If you can't convince Technorati to kill them, might as well use Technorati to chart them....

Splogs entries that contain Blogspot Aristotle per day for the last 60 days.

Get your own splog-tracking chart!

Update: I wrote a script last night to get a listing of all of the splogs with the duplicate entry in question.

The winner for most sploggy host goes to: Live Journal weighing in at a whopping 227 splogs! Blogspot is a distant second with 85 splogs.

I have reported these to the services in question. The remainder, nearly 300 more, I reported to Splog Reporter (which takes CSV files now!). In the meantime, Technorati, please stop indexing these splogs.

Update 2: 24 hours after submitting my report to Live Journal support, I received a note back from Kim indicating that the offending splogs have been "permanently suspended". Woohooo!

AOL is once again blocking messages from my company's ISP. This after 2 weeks of blockage last month.

I wish my company's ISP (and any other ISP blocked by AOL) would start blocking AOL each and every time this occurs. If AOL users not only were prevented from receiving valid email, but also from sending it to the users of major ISPs, surely they would complain loudly enough to convince AOL to cease and desist from this trigger-happy blockage. Or better yet, all of their customers would just get a different provider.

Yesterday I came across an interesting search query that brought a visitor to my site: "Does a lung granuloma hurt?" And while I figured I Take Requests would be a periodic, every other Friday as the spirit moved me kinda thing, something in me decided that this query should be answered sooner rather than later. And, no, the something in me that decided that was not a painful granuloma.

Disclaimer: What I know about medicine could happily do some line dancing with a few thousand of its closest friends on the head of a pin. That said....

What compelled me to answer this query, and to do so now, is my recollection of getting that initial scary phone call: "We've found something in your lungs. You have to have more tests, and you have to have them right away!" And then getting scary follow-up calls after each of those right-away tests. What is it about medical professionals? They tell you just enough to completely freak you out, without fully educating you or giving you a reality check?

When I got my initial call, I scoured the web immediately, and I didn't find much. If I had found a bunch of blog entries that said "Yeah, I have a granuloma and a nodule, and it doesn't hurt, and I'm fine; my doctors were just being cautious...." I would have taken a deep breath and forgotten about it until there was medical evidence to the contrary (which has yet to materialize, by the way). But my searching was nearly for naught.

That's why I'm adding my 2¢ on this topic to the blogosphere: for the person who executed this search, and for others who execute it in the future. My personal experience is that doctors err on the side of conservatism -- as well they should! -- but may lack the finesse to explain what's going on to their patients. You're probably just fine. Do NOT blow off the medical tests your doctor is ordering, but don't worry in the meantime either. My doctor hinted at a number of grim-sounding things, but the CAT scans are showing no change in my lungs. It's probably just a bit of scarring from a bout I had with pneumonia and/or my asthma. Nothing serious.

Be well, and good luck!

If you read my last entry, you might be wondering what could have possibly set me off. While I stand by my dubya-style thermonuclear solution, I do feel that I owe you, gentle reader, an explanation.

You see, my approval queue for comments has been once again filling up with spam, this time mostly links to Blogspot splogs. There have been 30 splog links per "comment," the majority of links being variations of one another, but still unique splogs -- unique both within each comment and among them. These "comments" have been coming at an average rate of one per hour, day and night, for nearly three days. So you do the math on the splog proliferation at Blogger/Blogspot. And these are just the splogs I'm receiving links to...

Since I haven't recently been getting hit by Blogspot sploggers, I wandered on over to Technorati and did a search for "Blogspot". Was I one of a mere handful of victims or was there something bigger going on in the blogosphere? Alas, I never found out because the search results were filled with splogs. I didn't notice it at first, but then I happened upon a couple of posts that mentioned both Blogspot and Aristotle -- two words that are, under normal circumstances, mutually exclusive. Therefore I revised my search query to "blogspot aristotle" and received 5,147 results.

I scanned the first page of hits, then the second, then the third, then the fourth. The text was nearly identical. Then I continued to spot check all the way to results page 50. Same thing. There are at least 5,000 indexed entries with the same bloody text! The most recent entry was five hours prior to my searching.

