QUESTION:
Which one do you let in first?

ANSWER:
Easy one… the dog. At least he’ll shut up if you let him in.

Google Panda, Penguin, etc….
As everyone within earshot  of the webmaster world is aware, Google recently did several updates named after cute animals and rocked the entire webmaster world. You can tell this by reading the posts in a plethora of webmaster forums with names like:

• “What Google Panda Did to My Site”
•  “Google Update Killed My SERP’s”
•  “Google Swiped My Credit Card Pin and Moved to Mexico”

Read a few of those threads and you’d halfway suspect this algorithm update made the search so exclusive that for the average search term absolutely no results are available. It just returns a blank page. It has to, since everyone that speaks says their site got de-indexed.

The Good News
It’s impossible for *everyone* to have been hurt by this update. Every time one site comes out of number 1 position, another moves to number 1. That’s just reality. Is their update perfect? Hell no. But cheer up, there will be another in a few months, at which time everyone will be sure THAT one is the worst thing to hit the web since Justin Beiber fan sites. Time to figure out how to be the one that moves up when the others go down.

[HINT: Most likely the answer is "add sterling content" instead of spinning articles and hiring moronic linkbuilders to fake your way to success, but if you do that and it works I'll expect a kickback.]

Shaking Our Fist at the Sun
It’s worth remembering that though a decade or so back, Google was an upstart trying to unseat such giants as Netscape and Lycos… TODAY they have more money than most countries. Not most *small* countries… most countries. We can kick and scream, but it’s like complaining about the weather. Those that are wise act accordingly. When you wake up and it’s cold, you don’t go into forums and rant about the unfairness of cold… you go put on a sweater.

Improvise / Adapt/ Overcome
Don’t waste time shaking your fist at the sun or claiming you’ll use a different search engine. They still have more users than marijuana and changing search engines for your personal use is like pissing on a fire. Be realistic. Yes it sucks to lose rank, but unless bitching about it has a salutary effect the rest of us don’t see… put on your big-guy britches, accept that life isn’t fair, and figure out how to move forward.

That’s my two cents. If you’d rather keep ranting, knock yourself out. Just sayin’.

I’m Rob Jones… and I approve this message.

Today DC was notified of a shooting at a US base in Afghanistan in which two Brazillian soldiers were shot.

– Thinking quickly, President Obama quickly responded with a press release blaming George Bush.

– Harry Reid stood before CNN and announced this would never have happened if the DNC controlled the House.

– Nancy Pelosi called for a universal ban on all handguns in civilian hands across the US… just in case.

– Michelle Obama scheduled an emergency diplomatic peacekeeping tour to all major resorts on the Caribbean… taking along an entourage of family and friends to assist.

– Joe Biden hesitated… looked around, and said “So just how many is ‘a brazillion’ anyway?”

Yeah… I know it didn’t happen, but tell me it doesn’t have a ring of truth.

I’m Rob Jones… and I approve this message.

.

Despite the title this really isn’t about nekkididity
The reference pertains to a screwup that was the live-action version of that dream. Currently have You-Tube on while working. Listening to a chorale that we did in Trinity High School choir my senior year: Die Rosa Stand im Tau.

.

That one has memories
Almost half a century ago {wow… ok, I’m officially old now} I got all flustered at UIL solo competition when they gave me this one to perform. Knew it cold, but it was acapella competition and we started based on a single tone from a pitch pipe.

Somehow I launched in on the first tenor part… which woulda been fine had I not been a second tenor, and their part had some notes that were higher than Charlie Sheen on a three day weekend.

The trousers part {finally}
Knew I’d done it the second I got going, but switching parts during the song wouldve gotten me nailed by the judges. So I dutifully did the first tenor part the whole way through… god-awful high notes and all. It was the choral equivalent of that nightmare where you are giving a speech and realize you forgot your trousers, only it wasn’t a dream.

Let’s just say I didn’t make the All-District ensemble and let it go at that.

