304 and counting

David Pogue calls the editors of Consumer Reports on the carpet for the factitious practice of citing search result hit counts to make a point.

“A Yahoo search for ‘cheap Gucci handbags’ returned almost 1 million results,” says an article about fake goods.
Dudes, let’s get this straight: you’ll get a staggering number of hits from ANY Internet search at all!

On Google, “chicken armadillo” gets 595,000 hits. “Banana carburetor” gets 132,000 hits. “Liquefy purple warthogs” is just about the most ridiculous improbable phrase I could come up with, and even that one gets 303 results, for crying out loud.

But that’s just me

Arnold Zwickly produces two rants after my own heart. First:

Why are people so incompetent at finding e-addresses and web addresses? The hypothesis I’ve developed is that the InterWeb—the conglomeration of the Internet and the World Wide Web—makes people lazy and stupid. Here’s this amazing resource, which allows people to track down all sorts of arcane information within (at most) minutes, yet the users have come to expect that sites will be designed to offer them a single-click route to whatever they want. That’s just lazy. And they seem to have lost the ability to search things out for themselves. The InterWeb has made them stupid.

But, in a subsequent parenthesis, he backs off a bit. Give ’em hell, Arnold! Contrariwise, but making the same point: earlier this week I watched a training video (basically a spoken narration over screenshots of a developer writing code) that involved a side trip to a popular download site. We watched the coder-narrator type the name of the download site into a search box and then click through the search results. Oy vey! Bookmarks and URLs are your friends, people!

Next, Zwickly talks more moderately about the bleed-through of technical language into general use, and the repurposing of common words like normal and mass for technical purposes. He uses a favorite bête noire of mine as an example:

The fact is that ordinary language is pressed into service in a number of ways to provide technical vocabulary, which then has a very specialized meaning in certain contexts, and at the same time technical vocabulary “leaks out” into ordinary language. People get the general drift of the technical vocabulary, but (usually not knowing either the etymology OR the context of its technical use) do their best to interpret what they hear.

And they get a lot of it wrong, from the point of view of people in the technical fields. Epicenter obviously refers to a location (of an earthquake)—to, in some sense, the central point where the earthquake took place. Besides center, there’s an extra element epi-, which clearly must contribute something. So the epi- adds extra stuff, probably something emphatic: the epicenter is, people reason, the EXACT center. (Technically, it’s the location on the earth’s surface OVER the place where the earthquake event happened, underground.) Now, getting all enraged about the common-language use of epicenter for the central point of an event—it seems to be standard now—is just as silly as getting all enraged about the common-language use of vegetables to refer to tomatoes, zucchini, peppers, eggplants, etc., all of which are technically fruits in one scheme of biological terminology.

I take his point, that it’s a question of degree. I don’t get bent about the proper use of fruit the way my agronomist ex probably does, but I haven’t given up on epicenter yet. When epi- changes its meaning from “upon” to “exactly,” something is lost: the ability to make sense of a related word like epidermis (“the layer above the dermis”) or epidemic (“a scourge upon the people”).

Tom Stoppard’s Henry says in Scene 5 of The Real Thing:

[Words are] innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so that if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more…. [Words] deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.

More is the new more

Scott Gilbertson explains HugeURL.

Update: It turns out that I’m weak. I could not resist requesting http://www.hugeurl.com/?NTM3ZjA4MTNmZjU3MGNjN2U3ZWY5OTIyNTM4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as a synonym for http://www.ahoneyofananklet.com/.

Best efforts

Cory Doctorow forms an interesting analogy about dealing with the firehose of internet information flow:

There was a time when I could read the whole of Usenet — not just because I was a student looking for an excuse to avoid my assignments, but because Usenet was once tractable, readable by a single determined person. Today, I can’t even keep up with a single high-traffic message-board…. I’ve come to grips with this — with acquiring information on a probabilistic basis, instead of the old, deterministic, cover-to-cover approach I learned in the offline world.

It’s as though there’s a cognitive style built into TCP/IP. Just as the network only does best-effort delivery of packets, not worrying so much about the bits that fall on the floor, TCP/IP users also do best-effort sweeps of the Internet, focusing on learning from the good stuff they find, rather than lamenting the stuff they don’t have time to see.

