How Twitter Can Sort Out the #fixreplies #fail
Twitter changed the way that the @reply facility works overnight (UK time). Users are not happy, me among them. I can’t think how many people I now follow who I discovered through this mechanism. I’ve even met up with some of them face to face as a result of conversations started exclusively through Twitter. This is why Twitter is awesome and Facebook is not.
I feel like the electricity company has suddenly decided to change the current in my supply without telling me first.
They say that the setting is confusing and that only 2% of people use it. All I know is that every single person I’ve introduced to Twitter has found it baffling until they’ve turned the setting on. It’s not even the default option so, presumably, the 2% of people who do use it know that they’re doing so and want it that way.
Let’s also not forget that it was us – the early Twitter adopters – who invented the @reply mechanism in the first place. It’s our feature!
Here’s what Twitter have to do to sort it out:
- Restore the ability to set the value
- Restore it to its former value it for all users (the 2%) who had it on
- Consider moving it to some other tab in settings to make it clearer
- Consult on how to make that work
- Apologise for making the change in such a hamfisted way
- Let us get on with using Twitter in whatever way we see fit
If you haven’t already, join me in protesting by using the #fixreplies hashtag in a tweet.
Why Charles Arthur Should Read Things Before Slagging Them Off
Yesterday, my friend Shane Richmond sent me a draft of a blog post to comment on as he does from time to time. I thought it was excellent. Later, he published it on his Telegraph blog. It’s about how David Simon, creator of The Wire is an ‘amateur’ TV producer, in the sense that he didn’t train or do formal study to be one, and how he should be more willing to accept amateur journalism as a result. Simon writes about his early, somewhat fumbling, TV experiences on Homicide: Life on the Street at some length in a note in the UK edition of his brilliant book Homicide (which I reviewed on 26 Books last year).
Shane’s post got tweeted around on Twitter quite a bit and then, a few hours late to the party, super-troll Charles Arthur – technology editor at the Guardian – chipped in with what seemed to be a total misreading of Shane’s post.
Now, of course, David Simon is, in the strictest sense, a professional TV producer, which is to say that he gets paid to do it. But in another sense, he is indeed an ‘amateur’. Shane spells out what he means by using that word about half-way through his post:
But what puzzles me is Simon’s antipathy to the notion of amateur journalists. After all, he’s an amateur television producer. He wasn’t trained in the medium, didn’t work his way up from being a tea boy. Nor did his co-writer and co-producer Ed Burns. Burns was a policeman and teacher. Together they used their experience to craft a television show which explored the worlds in which they had worked. Their backgrounds were far more important than their training in the medium.
Here’s the timeline as far as I can reconstruct it (Twitter post times are adjusted for BST – the API reports them at GMT + 0, while BST is GMT + 1).
- 12:51: Shane publishes the post
- 21:21: Charles responds to someone retweeting it: “if @shanerichmond doesn’t know that David Simon has done utterly amazing journalism in his books, it’s his loss, not Simon’s.” – original tweet.
- 21:23 Shane replies: “@charlesarthur You haven’t read the post have you? – original tweet.
- 22:19 Tim Duckett says : “@shanerichmond @charlesarthur You two aren’t at it again are you? Do we have to send you both up to bed early?” – original tweet
- 22:21 Astonishingly, Charles reveals that he hasn’t actually read Shane’s post despite the fact that the original tweet he responded to contained a link to it. – “@shanerichmond send me a url, I’ll read it.” – original tweet.
- 22:38 Charles finally gets around to reading the post he’s been slagging off, and tweets the first part of his response: “Calling David Simon an “amateur” producer shows an astonishing ignorance of his earlier TV work, eg. Homicide; The Corner….” – original tweet.
- 22:39 Quickly followed by the second part: “…and on other points, the arguments aren’t complete. Is free is the best model, why don’t free papers suck up all adverts from paid ones?” – original tweet.
- Friday, 11:00 Charles responds to MJDodd (note that here, Charles has silently withdrawn his original accusation that Shane said David Simon was an amateur journalist, which was before he’d read Shane’s post): “@MJDodd yes, calling David Simon on The Wire an “amateur producer” indicates a quite astonishing level of lack of research.” – original tweet.
Before I get into this further, I have some interests to declare. A couple of weeks ago, I got so annoyed at the way Charles was gloating over the Telegraph’s embarrassment over their Twitterfall experiment that I tweeted the following:
I’m astonished at the arrogance, hubris, and all-round cuntishness of Guardian journalists. @charlesarthur, for instance.
That tweet was picked up by Private Eye and erroneously attributed to the Telegraph’s Assistant Editor, Justin Williams. If you want a full run-down of the argument between Shane and Charles, have a look at Malcom Coles’ post That Shane Richmond / Charles Arthur Twackdown in full…
Another interest to declare. The Telegraph was a client of the web agency I used to work for; we built their blogging platform for them. Later I did some contracting for them. On the other hand, I loathe the Telegraph’s politics and am a regular Guardian reader.