Yeah yeah. Don’t blame me if you ignored the warning you dope.

.

Related Rambling
We did a fair amount of stuff in other languages. This one was a piece of cake {well, provided you sang your own part}. It was the one that ran 14 pages in Latin that threw us a curve. If anyone from my old choir sees this {oddly according to Google, *somebody* reads this page, I should find out his name someday}… you’ll know I’m talking about Ne irascaris Domine.

Posting a video of that here, though clearly a different scoring of it than we did:

.

You Kids Get Off My Lawn!
Occurs to me it woulda been a helluvalot easier to learn and practice this stuff if we’d had Youtube at the time. I’d launch into the traditional thing about how kids have it easier now, but having already realized I learned the songs above nearly five decades ago I think I’ll pass. If I did that the next thing ya know I’d be out hollering at kids to get off the lawn.

This whole post makes me wonder why my teeth aren’t in a jar by the bedside. Sheesh.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

AUDIENCE: Hi Rob.

Everyone remembers coolpops
They’re sorta like frozen KoolAid. In fact we used to make them at home exactly that way. We had those neat little plastic things you poured Koolaid into then froze them.

Don’t know if they still make the little plastic things, but the ones I get at the store are so cheap it’s probably less expensive than making them myself. Plus these are the real thing. Don’t recall the brand, but they’re apparently a very simple to make concoction containing water, flavored corn syrup, and pure uncut heroin.

The Coolpop Monkey on Your Back?
The good news… you can really cut into a tobacco habit by shifting to coolpops.

The bad news… I’ve tried tobacco in every form but injectable, and none is moderately as addictive as coolpops. Fortunately the government hasnt figured this out or the ATF would have a C tacked on at they end so they could tax that too.

Announcing Coolpopaholics Anonymous
So this has been a rambling effort to explain why I’m forming this self-help group. Any adult that has tried coolpops will immediately understand the benefit of such an organization. Thinking we could loosely base it on AA. When you get weak and find yourself in need of a coolpop, you call your sponsor. He comes over and takes you out drinking til it passes.

Oh well… enough. Gotta go to the freezer. I’m just starting this group for the good of others. I don’t need help. I can quit anytime. Really.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

Oh the mystery. Oh the intrigue.

• Would “The Donald” endorse Newt as previously expected?
• Would he break from expectations and endorse Romney?
• Would Lassie get ‘em to quit guessing “Timmy’s in the well?” and just fill the waterbowl?

Did someone in programming think there are hordes waiting for “The Donald”* to speak before they commit to a candidate? If so, who told them that horrendous lie, why are they so gullible, and where were they when I had listings with dubious foundations for sale?

Finally the much anticipated moment arrived
“The Donald”* stepped forward to break the mounting suspense. He would support Romney. He did so for a number of weighty reasons; His splendid debate performance, his principled stands on issues, and he was the only one that made the pilgrimage to see him that hadn’t giggled at that combover that looks like a squirrel nesting on his forehead.

This Changes EVERYTHING
Or so we were assured by a breathless Shepard Smith following this pseudo-monumental event.

Everything? Really?

• Are housing values still lower than their mortgage?
• Is the unemployment rate still attrocious?
• Is our national debt still higher than Charlie Sheen on a weeklong bender?

If the answer to any of the above is “yes”…

Then it didn’t really change quite “everything”. Sorry, but overselling an event important to maybe 3 people (ok, 4 if we count you) was  almost as annoying as listening to the angry dyke at MSNBC pretend to be a journalist instead of an embedded Obama campaign staffer.

Behold the KingMaker
Notwithstanding “The Donald’s”* desire to be perceived as having affected the outcome, his timing looks suspiciously like he just waited to see who was the likely nominee, then announced support so it might appear someone actually cared who he favored. We see similar acts from guys that speak to dead relatives of audience members. “Does someone have a deceased love one with an S in their name? You madam… he is beside me… is his name Sam? No? Simon? Ohhh, Susan. Yes… that’s it, Susan is here with me….”