The earliest, 32 days prior.

So copies of this one particular sploggy entry have, potentially, been indexed by Technorati for over a month. And, for the short-term-memory impaired: The way in which I discovered this tidbit was trying -- and failing -- to research the sudden appearance of the hundreds and hundreds of Blogspot splogs which have been sent to me via comment.

Can you really blame me for going postal?

But I do so hate feeling negative, and I am pretty competitive. Therefore, let's have fun with this: Pretend you're Dick Cheney and go splog hunting on Technorati!

There should probably be several different categories in which prizes can be awarded:

1. Greatest number of splogs with identical (or nearly identical) text
2. Best unique search term to locate just the splogs in question
3. Longest duration of post existence and/or indexing
4. Shortest amount of time it takes for Technorati to remove them after you do the right thing and
   1. Report it to Technorati
   2. Blog it and tag it (at the risk of giving up my competitive edge, I'm convinced Technorati pays more attention to the tag "technorati" than it does a feedback form submission)

Maybe it can even become a meme! Tag your friends and family!

But if nothing else, please tell the Technoratis and Blogspots and Live Journals of the world that this stuff is NOT acceptable. All the nifty new features you can crank out don't mean jack if the search results themselves are useless. If enough of us say it, and clearly MEAN it, maybe they'll listen....

Update #1 - 9:40 AM: It's now 252 results down from 5147, and some of the results are valid (e.g. this entry). Some are the same splog text, however. But progress is definitely being made! Next time I go hunting I'll see if I can catch two such beasts, one I'll only blog and tag and the other I'll only report through their feedback form.

Update #2 - 9:55 AM: Oops. My bad. Without realizing it, I had accidentally moved the authority slider a bit to the right. When I put the slider back to "any authority," I discovered an actual increase in the results. We're up to 5,157 now. It's getting worse.

Update #3 - The next day: We're up to 5,174 entries now! Yikes!!

Update #4 - Sunday, 30 April: It is now up to 5,422. Unbelievable!! Early this week, I pointed out the problem to Live Journal through their support form with the URL for the query. Rather than receving a "Hey, thanks for the pointer because we feel that hosting hundreds upon hundreds of splogs detracts from the quality of service we provide as well as from our reputation," I got a short note back suggesting that I read their FAQ (which I had already done) and fill out their form. Translation: I would need to take the time to identify which of the splogs belongs to them and submit each offender's URL one by one. I think not.

I say we do away with Blogger/Blogspot, Live Journal, and the rest of the free blog hosting services. Heck, let's do away with all free hosting services period. Dissolve them, obliterate them, wipe them off the face of the earth. Find Iraq's supposed WMD's and put them to good use. And if, like the Phoenix, something attempts to rise up from the ashes, go nuclear on its charred behind.

"What!?!" I hear you protest. "How could you possibly even think such a despicable action, let alone utter it? What about the power of the people? What about free speech?? What about," your voice reduces to a reverent whisper, "what about Web 2.0???"

What about the overwhelming proliferation of crap? That is the problem when you allow anyone to have a site without having to disclose personal information or invest anything more than a wee bit of time: Crap. Now mind you, I don't mean teenage angst -- or even adult angst. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And this newfound ability to express our perspectives to the world at large, no matter who we are and what our perspectives happen to be, is a marvelous thing. No, by crap I mean sites that have been created on a whim one day and abandoned the next, allowed to whither and die because the novelty has worn off. And I mean splogs and other get-rich-quick schemes.

Currently, there is no accountability. There is no motivation either to maintain one's virtual real estate or to properly dispose of it. There is no reason not to create 25 or 50 or 100 splogs... As a result, email has become tedious; search engines are becoming useless; and we're forever whitelisting, blacklisting, moderating, and hunting for the ultimate spam killer. The net needs a good, thorough vacuuming up, and it needs it now.

