14-Jun-2009 (Sun)
Wherein I break the web site.

I've reformatted this here blog. Now each of the entries has its own page like 2009/06/14.html, in addition to being included in the whole-month view 2009/06/. I did this mostly because sites like Facebook that have a "post this link" command don't really know what to make of entries where the "permalink" for a URL has an #anchor on it: they would end up excerpting the text of the first entry of the month rather than the entry you intended to post. So this should help with that, I guess.

I still steadfastly refuse to put the newer entries at the top instead of the botom of the month-view, though. All modern blogging software does that, but it's just dumb. I do not approve. Who reads that way??

> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> > Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > > Yes.
> > > > Is top-posting bad?

Speaking of Facebook, they recently added "user names", the ability to have more sensible URLs for your pages, but they will only let you set the name of a business page if you have more than 1,000 "fans". The DNA Lounge Facebook page hasn't hit 1,000 yet, so how about you go "fan" it so they will let me change that URL? Your prompt compliance is appreciated.

The "Save DNA Lounge" Facebook group has several thousand members, so I guess I've been doing a better job of hyping that one...

7 Responses:

  1. baconmonkey says:

    and the RSS feed, apparently. 2 hours after initial posting and no sign of it here.

    • scullin says:

      It shows up in my RSS feed, but it's not the last item on the feed. Virtually everything from June shows up as my last refresh time, but not in date order.

    • jwz says:

      Fixed. Apparently   isn't allowed in RSS titles.

      • spc476 says:

        I've found that named HTML entities (even the ones you think would be okay like & and " are problematic in RSS (and Atom) feeds, which I fixed in the code that generates my blog feeds by having it convert any named entities to the numeric form (no problems after that).

  2. lionsphil says:

    I'd guess that blog-posting is displayed "backwards" is because posts are assumed to be relatively independent, whereas e-mail discussions clearly are not. You might "previously" quite a bit here, but I don't think you reply to yourself with LJ posts such that you get '"Why is top-posting bad?" "Yes."' problems. If this week's doomed-meathook-future news excerpt is out-of-order from the perversions image, nobody is going to lose the plot.

    However, the DNA Lounge log has some degree of narrative continuity, so I agree that the "natural" ordering suits it better.

    • Newest-at-top blog ordering is preferable if it can be assumed that the reader is a regular reader and has already taken in enough context not to be confused by the text of the new posting. If context doesn't need to be provided, then avoiding having to scroll to get to the new stuff wins.

      Email/usenet bottom-posting convention assumes, ideally, a really tight editing of the included material to provide very specific context, which a blog page doesn't do automatically (unless you're clever with cut-tags or their moral equivalent).

  3. westyx says:

    Over 1K fans, time to get your facebook user name on