RE: The asterisk after “The Donald”…
Any grown man that can repeatedly call a guy The {insertname} should be relegated to hosting a children’s program. C’mon Fox, your viewers deserve better than this breathless fanboy stuff.

There was real news to report today, and you’d have been just as well served devoting the coverage to Punxatawny Phil. It had just as much news value and a slightly stronger 50% chance of accuracy.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

Case in Point: NBC Goes All-In with the Race Card
Newt Gingrich made a speech after the results of the Florida primary, where he scored a fairly distant silver to Romney’s gold. In covering the speech for MSNBC (an undeclared arm of Obama’s campaign staff since 2008) Rachel Maddow elected to go into inflamed mode (wait, she has another?) about what she perceived as a racist statement by Gingrich.

To be fair, it would appear anything short of praise for Mr Obama is perceived as “racist” by Ms Maddow, but this one drew particular ire. In a jab referencing the president’s decision to favor the cameras with his singing voice, Gingrich remarked:

I’m not gonna compete with Obama in singing because I’m not running for entertainer in chief; I’m running for president. ~ Newt Gingrich

Maddow concluded this was a “minstrelsy” statement, an allusion to black-face performers from the late 19th / early 20th century that we all think of so frequently. Oddly I missed that when I heard him say it, but clearly I lack Ms Maddows finely tuned sense for detecting veiled racism (or preoccupation with minstrel shows, pick one).

On cue, the Reverend Al Sharpton…
…who would himself be considered a pejorative racial sterotype were he really a TV character instead of a real character on TV… dutifully stated that the racism was intentional, and Gingrich knew exactly what he was doing and who he was trying to appeal to.

[Based on later events, maybe he meant Newt was appealing to those crackers in the Florida panhandle?]

CLIP: Newt Crows/ Maddow Carps/ The Pres Croons
The following includes Gingrich’s statement, Maddow’s charges, and last but not least, the President doing a presentable snip from a Todd Rundgren classic.

[I still can't believe we aren't charged to watch this stuff.]

.

Meanwhile, SERIOUS Journalism (NBC style)
Apparently Ms Maddow doesnt watch NBC political coverage herself, as her finely tuned radar didnt flag the following:

“Chuck, a lot of the counties in the Panhandle, in north Florida, the cracker counties, if you will…more resemble Georgia and Alabama than they do Florida.” ~ NBC’s Jonathan Martin of Politico

.
C’mon… you know… CRACKER counties
Those must be the ones with uneducated racist white hicks… not the ones with spics, the darkies, or them money-grubbin Hebes?

Debunking the comment?
In response to a few lame attempts suggesting this was a reference to cowboys cracking whips in the Florida Panhandle, NOT a reference basically calling them uneducated white trash… I searched the net for a reference to Florida and “cracker counties” that pre-existed Tuesday’s comment by Martin. If the term was in use, it should be somewhere on the net, right?

The only reference I found used in a descriptive comment about the residents of that region was in a scholarly paper written about a 1950s Florida primary. It referenced the supposedly ignorant cracker vote of rural / backwoods / smalltown northwest Florida.

Somehow that reference sorta ate up the probability there was a different version of the word “cracker” in play when uttered by Martin. But hey, it’s not racist if it’s not about a minority, right?

OK, thanks to NBC / MSNBC for the educational moment
Guess we can look forward to another election season of unbiased campaign coverage from you. That’s nice. Anyway, thanks for starting us off with a double face-palm. Saves time.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

• The guy in the custom suit paid $70.
• The four guys with the newest cars chipped in a combined $28 between them.
• The last five tossed out change totaling $2 (though the ones that got to-go meals went to the bathroom when the bill arrived).

When the guys who didn’t pay a penny returned from the bathroom, they were furious that the guy in the custom suit had clearly refused to pay his fair share.