Want to put an end to crap once and for all? Make people provide verifiable proof of their identify in order to establish an account and pay a fee in order to keep their site alive. It doesn't have to be a lot of money; just enough to dissuade both spammers and those not genuinely interested in maintaining their site(s). If you fail to pay, then your site gets foreclosed upon, appraised, and -- if appropriate -- bull-dozed with all traces being removed from the search engines. The more accountability people have, the less crap they'll create.

Now, we wouldn't have this problem if we could count on GYM et al. to only index valid sites. Apparently they are not sufficiently motivated by the desire to provide only the very best in search results. And we'd have less of a problem if the free hosts could be bothered to do a better job of weeding. Therefore, in order to ensure that we achieve a truly crap-free web, we will of course need to establish a Crap Czar. This Czar will serve as an overseer to hold companies' feet to the fire. Personally, I vote for the EFF to take on this role because I feel that they can be trusted to protect our First Amendment rights while still identifying true crap and punishing its hosts via the swift assessment of hefty fines. I'm thinking $10,000 per proliferation incident including, but not limited to:

1. Negligence ("I wasn't aware I was hosting crap")
2. Direct encouragement ("Host your crap here")
3. Indirect encouragement ("I'll index your crap")

The resulting revenue would go into a fund for accountable, motivated, would-be bloggers and other content creators who lack the financial resources necessary to create and maintain a site.

It's either this or... fried splogger, anyone?

This is old news by now, but if you haven't come across this gem, wander over to the Huffington Post and have a listen!

If not, perhaps the aliens nabbed them! And you call yourself a conscientious farmer....

Via Cow Hampshire.

This is the "I Already Know the Answer" edition of I Take Requests. These search-engine-delivered visitors to Grain of Salt clearly know where they stand. In some cases they're flat out wrong, but at least they're not suffering from insecurity....

Assertion #1: Salt is a bad thing
Answer: Not in moderation, and we need a certain amount to survive.

Assertion #2: Vegetarians suck
Answer: Having relationship troubles, or did a piece of dead animal get stuck in your craw?

Assertion #3: But then again you can take it with a grain of salt
Answer: You're absolutely right! Healthy way to approach life. Maybe you can cheer up our friend from #2

Assertion #4: Avoid an audit
Answer: You got that right! My fingers are still crossed.

Assertion #5: Dragon Dictate version 8 crap
Answer: It's called Naturally Speaking now. And it's actually not a bad product depending on what level of the version (preferred, professional, etc.) you're using and what you need it for. That said, if you are able to type, I think you'll be more productive using the keyboard.

Assertion #6: Association of International Glaucoma Societies bad
Answer: No they're not. But their website needs to change. The hymn is obnoxious -- at least it doesn't play automatically any more -- and the bouncing heads....

Assertion #7: Netgear sucks
Answer: Indeed it does!

Assertion #8: AOL recently announced what amounts to an email tax.
Answer: Yep, they suck even more than Netgear. Support the EFF.

Assertion #9: I wish you just to it please
Answer: Huh?

Assertion #10: Consumers should not use new Google Desktop
Answer: I agree.

Assertion #11: Norwood Micro TV tuner is crap
Answer: It's cheap, but if all you want is the ability to watch TV on your computer, I think it's good value for the money. And last time I checked, they don't outsource tech support, which earns them brownie points in my book!

Assertion #12: Stop hurting our kids Walmart
Answer: Stop hurting EVERYONE Walmart

Assertion #13: I am radioactive
Answer: I was too once, but I'm not any more. Also, don't go to the airport!

Assertion #14: Doctor found a nodule on my lung
Answer: Same here. But from what I'm told, if it doesn't change then it's not a problem. Good luck!!

Assertion #15: Read this with a grain of salt
Answer: That's what this blog is all about!

I have been inspired by, among other things, Minor Tweaks' periodic Seek and ye shall find entries:

A fair number of people -- for reasons that remain unclear -- actually visit Minor Tweaks on purpose. Others, however, stumble onto the site via a search engine. I feel bad for them. That's why, from time to time, I attempt to provide the information they were looking for. It's my way of giving something back to the community. It's the least I can do. Seriously: I could do so much more.

