Mark Evans has a blog post today entitled "Why Original Blog Thought is So Difficult".  In the article he essentially concedes that original thought on Techmeme is a problem (to an extent, see below) and then tries to justify why that is.  I don't agree with almost anything he says in the post but its a thoughtful one and I'd suggest everyone take a look.

Here's a quote...

Given Techmeme’s well-deserved reputation as being the place to quickly discover what’s going on in the tech world, Bott’s assessment is blunt, critical, perhaps unfair but not entirely without merit. He’s right; there is an awful lot of blog posts offering little or no insight other than referring to another blog. Rather than adding to the conversation, many of these posts come across as simply noise and bandwagon jumping.

Right off I have to take issue with his assessment.  I love Techmeme, it's in my blogroll, but it is in no way an accurate gauge of "what's going on in the tech world".  It is at best a representation of what a certain crowd (reporters/conference goers) are talking about. 

That's a crowd that misses things far more than it catches them IMHO.  Facebook didn't become a popular blogosphere topic until YEARS after it had taken hold.  I got more out of talking to friends in college than I did out of the blog crowd.  On the corporate side, Microsoft released brand new versions of its Server OS and its Developer Platform in February (both of which are still used in the majority of companies) and there was barely a peep on Techmeme (one article about Hyper-V which never made it near the top and scrolled off by mid-day).  Again, I got more out of talking to corporate types than I did from the blogs. 

Beyond that Techmeme elevates non-news over actual news.  For an example look no further than the constant coverage of a possible merger between Yahoo and Microsoft.  I can sum up what we know about that merger in one paragraph yet it has been the lead topic on Techmeme countless times.  While back on the Windows 2008 example its release (news that matters to the tech industry) got buried by the only lead Microsoft story on Techmeme that day which was how the EU had fined Microsoft (gossipy news that couldn't matter less to the tech industry)

Again, I love Techmeme but it isn't an accurate gauge of the tech industry. 

Getting back to Mr Evans' post he makes several points that essentially boil down to "Bloggers are forced to post unoriginal thoughts by circumstance" (major paraphrase there, take with a grain of salt). 

Here's a quote that sums up the gist of those points...

1. Writing original thought-provoking blog content is a challenge. It takes time, thought and effort. The problem, however, is many bloggers are often short of time, which means it is difficult to come up with insightful thoughts. As Louis Gray talked about in a recent post, many bloggers are time-strapped what with blogging and being on other social/content vehicles such as Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, RSS readers, etc. If you’re doing all that, when do you have time to think Big Thoughts?

The above point assumes that the failing is on the part of the bloggers.  It would certainly be nice if bloggers didn't make "me too" posts but in the end the failing isn't theirs for making them but Techmeme's for publishing them.  The problem is in Techmeme's process.

In my opinion Techmeme has three major problems with its algorithm right now. 

1.  The Echo-Chamber: Techmeme discovers blogs when other blogs that Gabe Rivera manually seeded in link to them.  The problem is, despite what bloggers might say, they rarely link to people they don't almost completely agree with. 

So, to give an example,  you are never going to get someone who thinks social networking is all hype on Techmeme because that crowd is too enamored with the idea to give credence to someone who doesn't buy into it. 

2.  Barrier to Entry: This is something that is very prominent in the music industry but is just becoming more prominent in the blogosphere.  It essentially boils down to this..."people suck up to the big fish even if the big fish aren't producing the best content". 

So, for example, someone might read 10 posts on a topic better than what someone like Scoble wrote but will link to Scoble out of self interest (no offense to Scoble).  They want his trackbacks and they want his attention so they go for him and block out new talent in the process.

3.  Original News vs. Commentary posters:  Techmeme doesn't seem to differentiate between original news sources and commentary sources.  These are two vastly different types of post and they come from different types of site.  Sites that "break news" get so much weight on Techmeme that it gives you a lot of links that essentially repeat each other (because they are all news sources "breaking" the same news).

