Re: can someone please explain what this blog tagging this is all about?
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:14:45 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 17, 1:17 am, monouchi1..._at_googlemail.com wrote:
> I'm not familiar with newsgroup posting etiquette, as this is my first
> ever post - i've only ever lurked previously - so apologies.
> dizwell website no longer available
> I am rather angry.
> Angry at myself for having become too reliant on a resource stored on
> what is a transient-medium (the web).
> Angry at myself for not having forseen the consequences of lack of
> access to said resource, and taken the necessary steps to compile the
> useful nuggets of information into my own personal knowledgebase.
> Angry at the prospect of henceforth having to cynically treat ALL
> useful info obtained via web sources as fleeting, and therefore
> manually, laboriously compile my own knowledgebase rather than simply
> linking to an external resources (duplication of info seems such a
> waste of valuable time to me).
> This has been a wake-up call of-sorts, but not a welcome one.
> And to a certain extent, angry at Howard Rogers.
> Granted, he has given a huge amount of time and effort to the oracle
> He has run several websites over the years containing a wealth of
> information, with lively discussion communities being built up as a
> result - all websites hosted out of his own pocket.
> To withdraw a resource he has created is of course his prerogative.
> But to do so without warning, without providing a grace period for
> users to squirrel away the info they find most valuable, strikes me as
> poor form.
Funnily enough, not one of the people who participated in flooding OraNA provided warning of what they were about to do, giving me a grace period in which to brace myself for the coming storm. Of course, when the flood hits, none of the blog owners whose material got swept out of the front couple of pages of OraNA were given a grace period in which to squirrel away their content-rich posts for later resubmission, either.
In short, what you describe so eloquently **happened to me** (and lots of others).
Now, when I point this out, I am told I am over-reacting, behaving like a spoilt child, dictating what others may post on their own blogs and all the rest. When you describe **exactly** the same sense of deprivation from a useful technical resource, I'm supposed to understand and make sympathetic noises.
The double standard involved here would be funny if it wasn't so annoying.
> If you have become disenchanted with the actions of a small proportion
> of a community,
How small? I don't hear the chorus of "we agree". I have maybe a couple dozen emails saying "we privately agree", but that's about it. Looks to me like the majority at least passively accept whatever happens (which is the way of majorities, I suppose).
> i can sympathise with the "to hell with you all, i
> shall take no further part" attitude.
> At which point i would then expect such a website to be just left as
> is - no further updates. Or at least left up for a couple of months
> before mothballing.
Your expectations have no bearing on the matter, just as my expectations of OraNA functionality had no bearing on the matter. It's a pretty exact parallel, actually.
> To take the action of completely withdrawing a website, and even going
> to the extent of clearing google web caches to prevent any access to
> articles seems drastic, almost spiteful.
Indeed. I can well imagine it looks that way to you. Try applying some of Frank's homely advice from this very thread: you didn't pay for Dizwell. Therefore you have no right to expect any particular level of service or availability. Dizwell not available? Go visit some other website and -as he so eloquently put it- get on with life.
Right, irony out of the way, I will say that the *principle* here is, "I no longer agree to participate in or support a community of vandals and selfish, unthinking pranksters". Strict adherence to that principle requires me to clear Google caches. It's not spite, but logic, therefore.
> I would be curious to know if any other long time dizwell site users
> have been left feeling like they have had the rug pulled from under
You've had material you never paid for removed by its author from general circulation. That's all. I get no pleasure from having done so, but the principle of the matter requires me to have done so. Instead of complaining about the effect, complain about the cause.
> The crux of his argument seems to be that blog spamming/chaining by
> the wider oracle community has rendered a site he frequents, useless.
> He is thus inconvenienced (and deduces that others are likewise
> I would counter that his response of withdrawing his site has also
> inconvenienced people, albeit a smaller subset of the oracle
> community, that which uses his site.
> Various circular arguments could then be spun out, but my point here
> is this - how can inconveniencing the dizwell site users resolve his
It's not designed to *resolve* the situation. It's a **response** to a situation. A situation that has happened. It is impossible to take back the disruption to OraNA. It is impossible to take back the personal abuse I received for daring to voice the thought that sending a chain letter is irresponsible. It is impossible to take back the fact that large swathes of the Oracle blogging community continue to post "It was just a bit of fun".
I'm not seeking to change history or people's opinions. I'm responding to what has happened.
> Are dizwell site users expected to mobilise our forces and extinguish
> all blog spammers with extreme prejudice?
I've posted in this thread what would have made a difference.
> How exactly can we apply pressure to fix things?
> Should we be expected to try and fix things?
Strangely enough, the idea of "community" depends very heavily on the first syllable of that word: "co". You do indeed have a co- and equalresponsibility to condemn that which damages and inconveniences others.
> He strikes me as a very principled man, albeit rather mercurial of
> temperament (his sites have been open and closed, forums opened and
> closed based on previous issues/annoyances with various factors).
No, they have not. They have been moved because of hosting issues, performance issues and management issues related to the software used to act as a content management system. Material has never been moved or made unavailable as a consequence of "annoyance with various factors". Ever. Please stick to the facts.
When you do so, you will find that making glib judgements about someone you don't know and their allegedly 'mercurial temperament' are made of nothing firmer than wild supposition.
> He does not seem the type who would simply pull a site, in the hope
> that he then receives a deluge of mails to reopen it, thus making him
> feel wanted.
That bit you got right. The damage has been done, the attitudes have been expressed, the indifference of the majority has been noted. No amount of emails would get me to change my mind.
> He was good enough to respond to my e-mailed questions regarding the
> reasons for his course of action, albeit in a rather brusque tone.
What a sensitive little flower you are! You probably don't realise that I've replied to (goes to check) 133 emails in the past two days asking the same question. The responses necessarily had to be brief, but brusque they were not.
> In my last email i mentioned that i would not be emailing him further
> to try and get him to change his mind - which i will adhere to.
> But i feel the need to vent, and given the root cause of his ire it
> was tempting to use a blog to do so.
> But i suppose posting to this newsgroup thread will suffice.
> I remain angry and saddened by the course of events.
Ditto. (Well, not the angry bit). Received on Wed Jan 16 2008 - 14:14:45 CST