links for 2009-02-09

Dear music industry, why in the Grammy Award web store can I buy a baseball cap, but not a video of Radiohead from last night in better quality than the one I can already rip from YouTube. Because, you see, I would actually pay for that, and you would all make money. Wouldn't that be nice for everyone?

Just one of the highlights from an awesome set of comments: "What on earth is wrong with this country? The child DOES look like a slut, there's no bones about it."

A message from Giles Hattersley: "As to this thing about a Wikipedia entry - as far as I know, I've never had one. I think the line must have been tweaked at some stage (not by me) from talking about mentions of my name on the site to an actual entry. The mistake pointed out in the piece, was pointed out to me a year or two ago in some corresponding page where my name cropped up - either Roy Hattersley's entry, or a third party's page. I'm glad to hear it no longer exists!"

"Our User Experience Research team has found that people evaluate the search results page so quickly that they make most of their decisions unconsciously. To help us get some insight into this split-second decision-making process, we use eye-tracking equipment in our usability labs."

"Paid links are a bit of problem for search engine engineers because they can be misleading. Some links are bought in order to boost rank and others are purchased for legitimate reasons, such as actually offering something interesting to a website visitor. Not all links should be discounted but different weights can be given to allow less important links to get a full 'vote'."

"It is time for the rest of Northern Ireland’s business community and media to realise that individuals and small businesses that support and arrange events like Unconvention are as much part of the economic revival of our city and all of Northern Ireland as is any other industry. The music, entertainment, creative industry have an enormous economic benefit which can been seen on the Profit and Loss account. But it has a more subtle impact on our ecomony by raising expectations and morale. And as any business person will tell you morale has a direct impact on the bottom line. So where were you BBC, UTV, Belfast Telegraph and others? Yes our desperate 'traditional' media – desperate for stories and for younger audiences."

"The worthies behind this report seem unaware that the tabloid press, which lies at the centre of their disquiet, is a lot less feral than it used to be". Indeed, why, you'd only need to ask Sharon Shoesmith or Robert Murat, and I'm sure they would give you a ringing endorsement...

"Right now, if you make a complaint [to the PCC], you have about a 250:1 chance of getting an adjudication in your favour (based on the 16 successful adjudications out of 4,340 in 2007, Annual Report). Those are pretty terrible odds."

"And third: the fact that I visit a web page does not mean that it has value to me. The value is only established after I’ve read/see what’s there. How often will I be willing to pay (even if it’s being measured in tenths of pennies) for the right to look at a page without knowing the potential value of what I’ll find there?"

Is could, of course, just be a wikispiracy to make Giles look foolish, but Chris Applegate confirmed using an admin view on Wikipedia that the page he a sub-editor claims is inaccurate about him has never existed.

Can't help thinking that Wikpedia peeps, well meaning as they are, shoot themselves in the foot here. Much better to leave it that the journalist doesn't have a page, and everyone can see that, rather than a stub that is mostly significant for the fact that he dissed Wikipedia. If I make inaccurate claims about Wikiepdia, can I have a page too? [Note: This page has now been deleted by Wikipedia]

"No-one comes off well in this. The Wikipedia community doesn't, for creating a vindictive article about Hattersley (I must confess I joked about doing so but did not carry it through). Jimmy Wales doesn't, for not going through established Wikipedia policies, in a community whose philosophy and outlook he is meant to not just adhere to but defend. Giles Hattersley comes off pretty badly as well - the most charitable interpretation of his Wikipedia claim one could give is that it was sloppy journalism."