In a lot of ways, I feel the same. Time was, I could be a completist about what I read and listened to: in college I bought every album released by Chicago (and after the first one, they were conveniently numbered) and I set myself the task of reading all the William Faulkner in print. Now, I am content to cherry-pick an author or a band. I really liked Graham Swift’s Last Orders, but I didn’t like his next book that I picked up, so I’m done.

Il miglior fabbro

Having recently chided a local reviewer, I think it’s appropriate to give some props to another local critic who does a damn fine job: Bob Mondello, who reviews for NPR’s All Things Considered and the Washington City Paper. Consider his recent write-up of two shows that I also viewed, 33 Variations and The Unmentionables.

Compared to my sketches, Mondello sees in sharper, more vivid colors; he chooses his words more precisely (prig, amanuensis, decency) without losing a conversational tone. Writing for both radio and print, he knows how to put a button on the end of a piece. He is one of the writers that I have to avoid reading before I see a show in hopes that I will appreciate a work and express myself without undue influence.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that he and I agree on the merits of a lot of shows—these two, for instance. Granted, he has his formulas, but he makes them work (“Original? Well, not entirely.”) for him. His compact yet avuncular style works just as well on the air as on the page.

They live and work among us

In the course of tracking down a reference to a recent presentation he made on API design, I found the birding category of Elliotte Rusty Harold’s Mokka mit Schlag. He found the Western Reef Heron that’s been hanging around in Brooklyn, and thoughtfully included directions to one of the hot spots from the D train Bay-50th St station.

Not worried yet

Via The Morning News: Despite Anita Hamilton’s warnings, I’m finding it hard to get too worked up about the various services that scrape identifying personal information from the web. They do so poor a job of it, it’s not worth taking them seriously. ZoomInfo, for instance, knows of many different David Gorslines. What a career I have had, according to them: I’ve been employed by GFP Inc and by Birding magazine (I contributed one article); manager of an outfit called Stage; assistant director; squad leader (a particularly poorly-scraped page that had references to two different Daves); Member of the Advisory Board of WPA\C (I gave them some money); and, at some time in my life, I was Duke of Burgundy.

New creeps

Andrew Leonard is playing along with a Nigerian 419 scammer with a disturbing new angle: global warming. The correspondence from this crumbum “Zeeshan Ashraf” is alarmingly literate: I noted only one syntactic flaw, and he even managed the tricky affect/effect pair correctly. Still, as Leonard drily notes:

I find it a bit distressing that the original offer[s] of $610,000 for Individual and $950,000 for Corporate involvement have been knocked down to a paltry $250,000 and $500,000. Talk about your bait and switch! Now I’m not at all sure that I want to pursue this any further.

What year is this?

Wow. I reset the background color in my browser to something other than white, so that I could check that a GIF that a graphic artist had sent me actually had a transparent background. And now I find that at least two sites on my blogroll, as well as my bookmarking service Connotea, don’t bother to set white as the background color for their pages. Yuck!

Must try harder

Scott Rosenberg points out that Facebook’s categories of friendship are useful if you’re nineteen years old, but not so much if you’re a grownup. Here are the possible answers to “How do you know [this friend]?”

  • Lived together
  • Worked together
  • From an organization or team
  • Took a course together
  • From a summer / study abroad program
  • Went to school together
  • Traveled together
  • In my family
  • Through a friend
  • Through Facebook
  • Met randomly
  • We hooked up
  • We dated
  • I don’t even know this person

He’s absolutely right: a minute or two of doodling on my desk pad, and I came up with the following additional choices:

  • My neighbor
  • Through church/mosque/synagogue/temple/coven/…
  • We are in the same profession [we might be in the same “organization,” and we might not]
  • [This friend] is my lawyer/clergyman/doctor/accountant/child’s teacher/psychotherapist/taxidermist/…
  • I am [this friend’s] customer
  • [This friend] is my customer

And to be really useful, the information has to be even more specific than that. In my PDA Contacts app, I use one of the user-defined fields to keep track of what theater project I know somebody from. So that if I forget that I know Lori K. because she was the producer for Forum in 2001, my organizer won’t.