In righteous indignation they picked up their to-go meals and stormed out.

Wait… If you think THAT sounds stupid
Then you REALLY don’t want to hear the 2012 State of the Union speech, where Barrack Obama defended the idea that the guy in the suit refused to pay his fair share.

The top 10% pays 70% of ALL income taxes 
The top 50% of income earners cover 98% of the entire tab. The other half of the nation pays only 2% of the bill, with those that consume taxpayer funded social services paying nothing.

Source: Kiplinger.com - Where do you rank as a taxpayer?

Now… what’s this about not paying “their fair share”?

Obama is one helluva public speaker
He has to be to make an argument that logically fallacious sound “inspiring” to some… but with an economy on its way to becoming Greece, we don’t need a good speaker, we need a President that understands economics (or at least simple math).

Anyone that bought into his “Warren Buffet’s secretary” argument needs to hide their head, or at the very least buy a dictionary and a math book.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

What makes a forum “die”?
If you’ve been on the web a while you’ve seen it happen. For whatever reason the regular contributing members go away and the place either becomes a ghost town or becomes over-run by bots posting links to Ugg Boots, male enhancement products, and adult links. At that point it’s useless to go there, as nothing of value is being said.

A forum is a social structure
Any social group can break up for a number of reasons. People simply losing interest in the topic is one… which is why scant few instances of active “Beanie Baby” forums can be found. There’s also the chance of personality clashes driving a wedge that causes a group to fracture and disband. But unlike social groups in real life, a major factor in a forum is the administrator and moderator function.

Starting a forum from scratch is a daunting process, and is an entirely different topic. That said, with regard to the continuing success of a forum that’s established, most that’ve been involved consider Moderation to be the single largest factor to the continuing success or downfall.

That said, let’s look at Forum Moderation… the right vs wrong way.

—————————–
DOING IT WRONG
As you stated, moderation is a major factor in the life or death of a forum. Spammers contend OVER-moderation is the problem, but in my experience forums lose good members more frequently to…

• Lax moderation – spammers flood the place, and productive members get tired of wading thru the textual equivalent of sewage
• Arbitrary & Capricious moderation – Rules are applied with a very uneven hand

—————————–
DOING IT RIGHT

Consistent Moderation
There are other factors to be considered, the whole community aspect, the overall attitude of the admins and mods, etc… but a large hurdle to keeping a forum going is to have a clear set of guidelines that are easily found and understood and regular enforcement of those guidelines. Members need to know what the boundaries are, know that if they report a problem it will be dealt with.

Genial Moderation
Guidelines should be exercised firmly but genially, and evenly so people arent left guessing what they can or cant do. Never use the infraction system where a gentle PM will suffice, particularly in the case of valued contributors.

[NOTE: I've been known to be less than genial with the guys that clearly fit the "dogs" description below. I'm learning to place it a little more between the lines, but contrary to widely circulated rumor... I'm not perfect.]

Feed the Lions, Shoot the Dogs
Exceptions should be made only where common sense dictates, with the benefit of a doubt accorded productive members that have proven to use good judgment. The rules are made for the benefit of the forum, not the other way around.

The Lions
Trust is EARNED, not GIVEN, and after a member has proven their value it is not inconsistent moderation to give a little more latitude on link drops than someone who just arrived. If you know they arent taking advantage of the system and you know their affiliations you can relax a bit, over-moderating them isn’t productive.

The Dogs
Anyone immature enough to enter a forum and assume (without glancing at the guidelines) its just fine to start cutting and pasting their URL all over needs immediate moderation to make it clear that this is not the norm.

Who are “the dogs”?

• Obvious spammers posting solely for the benefit of their sold sigs
• SEOs starting threads to ask what link juice is and how it can benefit their site
• Speed-posters going for count
• Serial trolls that visit for no purpose than to insult people

These should be removed immediately and without mercy. They add no value.