This post has already gone on too long but this is a pretty ripe topic so you can expect me to return to it some day soon.  Just to repeat, what Gabe Rivera has done with Techmeme is truly amazing.  I would never dispute that.  But that doesn't mean that the idea is "there yet" as far as maximum usefulness.  Getting to that point is a topic that deserves more discussion.

One of the things I hate is getting into a discussion on another blog and then not being able to get back to it until a few days later (after everyone's moved on).  That's what happened here and I wanted to follow up on my own blog rather than toss it into a thread that will never be read again.

The article itself, written by Matthew Gertner of Mozilla Org, was a comparison of what the author calls "Single Site Browsers".  A term he defines as...

Single-site browsers (SSBs) aim to bring the best of the desktop to web applications. Rather than running programs in normal web browsers like Firefox or Safari, wedged in a tab between New York Times articles and TechCrunch posts, each app is given its own dedicated browser, which is customized to include many of the desktop features that users know and love. Some of the advantages are obvious. Apps like Gmail and Facebook get an icon in the dock (on Mac) or the taskbar (on Windows) for easy access, and in the case of Gmail the icon can be “badged” with the number of new emails, a popular feature of traditional mail clients. Superfluous elements like the back/forward buttons, generic browser menus and the URL bar can be hidden away, reducing user interface clutter. Other benefits are more subtle. Since each app is running in its own operating system process, for example, a crash in one program won’t bring down your whole browser.

Despite the fact it doesn't seem to fit the description above, the author also includes Google Gears in his comparison. 

Now, I don't want to be too rough on the article but, as I saw it, the comparison seemed to go out of its way to omit all features that the Mozilla product doesn't support (e.g. cross browser support, the local storage/offline abilities, etc...) while boosting the meager features of Prism.

So there are really two issues: Mozilla Prism itself and what I feel was clearly FUD on the part of a Mozilla Spokesman. 

Mozilla Prism: This is probably where my bias shows because I have to admit to thinking Prism is little more than a joke.  It's essentially a pop-up window that you can assign a desktop icon to.  Here are the projects stated goals straight from the Mozilla wiki...

• Separate process: When the webapp goes down or locks up, I don’t want anything else affected. Thankfully, Firefox does have session restore, but that is beside the point. When I open many tabs and have several webapps running in a browser, things get slow and unstable after a day or two.
• Minimal UI: A generic browser UI is not needed for webapps. If any UI is present, make it specific to the webapp I am using.
• Basic desktop integration: Create shortcuts to start the webapp, add ability to show specialized icons in the tray or dock and ability to display notifications.
• Platform with extensions: I don’t want to download a full browser runtime for each webapp. I do want to be able to add some custom code/features that are not directly supported in the webapp. I should be able to install one runtime and then get packages or extensions for each webapp. Think Firefox extensions or Greasemonkey scripts. These extensions should be able to tweak the SSB UI as well.
• Open external links in real browser: If I click a link in the webapp that opens a new site, don’t change my webapp browser window. Open all external links in my default/real browser.

Again, not much here. In fact, even if it were more impressive I'd still have serious doubts because I don't think its wise for developers to use technology tailored to one specific browser. 

So to me, this is a fun way for users to create browser shortcuts and not much else.  It certainly isn't anything in the same league as Google Gears or Adobe AIR. 

Mozilla FUD: With apologies to the author who may not have intended it I still think the whole article was straight out of the FUD playbook.  Had Microsoft published something similar about Silverlight the blogosphere would be on fire with condemnation. 

Take this excerpt...

By integrating Prism into a future version of Firefox, Mozilla could quickly get its technology into the hands of its 150 million users. AIR, on the other hand, has the advantage of using Flash and Flex to add sizzle to web app user interfaces, at the price of requiring potentially significant adaption on the part of the web app developer.

Now the reality is that AIR can do everything Prism can in terms of using HTML + JavaScript (it doesn't require you use Flash or Flex) AND AIR adds a rich API that supports things like local storage.  So web app developers can use AIR in the same way they use Prism and still access AIR's additional capabilities.

