Monday, April 26, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/26/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Friday, April 23, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/23/2010

  • "Your 'Archived' Ning Network will not allow new posting or uploading, it will only be a copy of your Ning Network as of April 2010, so that it is available to all your members, preserved on the web, searchable, shareable, and fully readable" (What's the catch? ¶1),

    tags: archives, free, Ning, web capture

  • "You can export your members' profile information at any time from the Manage Members page This will generate a comma-separated (CSV) text file that you can open using a program like Excel. It'll contain information about your members, including their name on your Ning Network, a link to their profile page, their email address, the date they joined, their birthday, and their answers to all of the profile questions on your Ning Network."

    tags: backups, members, Ning, profiles, personal information, SNSs


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Friday, April 16, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/16/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/14/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/13/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Friday, April 09, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/09/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Quick Study of Blog Feed Stat's

When the ClustrMaps widget on the Writing Studio Blog started getting blotchy in locations other than Japan, I started wondering how all the blots came to be. Some, I knew, represented sources of comment spam that began showing up recently even though I've kept that blog out of Blogger listings (Settings: Basic: Add your blog to...: No!) since its inception. 


So today I took a look at FeedBurner Feed Stat[']s for both the blog headline feed and the blog post feed that I'd redirected through FeedBurner, respectively: 
  • Headlines: February 25, 2007
  • Posts: January 15, 2009


A difference discernible in spite of the disparate ages of the redirected feeds is in how the feeds get used. The Headlines go to FeedBurner Email subscriptions, and, although there also is a "Get Mailed: Posts" from FeedBurner gadget in the blog sidebar, too, the Posts, by and large, go into feed readers and aggregators – over the past seven to 30 days, mainly to Mozilla Compatible Agents (5-10), Google FeedCatcher (2-3), and PubSub (2 [unchanged]). 


Also over the past seven to thirty days, but for neither feed, have there been any hits (clicks on the feeds) from either Google Chrome or Internet Explorer browsers. Most hits have been from Firefox browsers; next most, from other Mozilla driven browsers.


The remainder of this post lists other findings as well as sources of this information, to which you may not have access (except in parallel locales relevant to your own FeedBurner feeds). 

The Writing Studio Blog: Headlines

Current

33 subscribers

Last Seven Days: Wednesday, March 31 – Tuesday, April 06

28 subscribers (on average)

"This number provides a general understanding of the size of your subscriber base over a time period" (FeedBurner Help, What is a Subscriber? How does FeedBurner tally them? How does it look?).

Last 30 Days: Monday, March 08 – Tuesday, April 06

28 subscribers (on average)


  • including 27 email subscriptions

All Time: Sunday, February 25, 2007 – Tuesday, April 6, 2010

  • since adding Post Feed Redirect URL to blog Site Feed settings
  • jumped from two to almost 30 in April 2008

18 subscribers (on average)


  • 18 email subscriptions
__________
Source: The Writing Studio Blog: Headlines – Analyze (Google FeedBurner)


The Writing Studio Blog: Posts

Current

55 subscribers

  • more than doubles average for Last Seven Days (below)
  • almost triples average for Last 30 Days (below)

Last Seven Days: Wednesday, March 31 – Tuesday, April 06

24 subscribers (on average)

  • including one email subscription

1 reach (on average)

"At any given time, you can expect that a certain percentage of this subscriber base is actively engaging with your content and this “Reach” measurement provides this additional insight." (FeedBurner Help, What is Reach?, What does it tell you?).

Last 30 Days: Monday, March 08 – Tuesday, April 06

19 subscribers (on average)

  • including one email subscription

1 reach (on average) 

All Time: Friday, January 15, 2010 – Tuesday, April 6, 2010

  • since adding Post Feed Redirect URL to blog Site Feed settings

16 subscribers (on average) 


  • zero email subscriptions

0 reach (on average) 

__________
Source: The Writing Studio Blog: Posts – Analyze (Google FeedBurner)

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/08/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/07/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Thursday, April 01, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 04/01/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 03/30/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Monday, March 29, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 03/29/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Remember the Exxon Valdez

Keep off the gas!

