I've had my run for a while. Nobody is clicking ads. Nobody cares that the Niagara Tunnel is starting to explode. I'll try to recover again. Many thanks to everybody!
No offense, but IMO you don't seem to go out of your way to make your articles "visitor friendly", which is not a good way to encourage repeat visits. I usually see your posts first in the "AllGeo" gadget set up by Chris Rowan ("Highly Allochthonous") rather than directly wandering by here, and a typical posting is a link (entitled just "Article"!) with a brief comment that I could only assume would be pithy or insightful if I knew what the topic of the article was, and/or visited here frequently enough to know what you were referring to. It is asking a lot of a drive-by visitor to follow the link (did I mention: its typically just entitled "Article"?) to figure it all out.
Also, I read a lot of your comments about the tunnel, but I can't say I know what the tunnel is actually for (and only in your last post on the topic did the possibility occur to me that its a tunnel to carry water). Maybe if I was a regular here I'd know (but I'm not, so I don't). It would be nice if you did something like embed a link to a prior posting on the tunnel under the first occurrence of the word "tunnel", or something like that.
You seem knowledgable and have a rich background (and in general I like your schtick about idiots running the world), but, in short, most of the time I really can't figure out what you talking about, and don't have the patience to click on the generic link to find out if it would be interesting or not.
4 comments:
Sorry!
You are not completely forgotten though :-)
I see death. I'm going to the cottage.
No offense, but IMO you don't seem to go out of your way to make your articles "visitor friendly", which is not a good way to encourage repeat visits. I usually see your posts first in the "AllGeo" gadget set up by Chris Rowan ("Highly Allochthonous") rather than directly wandering by here, and a typical posting is a link (entitled just "Article"!) with a brief comment that I could only assume would be pithy or insightful if I knew what the topic of the article was, and/or visited here frequently enough to know what you were referring to. It is asking a lot of a drive-by visitor to follow the link (did I mention: its typically just entitled "Article"?) to figure it all out.
Also, I read a lot of your comments about the tunnel, but I can't say I know what the tunnel is actually for (and only in your last post on the topic did the possibility occur to me that its a tunnel to carry water). Maybe if I was a regular here I'd know (but I'm not, so I don't). It would be nice if you did something like embed a link to a prior posting on the tunnel under the first occurrence of the word "tunnel", or something like that.
You seem knowledgable and have a rich background (and in general I like your schtick about idiots running the world), but, in short, most of the time I really can't figure out what you talking about, and don't have the patience to click on the generic link to find out if it would be interesting or not.
Anyway, like I said: no offense intended.
Yes, I have decided that my great fear of being too clear (for the nasty lawyers) has made me generally useless.
Post a Comment