Beyond that both packages would require an upgrade on the user's part (Firefox users would need a new version of Firefox while AIR users would need to upgrade their Flash player to the AIR software).  So claiming Prism would "quickly be in the hands of 150 million users" as an advantage over AIR is disingenuous. 

The truth is, I can't point to one single advantage that Prism has over Adobe AIR and its one advantage over Gears (the ability to open in a separate windows) is pretty insignificant.

Which is the problem.  The Open Source community is terribly insular and they'll shout down anyone who disagrees with them.  So opponents don't even bother anymore and that's how products like Prism get through the pipeline without anyone asking what exactly the point of it is.  The Techcrunch article sets up a straw man argument that's painfully easy to tear down but since it largely preaches to the open source choir no one really questions it. 

(For the record, Mr. Gertner was nothing but accommodating and polite when responding to criticism even if it was just to restate the biased points he'd already made)

I can honestly say I don't know if Loren Feldman is an idiot, an idiot savant or a Genius but he's almost always entertaining.  For those who don't know him Feldman is the head of (and most active vblogger for) 1938 media which is a collection of video bloggers (presumably friends of his) who all publish their videos at 1938media.com. 

Recently Mr. Feldman let loose a barrage of criticism on Shel Israel for producing videos that were (to quote) "unwatchable trainwrecks".  Now, I'm not going to get into Mr. Israel's video except to say that...well..they weren't great.  But the criticism got me to think more about 1938media and Mr. Feldman in particular.

I think Loren Feldman has a lot of talent.  Anyone who can make an entertaining video while laying shirtless on his bed almost has to (for the record, I wish he'd keep his shirt on for all his posts, but what can you do). 

The problem is that he gives very little thought to how he presents himself and his site in paticular.  To give just a few examples, his videos appear on a random schedule and when he's asked why he essentially says "this is free so back off".  He uses a mishmash of different video services (dailymotion, youtube, blipTV, etc...) which wreaks all kinds of havoc.  Plus he seems to have no visible plan of monetization which makes It all come off as a little unprofessional.   

I think most people, though they might not be conscious of it, want professionalism.  Not so much in content (Feldman's style is to be irreverent) but in presentation.  We as a society value that.  McDonalds continues to make money hand over fist even though their food is largely indistinguishable from cardboard for just this reason. 

We equate professionalism with respect. That's why someone who shows up to a job interview unshaven and in wrinkled clothes won't get the job and that's why a web site that chooses not to be professional won't do as well as it could.  Because that site is essentially saying to their audience "I don't respect you"

So while Mr. Feldman rightly criticizes Shel Israel I think a look in the mirror might show his presentation to be just as flawed as Mr Israel's content.

If that seems harsh it's because I intended it to be.  If there is one thing I hate its seeing the work of talented people go to waste.  hate, Hate, HATE IT!  Loren Feldman has a modest following right now but I can't help but think his audience would be five times as big with a little tweak to his presentation.  So while tearing others a new one might be fun he might want to turn his energies to sewing the seeds of his own success instead.

Addendum: I seem to be “addendum-ing” a lot lately but the more I thought about this post the more I wanted to follow up.  I think what I’m really trying to get across here is the idea that presentation matters as much as if not more than content.

The blogosphere has this mentality of “your thoughts are all that matter” and “talk of professionalism is just pretension”

That just isn’t true.  In the real world “how” you present yourself is just as important as what you present.  The fact that the casual observer would assume Shel Israel was the far greater talent based on the appearance of his web site might not be fair or right but it’s how the world works.  Being successful means accepting that fact.

As a change of pace, how about a visual quote (gotten via Read/Write Web)...

That pretty much says it all, Amazon is turning physical space into a web service and charging for it in the same way they charge for hard drive space now.  Apparently the way this will work is that Amazon won't charge for the service but will instead charge for storage space and the transactions themselves. 