Therefore, I decided to take a good look at my own stats. Most of you are not here because of my wit, charm, and insightfulness. Nope. You came for Wanna Die Elmo (of "Who Wants to Die?" toilet-training fame):

And I'm pleased that I was able to help you folks out. But, like the Minor Tweaks guy, I feel bad for people who wind up at Grain of Salt via search engine and walk away empty handed. Therefore, for the person who came here looking for "cat scan picture of granuloma in lungs":

You know, I said I was going to get those images up. And that really was my intent. But what I didn't realize at the time is just how many images there would be. I figured a CAT scan was just a single image -- or maybe two. Nope, it's bazillions. And I had a lot of tests so I received a gagillion images, all of which looked very similar and didn't look like much of anything. So I blew it off. But since you took the time to come all of the way out here.... I just took another gander through what the hospital gave me. It included this statement:

FINDINGS: A 3-mm calcified granuloma is seen in the posterior right upper lobe. There is a second 3-mm nodule at the right lung base (image #21). No pleural or pericardial effusion is seen. A 2-cm soft tissue density is seen in the anterior mediastinum. There is no definite mediastinal, hilar, or axillary adenopathy; however, evaluation is limited without IV contrast.

I don't fully understand what all of that mumbo jumbo means, but "image #21" looked remarkably like English so I dug a bit deeper. Here are two representative samples of image #21 (that's right: a single "image" isn't even a single image!)

Assuming that those are my lungs and that lungs should look empty, my guess is that the things that look like small rocks are what you came for. I hope that is what you need and that you don't need it because you have them.

Y'all keep searching, and I'll keep checking my stats.

• Mailing a letter to a constituent: 39¢
• Paying the staff person who writes letters for you: $50K
• Reading the letter you supposedly wrote before signing it to be sure that it's profanity-free: Priceless.

via Homeland Stupidity

... If the major problem happens to involve U-Haul trucks and sound systems. This is just too cool:

I built a potato battery out of 500 pounds of potatoes. It powered a small sound system. With the help of the Red 76 crew I installed the battery and sound system in the back of a U-Haul truck and drove it around town inviting people to enter the truck and take a listen.

Via Technorama.

When war and nuclear weapons and the price of oil/gas seem too much to bear, it's nice to know that you can always count on Boing Boing to remind you what really matters, like knowing how much toilet paper is enough.

The fine folks at Cottonelle even provide a FAQ for new users with such helpful entries as:

Why is my toilet paper printed on the inside? How do I fix this?
The good news is that this is an easy fix -- the toilet paper isn't actually printed on the inside. What's happened is that the two plies have become separated, and the inside ply is wrapped around the outside of your roll (you'll probably also notice that the perforations on the two plies don't line up). To fix, first make sure your toilet paper is positioned so that it unrolls from the spindle with the sheets coming over the top. Next, steady the roll so it does not move in the spindle. Take the top ply (make sure you are only handling one ply) and unwrap it behind the roll. The print should now appear on the outside, as intended, and the bottom ply should now be longer that the top ply. Tear off the excess bottom plies (approximately 3) and you are ready to go.

I wonder if they also have a tech support line. Can you imagine calling up "Fred" in India for installation assistance?

UPDATE: In the process of checking to see if Technorati correctly indexed today's articles, I came across All this chittah-chattah's take on Cottonelle Kids. It's too freakin' funny, so have a read!

This morning I figured it was time to give my senators a call and humbly suggest that engaging in any military action against Iran was a very bad idea. I got the usual "I'll pass along your concerns" from Sununu's office. Nothing new there. I expected the same from Gregg's office. Nope. I was politely informed that all this talk about invading Iran was merely a rumor, and an unfounded one at that. Oh really? It does make me wonder what I would have been told 4 years ago had I called about Iraq.... I also wish I had waited until lunchtime to call, because then I could have quoted this mid-day article from the Washington Post site.

Asked whether U.S. options in dealing with Iran "include the possibility of a nuclear strike" and whether his administration is planning for such a prospect, Bush replied: "All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically, and we're working hard to do so."

Yeah, and we wanted to solve the Iraq issue diplomatically too, but kept all options on the table. We saw how that turned out.

