and globally. This discussion begins the communication process among the members without focusing on any one person’s unique traits or personality.

The process deliberately externalizes the difficulties so that no person feels threatened or challenged. If conducted correctly, the technique is quite effective.

Of course, there was a time when companies got a bit carried away with these tests. When I worked at Boeing, it seemed as if we were at these offsite meetings once a month. And the meetings were conducted by Boeing employees who had been ‘trained’ with some silly weeklong course. As you can imagine, I wasn’t impressed.

In one such meeting, we were split into four groups and then each group was put into a competitive situation with each other. We were to design a set of questions to ask our ‘competitor’ group, and that group would do the same for us. The group that answered the most questions correctly ‘won’.

The focus of the test was to demonstrate some aspect of competitive behavior, who knows what.

After we were given our assignment, I suggested to our group that rather than write difficult questions, let’s write incredibly easy ones. With this, though we wouldn’t be able to control the outcome enough to be the winner, we could control the outcome enough to determine who the winner would be — our ‘competitive’ group.

When the questions started for the first round, the other groups asked the most difficult and bizarre questions you’ve ever heard. Almost impossible to answer. It was then especially laughable when we got to our questions: what color is grass? Do planes walk or fly? What is the round object that circles the earth called?

During the second and subsequent rounds of questions, our ‘competitive’ group got into the spirit of the thing and they started asking incredibly easy questions. Soon the other two groups joined in.

By the time we were finished, our competitive group was first, we were second, the whole room was cracking up, and the team leader was pissed as hell because we had moved outside the boundaries of her training.

My, that was a lot of fun.

(And in case you’re wondering, my PType is Idealist. You guess what Type I am.)

Categories
Weblogging

Emerging Technology Conference

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Clay Shirky was kind enough to stop by, and drop a comment in the post “We are Out There”. Among other things, he references a conference O’Reilly is putting on: the Emerging Technologies conference, being held in April in Santa Clara.

The conference will have a social software track, for those interested in attending. I, unfortunately, do not have the funds to attend. And before anyone points a finger, yes I would like to attend, and yes I am envious. Very. I am eating sour grapes by the handful if one is curious. However, paying bills and rent takes precedence over technical conferences (a point I was trying to make in my “We are out there” posting).

Catch 22: To get jobs for money to attend conferences you have to have a network of contacts in the biz; but to get the network you have to attend conferences. Excuse me while I go dump my head in a bucket of ice water to complete the job of the cough.

(Now, if this had been held in Chicago or St. Louis instead of the inevitable West or East coast location…)

Update And now Dave is talking about a Weblogger Conference. Sigh.

You know what conferences are? Lodestones for the elite.

Categories
Weblogging

Humano-Tech Weblogger Conference

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I decided to pull this into a separate post.

Once I had time to think on Dave’s idea, I found myself really liking it. As I wrote in my comments, just think of all the people involved in weblogging, all those different interests. In my blogroll are accessibility and/or markup folks, photographers, artists, philosophers, hard and soft core techies, writers, politicos, teachers, communication folks, and even marketing. Just the people in my blogroll alone (and who should be on my blogroll once I do another update) have enough energy to change the world if we got together in one room.

Just think of putting all that power into a single venue with a single focus — the mergence of humanities and technology. Oooh, it hurts to get this excited when I don’t feel good.

Dammit, I wish I had thought of this one. Dave, way to go. That was an excellent idea. I’m in.

Suggestions:

One thing I would suggest a change to is allowing the people to pick who they have dinner with. Make it totally random. Let’s force people outside of cliques. Let’s see if we can’t get liberals to sit with Glenn Reynolds, and so on. The way to run this conference would be to break the rules, and let’s start by not letting people stay within their comfort zones. We don’t in weblogging, let’s not do so in a weblogging conference.

<clip>

Update I’m going to be pulling out of the conference planning and re-direct you all to the person who originated it. I emailed Dave and suggested he set up a weblog to focus ideas. Lots of good ideas too, so Dave has something to work from.

If I go to a conference next year, it will most likely be something such as the O’Reilly Emerging Tech conference or something of that line. Right now the economy is very tight in the country and I, as do many, have to focus more on what helps my employment situation. Chances are I’ll only be able to go to one conference next year, and I need one that will help me keep my skills up, discover what’s new in the tech world, and where I can sell myself as a viable tech entity, in that order. And, no, this isn’t trying to sell O’Reilly. I think I proved last week that I don’t push O’Reilly just because the company’s my publisher.

I would love to meet other webloggers, and will, but more along the lines of sitting down and sharing a cup of coffee or a beer at the local pub.

I think the weblogger conference is a good idea, and will help if I can. But, after a bit of reflection (and an internal reality check), I don’t see it happening for me next year. I hope, though, that it happens for those who want it.