This way companies can use Amazon's back-end for automation while only paying when they make money. 

This service seemed counterproductive to me at first (package up all your stuff and send it to Amazon just so they can package it up and send it to someone else).  But as I thought on it I realized most people using this service don't manufacture their own goods they buy those goods from someone and then act as a middle man.  So by just having your supplier ship straight to Amazon you could, in theory, automate your supply chain just like the big companies do. 

That's where the beauty of this comes in.  With a little programming knowledge you can run your business as efficiently as a big chain store and do so at a fraction of the cost.  Especially since there is no cost to the service itself allowing you to poll it as much as you need to.

I do see one issue and that is in quality control.  Because you as the seller will never have your product in-hand you won't be able to weed out damaged items until they hit the consumer.  You can obviously offer returns in the same way the big chains do but a smaller company might not be able to get their money back from the original vendor once the item is returned.  Small companies usually have a limited return window which means they lose money if a damaged item sits on Amazon's shelf too long.

But unless you have serious quality control issues on the vendor side I doubt this would be too big an issue.  If anything a few losses should be easily offset by the money saved through operating more efficiently. 

So while this is a harder sell than previous Web Services I still think it's a win for Amazon...albeit not an immediate one.  Since this is a relatively new concept to small companies I expect adoption to be a slow process.  But Amazon is building this off their own infrastructure so they can, in theory, give it as much time as it needs to prosper. 

Addendum: In case you were wondering, the title of this post is in reference to Amazon blurring the line between the virutal world of web services and the physical world of storage and shipping.  I thought that was clearer than it was :)

Second Addendum: As was pointed out in the comments there are similar services to this that have been around for a while.  One of which is ShipWire.  I don't have the specific need for a service like this and I lack the time to fully investigate which service is better but I thought I'd throw that out there so anyone interested in this type of thing could make their own comparison. 

In discussing Amazon's Kindle I think I've echoed the sentiments of most bloggers in that I found it interesting but entirely too expensive.  Given how expensive it is I just didn't see success in its future particularly while it matches the iPhone in price.

So Imagine my surprise at reading this (via ABCNews.com)...

Amazon amzn launched the paperback-size gadget to considerable fanfare last November. But prospective buyers who click on the Kindle links at the top of Amazon's home page are informed that due to heavy demand the product is "temporarily sold out."

...

"We can't go into details about exact wait times," says Amazon vice president for digital products Ian Freed, conceding that the company underestimated demand. "We've had to ramp up manufacturing pretty significantly, and ramping up a manufacturing takes a little time." Amazon's Senior Vice President Steven Kessel told a group of publishers recently that Amazon's focus is "on getting back in stock" with Kindles.

...

Judging from online discussion groups, the Kindle wait time seems to be about four to six weeks. It took a month before Sacramento-based digital library consultant Kris Ogilvie got hers.

Of Course, there is one catch...

The company takes Kindle orders on a first-come, first-served basis. But the online retailer won't reveal how many have been sold or when supply will catch up with demand.

So we don't know exactly what this means.  If Amazon was hedging its bets on the Kindle a sellout would still equate to very few sales. 

But this is a good sign for Amazon and it means we probably won't see a price drop anytime soon.  I wonder where the disconnect is between what I (and most bloggers) thought and what consumers actually did.  The best I can come up with is that a society of book lovers exists and they're willing to spend money on book paraphernalia.  Amazon would know that audience better than anyone and could have tailored Kindle to them. 

These are probably people who don't even know what the word blog means but who, because of their love of books, are avid Amazon visitors who have a lot of trust in the brand.  When they saw an e-book reader made by Amazon their trust was enough to justify the cost. 

This could end up being a coup for Amazon if they play their cards right.  They can milk the die hard buyers for $399 and then release an updated version (perhaps one actually worth the $399) while dropping the current Kindle down to a more reasonable price.  By doing that Amazon could become the Apple of the e-book revolution.  A very profitable place to be if e-books take off. 