And when asked about dumping Rumsfeld, Bush had this pearl of wisdom:

I'm the decider and I decide what is best.

Oh dear.... How DID he get elected? And will 2008 get here in time?

Then I came across this article in the Jerusalem Post via the Daily Kos

Military action was "probably the last choice, but it has to be there," stressed Lieberman, who has been visiting Israel over the Pessah festival. He said there was now "active discussion" of the options for such action.

I hope that Senator Gregg and his staff will forgive me for not buying what they're trying to sell. We're in trouble folks....

UPDATE: Just in case you're not getting the sickening sense of déjà vu that I am, I dug up this Washington Post article from March 14th, 2002.

President Bush declared yesterday that "all options are on the table" -- including nuclear weapons -- to confront states that threaten to use weapons of mass destruction, as he issued his strongest warning to date that his administration plans to take on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

[...]

"We've got all options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends," Bush said, repeating the "all options on the table" phrase later in his news conference.

UPDATE #2: I hate it when a source you cite completely removes the very text you quote from their article. I hate it even more when you used that quote as the title of your entry because the quote is so very perfect. Thanks Post.... VOA News came through though.

I just read this story. Substitute "WMD" for "Enriched Uranium" and a "q" for an "n" and it's déjà vu all over again....

<sarcasm>
At least this time we're already in the neighborhood....
</sarcasm>

Canada looks like a nice place to live. Do you think they'd let me in if I show them proof of being a Democrat?

I believe that you must learn something new each and every day. If you haven't yet gotten your daily dose, listen up because I have a good one.

On this week's Quirks & Quarks I learned that doctors had successfully grown replacement bladders in a lab using cells from the patients' existing bladders. No need for a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs; no need for controversial stem cells. Just grab some tissue, do something clever and sciency to grow your bladder, and transplant it. That is amazing!!! And it, of course, has implications for helping patients with failure of other organs. Wow....

Listen to the Building a Bladder segment.

The vote has come and gone. The bill was defeated by one vote.

In related news, today is my doctor's "late" day and they're working me in at 6:50 PM. I hope I don't get more prednisone....

A friend of mine sent me a legislative update which included the following bad news:

HUFF AND PUFF... A proposed statewide ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars is headed for a fight in the State Senate this Thursday. The Senate Finance Committee lacked the necessary votes to recommend passage of the bill. The 3-3 vote on HB 1177 means that under Senate rules the bill will be reported out of committee with an "inexpedient to legislate" recommendation. The fate of the smoking ban is unclear (no pun intended), but opponents believe the votes are there to kill the bill. Supporters have argued that it is important to protect the workers, as well as the public, from second hand smoke. While those opposed say workers have the freedom to find other employment and many restaurants in the state are voluntarily going smoke free without mandatory ban. A recent poll taken by the University of New Hampshire showed 79% of those surveyed in the state favored the ban. New Hampshire is the only New England state that does not have a ban in place. But then again, New Hampshire is the only state with "Live Free or Die" stamped on its license plates.

Here is the letter I just emailed to my state senator:

Dear Senator Gottesman:

I just read an article indicating that the proposed statewide ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars lacks the support in the senate for passage. Therefore I wanted to write you to find out where you stand on this issue and also to share my position with you.

I happen to be asthmatic, with a sensitivity to smoke. I have gone to restaurants where there are "separate" sections for smoking and non-smoking patrons, sat as far away as possible from the smoking section, and still walked away coughing and wheezing. Sometimes the resulting attack fails to clear, necessitating a visit to the doctor for the steroid prednisone. If you're familiar with this drug, then you know that this treatment is not a pleasant one. On one occasion over a weekend, I even wound up having to go to the hospital's emergency care department. As a result, I simply no longer go to restaurants that permit smoking. Some would argue that this is my choice. I beg to differ. When the price of patronizing a restaurant is a significant, immediate impact upon one's health with potential long-term consequences, you are not choosing not to patronize that restaurant; you are being denied the right to patronize it.

