This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
You know, we just had our third and I have to say that 3 is not substantially more difficult than 2... but we had a 2yr. stagger...
Toggle Commented Oct 25, 2011 on On Parenthood at Coding Horror
As a complete aside, it has been forever since I last replied to a codinghorror story. I'm shocked that there isn't some way to associate our replies with our Stack Exchange ID's. I'm also shocked that it does not support SE style markup.
Toggle Commented Oct 15, 2011 on Serving at the Pleasure of the King at Coding Horror
Pardon my ignorance, but how, exactly, is this any different from how Apple has handled itself in the past 5 years? The past 10? To me it seems like the premise of this article is akin to saying, "I'm shocked that Apple devices are significantly overpriced in comparison to its competitors." This is unfortunately, more of the same. I'm going to go ahead and say that it actually a shame that Microsoft does not have more freedom in this regard, because I suspect that a number of design choices which effect reverse-compatibility issues would not have been as significant. Remember: IE 6 and compatibility mode were kept so that people didn't accuse MS of "breaking their website."
Toggle Commented Oct 15, 2011 on Serving at the Pleasure of the King at Coding Horror
As a bit of an aside, I'm really glad you mentioned Brazil. It would have really bothered me that I recognized the name, "Harry Tuttle," but couldn't quite figure out from where. Now, had you mentioned Sam Lowry, on the other hand, I would have gotten it right away. (So here's a bonus question, who the heck was Jeremiah Tuttle? (ereiamjh was the password to the director's office) Maybe not everything has a secondary meaning though)
Toggle Commented Feb 15, 2011 on The Importance of Net Neutrality at Coding Horror
I actually have been hoping for a change in Google for a while. While Blekko shows promise, it isn't exactly what I was hoping for. And, though I know some of the following are a bit of a stretch now, they will be invaluable in the future. First, I want to be able to filter results from my search. (This is the opposite of what Bbulkow suggested), but his option would be good too) I want to be able to click something which says, "This site is bogus and should not be in this result set" or "That has nothing to do with what I am looking for". When I look for a legitimate answer for a question, I want to be able to tell Google to take and shove it. I want to be able to search for symbols. I mean seriously, if I'm trying to find an email, why does it need to be changed from "" to "foo bar com" (I'm a bit sensitive here, my last name is Allen-Poole). True Boolean logic. I want to look for ((this and that) or (that and another)) and not (some-other-thing). I want a means to search for linguistic constructs. For example, if I am looking up John Smith, I want to have a search which looks for the name (two words in close proximity, separated by a middle name or a middle initial). This is more than possible. I want regexp. That is just insane though. I don't expect to grep the web any time in the near (or maybe even distant) future. And what am I willing to trade? Time. I remember the 90's. I remember preferring AltaVista because its results were just slightly better and its logic seemed more reliable. But the amount of time I will save in proper results is invaluable and worth far more than whatever extra seconds that it takes crunching the numbers on their end (even extra minutes!). Just think about this: it takes at least a second to read the title of a google link. It will take another couple of seconds to evaluate the text beneath. It is also not unreasonable for a website to take 3-5 seconds to load completely (though this can be optimized with tabbed browsing (though that can also decrease as the full <title> will not appear)). It takes an additional 3 seconds (minimum) for a human to read and parse a site, realize that this is not what you wanted, and then move the hand back to the mouse. Now, if you were to have a questionable search (say, the dishwasher ratings example) and the first result is bad, the second and third result are maybes, the forth result is Amazon, and the fifth result is one which is relatively useful. This means that you will waste at least 5 * link-text + 4 * subtext + 2 * site-viewing to get to the result (assuming you stay on the good result). That makes a minimum of 19 seconds of completely wasted time before getting to something truly useful. In this case probably more because you likely will stay on the mediocre results for a while longer than 3 seconds. If Google were to give us these options, if it were to make our searches better, even if it were at 100% increase in search time, we would end up with a net benefit (I've not had too many searches take 10 seconds recently). The first point alone could net some extreme benefits and it reminds me of ( a solution to the travelling salesman problem. And, while this is still something which advertisers could use to our disadvantage, it would be a lot harder for them to do so, especially if these were implemented on a per-user basis. Now, I know that I am a lowly voice in a sea of spam, but seriously. Google has the ability to implement this. I've read their specs and I think that, if they wanted, they could even make a way to grep the web. For the first task, it wouldn't even need to involve stored data -- it could all be tracked within one session. The next question is whether Google will care. Amusingly, I feel it obligatory to add a link to so that some day Google may look upon me and smile.
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2011 on Trouble In the House of Google at Coding Horror is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 3, 2011