—————————–

CONCLUSION: Make rules clear, and inspect what you expect
Nothing is more frustrating to productive members than to follow guidelines while watching others ignore them without consequence. The alternative to consistent moderation is a dead forum.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

In response to our comments one friend inserted the following:

Oh for pete’s sake. Everyone is acting like he cursed on national TV or got caught in some heinous act. Who among us hasn’t had a brain fart in their life? I could care less how good (or not so good) of a speaker our next president is. I only care if he can turn our country back around.

Do debates really matter?
I have no quarrel with her statement… just think this isn’t turning out to be Rick’s year. That could change, but he’s going to HAVE to have an amazing transformation in his debate performance for him to recover, and it has to start immediately.

Why?
Because debates have a way of making or breaking candidates. Let’s look at a few elections during my lifetime and compare:

—–

Kennedy vs Nixon
Kennedy’s stage presence on TV was a factor in his win.Those who heard it on the radio tended to score it as a win for the more experienced Nixon, who had command of the facts and a lot more experience. Those that saw it televised tended to score it as a win for the cool as a cucumber Kennedy rather than the profusely sweating and visibly uncomfortable Nixon. It looked like a polished MBA grad talking politics with a used-car salesman.

—–

Reagan vs Ford
In the run for the GOP nomination, Reagan deflecting Ford’s reference to his age with scripted but well delivered humor made it look like a choice between a rookie and a pro. Paraphrased:[I] “Sure age is a factor, but I refuse to make an issue of my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”[/I] Ford never really had a chance. The camera was Reagan’s home court.

—–

Reagan vs Carter
The sequence most recall was the deftly executed loose change analogy. Reagan stopped in the middle of a discussion of economic policy to pull a few coins from his pocket and make a down-to-earth point about economics. Not that it was that deep, but it was on a level everyone could identify with, and as stated by one pundit, only Reagan couldve pulled that one off…  Ford wouldve dropped the change, Carter wouldve screwed up the metaphor, and Nixon probably would’ve just stolen the money.

The economy was in a shambles. Inflation was skyrocketing, interest rates were above 20%, the national identity was in a post-Vietnam funk. We had been in a sustained hostage crisis with the fledgling new government of Iran, and bearded guys that looked like they dressed at Macy’s White Sale were dictating terms to us. Our embassy was taken over pretty much without a fight… Marines were denied the chance to defend it.

Reagan exuded confidence and strength. Carter looked like Mr Rogers. Carter went down as a 1-termer.

—–

Quayle vs Benson
Dan Quayle’s VP debate against the seasoned veteran Lloyd Benson foreshadowed his future skill for discovering political landmines with his own feet. Attempting to forestall criticism of his dismal level of experience, he mentioned that he was the same age JFK was when elected president. Benson countered with the now famous line about having known Jack Kennedy personally, having been his friend… followed by the clincher… “and you sir are NO Jack Kennedy”. Had Benson been atop the ticket instead of in the VP spot they’d probably have won the race.

—–

Bush (SR) vs Clinton
In the wake of the Gulf War, Bush senior was considered such a shoe-in that all major potential opposition refused to run against him. The nomination virtually went by default to a political longshot… the little known governor from an electorally insignificant state with a lot of political baggage. Clinton was reportedly a womanizer, had managed a deferment to avoid military service of any kind during Vietnam, and dealt with his history of marijuana use with the famous “but I didn’t inhale” line. His campaign was poorly funded and his staffers were comparative rookies.

In stark contrast, Clinton was matched against a seasoned political veteran, wealthy, well staffed, and with the benefit of being the incumbent.  A WW2 hero, former VP, former CIA head, former Senator, former ambassador, a favorite son of a state with electoral clout, and who’d just decisively kicked ass on an unpopular dictator in a popular conflict in record time with little loss of life on our side.

The ONLY thing Clinton really had on his side was a personal magnetism that made even those who opposed his politics admit he was a likeable guy.