And, really, that seems to be what this bill is all about: Rights. A person's right to smoke, an establishment's right to permit it. Ever since this bill was proposed, I keep thinking about that admittedly trite expression I first heard so many years ago in my high school history class: "You have the right to swing your fist, a right which extends up to -- but not beyond -- the start of my chin." When a restaurant exercises its right to permit smoking, and when patrons exercise their right to smoke, they are infringing upon the rights of the people who wish to patronize that business while at the same time preserving their health. We are being punched in our proverbial chins.

One of the things I love about living in New Hampshire is the "Live Free or Die" attitude. I agree that government should avoid treading on people's rights, and that people can and should be responsible for the decisions that they make -- as long as those decisions do not harm others. Second-hand smoke harms others. Therefore, I am completely in favor of a statewide ban on smoking. I hope that you are as well and that you will support passage of this legislation.

Thank you for your time.

If you are concerned about non-smokers' rights and live in New Hampshire, contact your senator. You can look up their contact information on the New Hampshire General Court's site.

This evening I further tweaked the settings of the anti-spam plugins I use in an attempt to maximize the ability of humans to comment while minimizing the same for spam bots and drones (my name for humans who spam for pay). Why is this even necessary? Two reasons:

1. People buy things directly or indirectly from the spammers
2. If you can get your links to appear on enough pages then:
   1. Your site(s) gain greater page rank in search results
   2. The resulting increase in traffic increases the likelihood of your making money on pay-per-click ads

All we can do, as far as I can tell, about spammers' customers is hope that Darwin was right and wait for evolution to kick in. As for the other issue: I blame Google, both for their method of assigning page rank and for the apparent ease with which their AdSense program can be exploited for financial gain.

What is Google doing to dissuade spammers, you ask? Altering their method of ranking pages? Enforcing stricter AdSense policies? Nope. Banning a small public library in Alaska from updating its blog? Yep.

Currently Seldovia Public Library's blog is available and appears to be recently updated, so perhaps the problem has been resolved.... Still I think it's a shame that a small public library gets shut out of its own blog, while other Blogger splogs -- and the underlying page rank and AdSense problems -- persist. If this library cannot pay for a hosting service, perhaps through donations they can swing it?? I noticed that the hosting service I use (GoDaddy.com) now has a new "Quick Blog" product. It doesn't look like it would cost very much. It would be nice if GoDaddy would provide hosting and a "quick blog" to Seldovia Public Library pro bono, but if not, I'd be willing to chip in for a year or two of blog hosting.

It's quite late now, and I really need to get some sleep. But tomorrow I think I'll see if I can get a hold of "Savannah L." (the librarian who reported the problem to the Consumerist).

Update: The Consumerist has an update. Seems all is well again. If I were Savannah L., I'd keep looking to move my blog. But she seems happy. Fair enough -- and one less thing on my to-do list. However, Savannah L., if you're listening and if Blogger/Google does this again, my offer still stands. (I used to be a librarian)

No complaints here!

The critics didn't care for The Skeleton Key, but I rented it last night and thought it was great.

Yes, admittedly the two upward-pointing thumbs both belong to me. And I should probably admit that I also enjoyed The Village and was (apparently the only one to be) surprised by the ending. But if you like a good, creepy movie, I do think it's worth a try.

Maybe my cultural bias is showing, but I have a hard time viewing the (mis)treatment of women in Saudi Arabia as anything other than dreadful. So am I surprised that some of the women who live there are emotionally scarred by the culture and laws? No. I am, however, surprised at this:

Al Watan newspaper said the five (Saudi) women underwent sex change surgery abroad over the past 12 months after they developed a "psychological complex" due to male domination.

While the story doesn't explicitly state this, it seems to suggest that the women men might be planning on returning to Saudi Arabia. I just don't get it.... If they managed to get out of the country and find the money and/or other resources to undergo this transformation, wouldn't it have made more sense to remain abroad (no pun intended), enjoy the rights that women elsewhere have, and maybe get some counseling to determine if they are indeed men trapped in women's bodies or women trapped in a male-dominated country?

Read the full article at Yahoo! News.