And one final interest. I’m close friends with Shane. I first met him in January 2006. He wasted no time in telling me that The Wire was the best show on TV and got me hooked on it there and then. Since then we have watched episodes of The Wire together, listened to podcasts about it in the car and talked about it almost every time we see each other. He’s also urged me to watch Simon’s earlier series for HBO, The Corner (I haven’t done so yet). We also watched several episodes of Homicide: Life on the Street together, finding it very disappointing and only a pale shadow of his later work, although to be fair, Simon didn’t have any real say in how the show was made. So, while I’m naturally sympathetic to Shane’s argument because he’s my friend, I also know how deeply he has thought about The Wire. Anyone who has read his blog knows how long he’s been making the opposite case to David Simon on newspapers – I’m not going to go into that side of his argument here.
If you want more than my word for how much research Shane has done into The Wire and David Simon’s career, then let me point you in the direction of a few of his posts and articles.
First of all is this article from the Telegraph of 22nd May 2007 (which, according to this post is almost a year before Charles even started watching the show). Shane’s article contains one of my favourite quotes about The Wire:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who love The Wire and those who haven’t seen it. Yet.
Then there’s his review of Raphael Alvarez’s The Wire, Truth be Told over on 26 Books from June 2007.
It’s also worth checking out Shane’s post on David Simon’s the ‘bible’ for the first season of The Wire.
I think that takes care of Charles’s claim that Shane’s research is faulty.
Now let’s look at Charles’s objection to Shane’s use of the word ‘amateur’. As Shane spells out in the paragraph I quoted above, and the fact that he placed the word ‘amateur’ in quotes in the title of his post, he’s not using the word literally. He understands that Simon gets paid for his work. He understands and acknowledges that he is supremely good at being a TV producer. He says in his Telegraph article that The Wire is the best show ever on TV, so we can assume that he thinks he’s better than all of the professional – i.e. career – TV producers out there.
Clearly, Shane uses the word ‘amateur’ in its original French sense. As Wikipedia puts it:
Translated from its French origin to the English “lover of”, the term “amateur” reflects a voluntary motivation to work as a result of personal passion for a particular activity. Among the thousands of amateurs who have made important contributions to science and technology are Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, and Gregor Mendel.
Edison, Darwin and Mendel are exalted company indeed. Describing someone as an amateur in the sense that Shane does is the exact opposite of an insult. It’s the highest compliment you can pay. Simon makes shows like The Wire because of his passion. Getting paid is a bonus.
Charles has form in confusing the meanings of words in the heat of an argument. During the Twackdown, he seemed unable to accept that he’d misused the word “eavesdrop”. Characteristic of the troll, he aggressively suggests that Shane doesn’t understand the meaning of the word – “Buy a bigger dictionary” – before later making the lame excuse that he was a bit tired in a comment on the Twackdown post.
When David Simon says that The Wire would be “something that Euripides might recgonise” you can trust that he’s actually read Euripides. Not so with Charles Arthur when he slags off a post. You also can’t expect Charles to accept when he’s wrong, unlike Shane. When challenged, Charles just ups the trolling ante.
It’s legitimate to take issue with Shane’s argument about the future of newspapers – assuming you’ve actually read the post of course – but you can’t accuse him of a lack of research or ignorance about David Simon’s work both in print and on TV, or that he misused the word ‘amateur’. I hope Charles will accept that and apologise. Maybe he should also consider reading things before slagging them off.
An Open Letter to Flavio Briatore and the Board of QPR
Dear Mr Briatore,
I’m not a lifelong QPR fan, but I’ve held a season ticket for several years, and for much of that time, the football has been dreadful. The facilities are no better: my seat has an obstructed view of the goal and the seats in front of me cut into my knees like razors. I’ve been to hundreds of games at Loftus Road, and I’ve travelled to Leeds, Manchester, Barnsley, Sheffield, Brentford, Southend, Gillingham, Swindon, Bristol and plenty of other places to support my team, often standing in the rain, more often than not seeing us get beaten. In the course of all this, I have spent thousands of pounds on tickets, travel, overpriced and low quality pies, access to the QPR World website, replica kit, car stickers, scarves, hats, gloves, mugs and matchday programmes.
Here’s what you might find difficult to understand: I loved it.
When, eighteen months ago, you and Mr Ecclestone announced that you would be buying QPR, I was cautiously optimistic. Here were people who were pragmatists, with a track record of success in sport, and a proven ability to turn also-rans into champions. I thought it was just what QPR needed if we (notice how I say ‘we’ – it’s my club too) were to ever get out of the stagnant position we were in. I could not have been more wrong.
Your decision to dismiss Paolo Sousa is the last straw and, as a result, I have taken the difficult decision to not renew my season ticket and to not attend any games next season. Let me be clear: I am, unlike many QPR fans, in the fortunate position of being easily able afford to buy the season ticket, I’m just choosing not to buy it because of your actions.