I doubt e-books will ever be as successful as digital music...but then again...I didn't think the Kindle would sell out either so what do I know?

This isn't really my kind of topic and, could I have gotten to sleep when I got home tonight, I probably wouldn't be posting at all.  But I couldn't so bear with me...

Robert Scoble posts about getting turned away from a Flickr party because he brought his son along with him and they were only allowing people over 21 into the party.  He's upset because they didn't put that on the invitation which is understandable.  But then he goes too far...

Anyway, competitor SmugMug invites families to its parties (and even holds camping trips for families).

Competitor Zooomr is run by a 20-year-old (who was 18 when he started the company).

Some of my favorite photographers, Matt Roe being one, are even younger.

Oh, well, this motivated me to move all my photos to SmugMug. Now I understand why thousands of people pay SmugMug to host their photos.

Being family supportive is important in this world, particularly with photography.

I have to cry foul at this.  Anyone who has been to an event like this knows there are usually waiters/waitresses walking around with drinks that anyone can take.  These people, by the nature of what they do (carrying a tray around), can't card people.  So the company hosting must card people at the door or risk being exposed to massive liability. 

Remember, if someone under 21 gets drunk at your company's party and then gets in an accident your company can be held liable. 

I don't think its fair to ask Flickr to risk millions of dollars in liability to make their Saturday Night event "family friendly" and I doubt Smugmug would act any differently in this situation (and if they did they'd be fools). 

It certainly isn't fair to drop the entire service because they wouldn't risk that liability.

That said, people are free to do what they want with their photos.  My issue is how comfortable people seem to be getting with treating others unfairly.  I find the trend disturbing.  How would Scoble feel if someone were to stop watching his videos because Fast Company made a similar Gaffe? 

It isn't that far fetched, I know I attended at least one "Over-21" Microsoft event while Scoble was still employed there.  Treat people unfairly and you invite the same treatment in kind which in turn makes it a harsher world for everyone.

Please understand that I don't use Flickr, I don't own stock in Yahoo, and I have no vested interest here.  For me it comes back to that old saying of "First they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing.  Then they came for me and there was no one left to stand with me" 

When I first started this blog I wrote a few posts explaining why I enjoyed the sites on my blogroll.  The #1 slot went to Robert Scoble which was at least partially because he was the first blog I had ever read.

But that's not entirely true...

Years before the traditional blogosphere took hold there was a "gaming site" that I read religiously called VoodooExtreme. 

It didn't call itself a blog but that's essentially what it was.  There were a few others who popped in but the lion share of the posts were by founder Billy "Wicked" Wilson and the site was essentially a reflection of his personality.

Three years ago today Billy died and since this is the first anniversary of his death where I have a blog I wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to him. 

VoodooExtreme was an odd site.  Funny, a little raunchy, and absolutely dedicated to covering everything that went on in the then nascent world of 3d gaming.  But more importantly it was true counterculture.  Billed as "news from the official VE doublewide" you could tell these guys were just having fun and not the typical "trying to be different just to prove their cool" types that so often pollute gaming news.

I don't think there was a day when I didn't come out of that site with a smile.  A good example of why is my favorite feature on the site which was an off-beat post made each morning simply entitled "Blah...".  There was just no telling what the "Blah..." post would be or where it would go by the end but it was almost always hilarious. 

To give you some idea, here's one of his "Blah..." posts (courtesy of the WayBackMachine)...