Bush thought he had it won and virtually refused to campaign, creating the ill-fated “Rose Garden strategy”. The plan was to act like he was above campaigning,  just far to busy being President to prepare for this unseemly campaign thing against a clearly inferior wannabe from BFE.

Clinton, on the other hand, showed up for debates with a Kennedyesque presence that propelled him to a win against seemingly overwhelming odds. Possibly the best example of presence trumping experience and qualifications.

—–

Bush (GW) vs Gore
George W was a poor debater. There was something vaguely unsettling about handing the nuclear football to a guy that couldn’t pronounce the word “nuclear”. That given, he was up against Albert “I created the internet” Gore.

Gore had a penchant for overstating his accomplishments and the general demeanor of a wooden indian. He droned on incessantly about a social security lockbox while Bush did to English what butchers do to hogs.

The uncontested winner… Saturday Night Live. No wonder the election was almost a statistical tie.

—–

Debates are not the whole shootin’ match (BUT)
Obviously if stage presence, delivery, and the ability to think on your feet was the only criteria, Dennis Miller would now be ending his 2nd term. These are nice attributes, but it helps to also have some substantive things to say. That said, more people vote on likability than study political issues, and at least debates usually weed out guys that’d develop a deer in the headlights stance in a confrontation with foreign brass.

So basically it isn’t that I wouldn’t vote for Perry, I just think his candidacy is faltering on his lack of debate skill. I don’t know if he’s a better or worse candidate than his rivals, but I’d like to see the choice made on the basis of his ability as a candidate rather than his seeming inability as a debater, but he has to improve at that or historically he’s toast.

In truth it’d be hard to find ANYONE I wouldn’t vote for if the choice were between them vs Obama. Having seen what he apparently meant by “Hope and Change”… I’m hoping for a change, so good luck to all of the GOP hopefuls. Let’s stick to policy and skip the silliness fellas, cause there’s just too much at stake.

I'm Rob Jones... and I approve this message.

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”

The GOP Lives up to Their Promise (Finally)

I mean, for a while there it looked like this candidate selection process was gonna be a snooze. GOP hopefuls gathered at podiums and droned on about taxes, the economy, wasteful spending. Geeze. Do these lunkheads not know I can login to the Politics and Religion section of any webmaster forum and get definitive answers to that crap in a heartbeat?

So instead of wasting our valuable time pontificating about stuff nobody really cares about, c’mon, give us what we REALLY want.

Well, that wish has been answered

Because instead of blather about jobs and economic recovery, we finally get to the meaty stuff that millions of out of work underemployed Americans taxed so DC and their corporate buddies can line each others pockets TRULY care about… Herman Cain’s sexual proclivities and Mit Romneys religious convictions.

I for one spent the first several debates wondering why the hell nobody had the courage to ask Mit how many wives he *really* has… or whether Herman Cain might at some convention in the 90′s have hugged some delegate just a little too long for comfort. THESE are the burning questions that drive Americans to watch debates, and we will not go unfulfilled.

Frankly I’m a little disappointed

What are the most important guys in the election doing? Are the opposition researchers asleep at the wheel, cause as far as I can tell nobody has interviewed Cains high school prom date to find out if that uppity lech tried to cop a feel on the front porch. Nor does anybody appear to have checked Romney’s wallet for the Illuminati membership card that is bound to be there.

[They own everything ya know.]

Anyway, notwithstanding these minor failures to follow up…

At least they’ve done the appropriate thing and formed the traditional circular firing squad. Now instead of having to listen to meaningless drivel about economic issues we can watch accusations, counter-accusations, denials, and self-righteous bluster just as God intended. Let us all join as one to focus our ire on the only two guys in the room that have experience having to meet a payroll. If we concentrate on getting them to talk about sex and religion instead of that other boring crap maybe we can get yet another career politician into the office.

Better yet… maybe we can have four more years of bliss and prosperity under the benign largess of the offices current occupant.

Good show boys. For a bit there ya had us worried.