I’ve taken this decision because I believe it is the only message you will understand. Appeals to your sense of fairness, to the spirit of the club, to the faith shown by the supporters, all these things have no effect on you. What you will understand is empty seats, unsold tickets and a dodgy-looking P&L.
You’ve already suffered the embarrassment of seeing your new luxury seating area completely empty during recent games – seats you put in at the expense of long-time QPR fans with families. Now, I suspect will suffer the further indignity of seeing large parts of the stadium being empty as well.
In stark contrast to your own behaviour towards the various managers you’ve hired and fired in the last year and a half, I have publicly supported you and tried to make a case for what you say you are trying to achieve. But you have failed, because you have, with incredible arrogance, decided that the way to run a football club is whatever way you think is best, without any regard for the way other successful clubs are run. As a result, you have made the club into a laughing stock.
You act like a dictator, which is fine as far as it goes, but you forget that all dictators stand or fall on one thing: whether they can make the trains run on time. You are running a service that makes the bad old days of British Rail look like a model of efficiency.
None of this is helped by the way you refuse to address the fans directly, or to answer legitimate questions about the way the club is being run. That’s fine if everything is going well – people will put up with it – but not when things are going badly, or when your decisions consistently make things worse.
Let me be absolutely clear: my decision is based not on performances on the pitch. I’ve seen enough diabolical football at Loftus Road to put up with pretty much anything. No, I’ve taken this step entirely because of your highhanded behaviour towards fans, managers and players. I’d prefer it if we were rid of you and your friends, even if it meant us going back to the stone-age.
So: I will not spend one penny on QPR tickets or merchandise for the whole of the 2009-10 season, even if we make it to the playoffs or a cup final, and I will decide in April 2010 whether to extend my boycott for a further year. I urge all QPR fans to do the same.
Yours sincerely,
James Higgs
Customer services
This is the text of a customer service email we received complaing about… well you see if you can figure it out. The original ’spelling’, ‘punctuation’ and ‘capitalization’ have been retained.
sorry to bother you but every time i try and log in i have to download popup blockers! someone is messing with the site and it has to stop right now with these chidish games! i’m not a kid any more so you lot just grow up! i put my email addy in then my pass word on normal internet explorer it comes up and all that but nowt happens then i have to download popup blocker so who ever is controling this site tel;l them to get a bloody life cause i’m sick to the back teetrh with them the stupid faggits! is that all they have to do all day mess around with p.c’s? they arn’t a toy you know! now bloody change your ways now!
Pen name confusion
I was wondering this morning why Penguin always print Karen Blixen (Isak Dinesen) when Isak Dinesen was a pen name. This is not their normal practice with other authors with pen names. For example, they don’t print Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) or Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot).
I still don’t know why they do it.
What’s in a name?
I just got back from a very pleasant excursion to South London; an oxymoron, I know. On my way I catalogued some quaint and some not so quaint shop signs.
The first one is lovely – it’s just down the Walworth Road from me: Mixed Blessings Bakery. Later on there was another nicely named bakery in Camberwell, this time on a more classical theme: Socrates Bakery.
Then there was Albertine’s, a pub. Not somewhere you’d have expected to bump into Proust though.
Next, and probably my favourite, was Innovations – Unravelling Potentials. You can see what they mean, but unravelling perhaps wasn’t the best word choice.
Finally, and the comedy kind of writes itself here, was Rimworld. Nice.
Honest job advert
While trawling the (uniformly awful) recruitment websites, I came across this rather too honest job description:
Future Flickr Account?
Photo credit: chrstphre
A sarcastic look at what might happen to Flickr if the Microsoft/Yahoo! deal goes through. More here.
How to use apostrophes, part I: Plurals
I am, frankly, embarrassed that so many technical bloggers cannot use apostrophes correctly. Developers can put semicolons in the right place in their code (maybe it’s just because the compiler tells them they got it wrong), but they can’t get the much more simple rules of English right. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Anyway, here’s part I in an ongoing rant-series, which deals with plurals.
First off, you never, ever put an apostrophe before the ’s’ in a word which is a plural. It’s that simple. Some examples:
| Example | Comments |
|---|---|
| Guy’s tent peg is bent | indicates a single person, Guy, who owns a single bent tent peg |
| The guys’ tent pegs are broken | indicates that there are several blokes who jointly own some tent pegs that are bent. |
| There are guys and girls | there are several men and several girls. The sentence doesn’t say anything about what they own. |
I knew a bloke who would start every single email with the word Guy’s.
There was no one at our company called Guy.
So, every time you use an apostrophe, consider whether the word is plural. If so, put the apostrophe after the ‘S’.
Next time: abbreviation.
Figure that one out
Here’s a photo of an emergency phone in Norfolk. It’s a little indistinct in the photo, but the instructions say: ‘Dial 999 for Coastguard, Police, Fire or Ambulance’. Thankfully, we had a mobile phone.