Holy hell!  Smack my ass and call me Sally, I'd say I sparked quite the lovely little debate yesterday (in the comments section for my blah) on Evolution vs. Creation.  Needless to say, I don't think I received one negative email, which really upset me :) I mean, hell, why else would I do something like that?  Ok, ok, so that's not the reason, I just like to throw my general thoughts (what few I have) and shit like that on occasion, plus, anything to piss off Flounder (hahahaha)...and let me tell ya, he gets SOOO bent out of shape when I tell him something like "there is no god" then interrupting him as he's trying to actually prove that there is, indeed a god (and if there is, I bet she has big snack trays...call it a hunch).  Out of all seriousness though, I honestly don't believe that you need religion to be a "good" person, I definitely don't think that it can hurt in some cases (some people need the structure) but I don't think that it's NEEDED (key word there).  To each his own, or something, just remember that after she's done, it's really pretty disgusting if she starts to rub it all over her che...oh hell, I'm not sure how I got on that subject.  Of course, I'll ultimately find out of there is a God(s)...well, unless, of course, when you die your really do die, which I'm not ruling out (not quite sure where I stand on that, I know Einstein's bit on how energy never dies, I'm just not quite sure).  The entire concept of a god and how you should be good makes me think...well, actually, here's an analogy of sorts: It's like going to a show that's supposed to be really good, but you close your eyes for the entirety of the shot, and then ask for your money back after the movie is over.  Ok, I'm not sure that even makes sense, but hell, that's all I could come up with.  Oh yeah, and there is no Santa, how's that for a controversial subject?! 

They say the good die young...I'm not sure Billy would necessarily want to be referred to as "good" but whatever he was I miss it and I miss him.  He was taken too early.  Its sad but since things like archiving and search engines were in their infancy at the time much of his contributions have been lost to the ages.  He was a true pioneer on the web and he deserves to be honored for it.

Anyway, I can't think of words to end this post so as an homage I made up a little McBlink as a show of respect. 

Addendum: For the record, VoodooExtreme exists to this day but the VE of today is nothing like the one I refer to in the post above.

I wasn't sure if I was going to comment on this until I read Marshall Kirkpatrick's take over on ReadWriteWeb.  But he sparked some thoughts in me that I wanted to share.  First, here's a quote...

The video uploading platform announced by YouTube last night may not have been what many pundits expected but it could mark a major turning point for both YouTube and thousands of other sites around the web.

By allowing website owners to combine an on-site video publishing option for their users with the huge number of people looking to discover new content on YouTube, the platform will create a mutually beneficial feedback loop that will breathe new life into both YouTube and the web at large. It's also got potential to show up all the other big platform plays we've seen to date.

and one more on Monetization...

One question that is still unanswered is advertising and revenue sharing. YouTube will likely use display advertising on the channel pages for their new partner sites and those partner sites can do the same back at home. Almost every video ad on the web is annoying and there's no reason to get those involved.

First let me say that I agree completely on the revenue sharing angle.  It would be nice if YouTube shared the wealth but sites can still put ads all over their pages so they can easily monetize their content.  They just have to give up any in-video ads.  Given how hard it is for even established video creators to get sponsorship I think allowing YouTube to put one ad in the video is a small price for the bandwidth provided.

On the platform itself, I'm still split.  This is a phenomenal opportunity for developers to build video centric sites for essentially no money.  Bandwidth is getting cheaper but for sites wanting to focus on video it can still be pretty expensive.  For hobbyists I think this is great.

On the other hand, I don't like HOW YouTube is doing this.  To me, one of the keys to being a platform is seamlessness.  If someone comes to my site and I'm using the YouTube platform there should be no way for them to know I'm using YouTube. 

To be clear, I'm not objecting to the ads because the user could just as easily think they were from the web master.  But the YouTube branding is a problem for me. 

Years of embedded MySpace clips have given the brand a certain stigma.  It isn't that people dislike YouTube its that they consider it a cheap way to get video and by extension any professional site that uses embedded videos with a YouTube logo comes off as unprofessional. 

YouTube needs to realize that being a web platform means stepping back and letting the developer take center stage.  Until YouTube does that I don't see this getting much traction with serious developers. 

 Addendum: From NewTeeVee.com...

You know how YouTube has its little logo overlaid in white in the bottom right corner of all its videos? Well, it seems to have gone missing. On both videos on and off the site, the files are playing free of any YouTube branding on top of the videos themselves. Meanwhile, the company logo has moved down into the frame of the player where the “menu” option used to be within embedded players. 