How'd filing your taxes work out this year? This is my experience, set to the tune of Gilligan's Island (opening song):

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
a tale of a fateful day,
That started with a trip to Block,
and ended in dismay.

The rep was way too nervous,
(her colleague not so bad).
"I want to get my taxes done."
"I hope I won't be sad, I hope I won't be sad."

The filing started getting rough.
The nervous rep was lost.
If not for the help of her smart colleague,
an audit would be the cost, an audit would be the cost.

The filing finally was complete, although it took two hours!
I don't know why -- well, yes I do:
Inexperience caused my strife!
The nervous rep
tried her best,
but it's my financial life!

Notes:

1. While my taxes are too complicated for me to do myself with any assurance of getting things right, they are not that complex in the grand scheme of tax prep. No capital gains or losses, no dependents. Basically just some home-office related issues.
2. It actually took 2.5 hours, but I couldn't work in the other half hour into the above ditty.
3. $300 later, when asked if I would be interested in their protection plan for only $29 more, I immediately agreed. (Normally I decline) The rep's response: "I think it's a good idea. I believe that I didn't make any mistakes, but...." Yep, that made me feel much better....

May your tax season be better than mine. May you get a giant refund. (May my wishing nice things upon other people earn me enough karma points to avoid an audit!)

Last night I was listening to Bell's in the Batfry episode 22 in which Arnie manages to travel to (crash land in, really) another podcast, Griddlecakes Radio. I've since listened to Griddlesode 23 (where Arnie crashed), and 1-13. This is an awesome show, in which Ron (and the other Ron) engage in "the lost art of audio story telling." Subscribed!

I'm not sure how this podcast managed to fly beneath my radar. Well, actually, I have a theory: There are so many podcasts out there (a good thing), in so many different genres and covering so many different topics (also a good thing), that the odds of your just happening upon another podcast that's right up your alley are pretty slim (a bad thing). Going by ratings/popularity doesn't work for me. Sites that allow you to mark podcasts as your favorites, and to see the favorites of others, are sometimes promising. Still, it's a lot of work wading through shows trying to find what's worth subscribing to for you personally. Therefore, I'm grateful when like-minded podcasters mention each other, and do an occasional combined episode.

On to Griddlesode 14....

Regular visitors to Grain of Salt know that I moderate all comments manually. In other words, your comment won't get posted until I deem it worthy. I did this to prevent spam and other unpleasantness. What I have learned over the past few months is that I don't get unpleasant comments from humans, and I do get a lot of spam comments which I still have to take the time to clear out of the approval queue. So I'm trying something different.

I have installed Chrispian's new anti-spam plugin for Nucleus. This plugin is a type of CAPTCHA. If you're not familiar with CAPTCHAs, read the Wikipedia article on the subject. But my guess is that you are already familiar with them. They are traditionally pictures of text whose characters have been distorted and/or obscured with visual clutter. The idea is that only a human viewing the image will be able to identify the text string being displayed. Thus traditional CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing tests to tell Computers and Humans Apart) thwart spam bots. Alas, they also thwart people who happen to be blind. After all, no visual CAPTCHA will have an Alt tag because providing alternative text to a blind user also provides it to the bots.... That's why I opted for manual moderation up to this point.

Chrispian's plugin is different. It allows me to ask the would-be comment writer a simple question of my choosing. This method should separate the humans from the bots -- without excluding any humans. If you can answer the question, and your comment is on a recent article, your comment should appear immediately. If you can answer it, and your comment is on an older article (which spammers seem to prefer), it will still hit the moderation queue. If you can't answer it, your comment will simply be denied. I've tested it and it seems to work. (fingers crossed)

Many thanks to Chrispian for his solution!

UPDATE: Spam is still coming through. Grrrrr. Ok, right now it's silly questions AND moderation until I work this out....

UPDATE 2: The only spam that is coming in seems to be manually sent. Imagine doing that for a living! Anyway.... Based on the past few days, it seems that Chrispian's plugin is a success, so I'm returning moderation to older articles and allowing humans to comment on recent ones.