This post follows on from Aren't Otters Extraordinarily Cute (pab's potpourri, 2009.04.01), 21 years on from the event that inspired composition of these bits and pieces. Pictures remind us vividly what our dependence on oil costs. If you need a graphic reminder, please check out these collections:

Further consequences of the Valdez spillage

Though a corporate piece on Spill prevention says,"The clean-up was declared complete by the State of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard in 1992" (ExxonMobil, [no date]), that must have been in reference to  immediate and superficial clean-up, rather than restoration, and Mapes suggests undetected harm was still coming to light: 
"Still to be litigated is a claim against Exxon by the federal government and state of Alaska for $92 million in so-called "re-opener" damages, intended to help pay for environmental harm not detected at the time of the spill."
 (Mapes, 2008, The damage remains, ¶4)

Alaska's Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council paints a grim picture, not three but ten years after the Valdez ran ground:
"...[O]ne of the most stunning revelations of Trustee Council-funded monitoring over the last ten years is that Exxon Valdez oil persists in the environment and[,] in places, is nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill."
 (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, no date, Status of Restoration, Lingering oil, ¶1)
"The amount of Exxon Valdez oil remaining substantially exceeds the sum total of all previous oil pollution on beaches in Prince William Sound, including oil spilled during the 1964 earthquake. This Exxon Valdez oil is decreasing at a rate of 0-4% per year, with only a 5% chance that the rate is as high as 4%. At this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely."
(Exxon ValdezOil Spill Trustee Council, no date, Status of Restoration Lingering oil, ¶4)

Who has payed what price?

Who was ship's Master during the spill?

"Hazelwood was acquitted on all felony charges, but was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of negligent discharge of oil, fined $50,000, and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service" (Wikipedia, Joseph Hazelwood, Exxon Valdez oil spill, ¶ 2 [2010.03.22]).

What says ExxonMobil?

A blurb on a corporate current issues web page says they "took immediate responsibility for the spill and have spent over $3.8 billion as a result of the accident, including compensatory payments, cleanup payments, settlements and fines" (ExxonMobil, 2009). That blurb doesn't specify what part of that $3.8, up from $3.5 (ExxonMobil, 2007) includes money spent on legal fees and court costs through appeals:
  1. To the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reduce punitive damages from 4.5 to 2.5 billion (ExxonMobil, 2006), and then
  2. To "the Supreme Court [which] slashed those damages to about $500 million" (Lanfitt, 2008, ¶1).
Lanfitt's report, based on Associated Press sources, explains: "The high court said ... punitive damages shouldn't be any larger than the compensatory damages the company had already been ordered to pay" (2008, ¶3). Supreme Court records show the "case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to remit punitive damages award accordingly" (Supreme Court of the United States, 2008, Opinions, No. 07-219, p. 1035).

A Seattle Times article pegs that figure at $507.5 million (Mapes, 2008, ¶2), and a factoid in the sidebar of that article suggests that it will take Exxon "about 12 hours of sales" to recoup that amount. ExxonMobil calls it $508 million (no date, ¶2).

How are our maths? (in rough billions USD)

3.8 Spent (ExxonMobil, 2009)
- 0.5 Compensation ordered (Mapes, 2008)
- 0.5 Punitive damages (Lanfit, 2008)
2.8 Other expenditures

Do those other expenditures include Exxon's legal costs? Mapes (2008) suggests there were "more than 60 / law firms involved" (sidebar: The spill by the numbers: The money).

When next where: Five more years till double hulls?

The U.S. "Congress has enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be double-hulled by 2015" (Wikipedia, 2010, Other consquences, ¶1). What about other countries?


Better keep our feet off the gas for a few more years.


References


PABeaufaitBookmarks 03/22/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

PABeaufaitBookmarks 03/21/2010


Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Welcome to pab's potpourri!

This is an experimental, informal blog for learning about blogging, blog development, and blog-related professional development activities.

pab's potpourri

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Local time is:

(JST)