So at least they've dumped the watermark.  I still think any logo is a problem but this is certainly a move in the right direction.  That said I still think my original point stands.

A couple of days ago Om Malick posted an interview of Ray Ozzie which got me to thinking about something entirely different.

The interview is a good one though and worth checking out.

But what it got me thinking about was whether it pays for Microsoft to give this interview to a big site like GigaOm in the first place?  Taking a look at Techmeme I saw most blogs covering the interview just repeated the original contents which, in my experience, is what often happens in the blogosphere. 

So Microsoft's goal, to get their message to all GigaOm readers, could be achieved without giving the interview straight to them.  The blogosphere is an arena where news flows up as quickly as it flows down.  If they gave the interview to a smaller site the story would still end up on GigaOm within a day.

So the question is: could Microsoft have gotten more mileage out of going to a lesser blog?  I think so and I think it was an opportunity missed on their part.  Public Relations is the art of squeezing as much goodwill as you can out of every move you make.  Microsoft didn't do that here.   Ask yourself, doesn't it look a lot less like pandering when a big company goes to a smaller blog?  On that note, isn't the smaller site a lot more grateful to get the interview?

The truth is, it makes Microsoft look tons better to go to a smaller site and it still achieves everything they got by going to the bigger one. 

That's why, when I hear bloggers go on about the death of PR I have to chuckle.  PR isn't dead its just changed into a more dynamic environment which means you can't just go to the big guys and feed them a story anymore.  PR pros and those who do their own PR need to look at blogging patterns and figuring out how to use them in the most effective way.

Don't get me wrong, a company like Microsoft still needs to curry favor with the big sites like GigaOm but they're better off doing that in the background.  Things like feeding exclusive tips aren't seen by the public and are more valuable to the bigger sites than a pre-canned interview anyway.  This allows companies to give the interviews to smaller sites who will praise them endlessly for a story that would be nothing more than a blip on the big site's radar. 

This blog is relatively new but the idea for it goes way back.  I'd always wanted to start a blog but my concern was that I'd get angry over something and post something I'd regret later (and be stuck with it). 

The reason I bring this up is because I just read an interesting item over at TechCrunch which reminded me of the dangers of flying off the handle.  Here's the quote...

Anil Dash, Six Apart’s Chief Evangelist, took aim at Wordpress users in a blog post today. Instead of upgrading to the new version of Wordpress, he says, consider moving over to their platform.

Now, it’s generally fair game to target your competitors, and Dash’s blog post was so tame that I can’t even find a good quote to pull into this post. But that didn’t stop Wordpress founder Matt Mullenweg from going for blood. In a Twitter message, Matt says “six apart is getting desperate, and dirty.” Anil fires back almost immediately with “@photomatt desperation is resorting to name-calling and slander instead of substance — if there’s a factual error, i’m glad to fix it.”

We all fly off the handle on occasion and one of the great benefits of the offline world is that most of the time there's no one around to see it.  The digital world on the other hand gives us the ability to publicly blow our stack in the time it takes to type 160 characters and press a button.

This is something that's existed in the corporate world for decades.  Almost everyone's been part of at least one "e-mail war" that got started because people shot off a series of e-mails before they took the time to cool down.  Things escalate quickly when you don't have to hunt down a person and look them in the eye to attacking them.

But Twitter takes that problem and multiplies it a thousand times over.  Now you don't even need a computer to blow your top and as an added bonus its all in public!  Next thing you know your private moment of annoyance is showing up on TechCrunch...

The bottom line here is a simple rule that follows through every form of digital communication.   Don't E-mail/IM/Post/Tweet angry.  This should be the first rule that anyone with an online presence follows. 

If you can't wait to cool down before saying something than, on some level, you already know you're going to regret it later.

(All that said, this is probably the best thing that could have happened to Six Apart from a promotion perspective)