I’d probably care more if I dropped links to my blogging into twitter. The idea of pushing masked links to my own thing just strikes me as dirty. Like self-seeding Reddit. (No offense to those of you who do that — your posts are probably more awesome than mine) Or rickrolling pals. But, without the humor.

Regardless of my personal use, I think it’s time we get our permalinks shorter than 30 characters. We could even keep the out-of-control keyword stuffing in place for search engine indexing and just 301 the short ones to the longer ones. In other words, this post could be http://aaronmentele.com/p/793 and everyone on twitter would know if I was link spamming my own stuff. Google, though, would see it at http://aaronmentele.com/2009/07/17/shorter-urls/ and give me a sooper rank on the phrase.

We could all push whatever we wanted and not feel dirty. Our clients could link to themselves and reinforce their TLDs without loosing search traffic. Nobody would be left guessing.

It took two lines in the .htaccess file to do it here and on the EP site.

RewriteBase /
RewriteRule ^p/([0-9]+)$ /?p=$1 [R=301,L]

I’m sure there are WordPress plugins available to do the same thing if you hate htaccess files, but you get the general idea. Most CMS apps have rewrites in place, and there’s no reason you can’t create a second rule.

I’d love to hear if anyone has a better idea. But you don’t have to look far to see there are other reasons to get URL management figured out. Right?

But, when Umair came into my feed reader suggesting we all want change, I’d just been considering the extent to which it might really suck.

Maybe you noticed last week’s agency shakeups. Or people announcing new freelancing plans or news of their layoff. Without calling anyone out, we’ll just say things are changing for a lot of people who do what I do. Most of that change hasn’t come by choice.

When I see it, I say “congrats” out loud but think “ack” in my head. Some of these [people] have mortgages and leases and loans and personal guarantees. Some have spouses and children and/or employees with spouses and children. And some just really enjoyed their job.

The thing that got me writing on the topic (before Umair got in my head and started clowning about) was the fact that I’ve suggested the current economic downturn wouldn’t affect skilled web shops, long term. There’s simply too much need for what we do for the world to go without.

The suck of it is that being able to think long term is a bit of a luxury, regardless of your skill or talent. That’s why recession-proofing articles are crap. You don’t make it through a downturn by reducing costs or shedding commitments — those things just make it easier on you if you fail. You make it through a downturn by continuing to find and do good work. And that’s something that gets easier as your business gets more established.

So, I feel a little bad about suggesting talented web pros would be fine. Clearly, some are getting kicked in the nuts. The pain of which grows with commitments to mortgages and leases and loans and personal guarantees et cetera.

For what it’s worth, though, I really do think the wider view looks good. Those announcing moves will jump to a new shop and grow. Those who stick it out will find the bounce probably makes up for short term stress. And those who had no business building web things in the first place will go work retail. As per usual.

Anyway… good luck to those of you moving to new jobs or cities. I hope the excitement outweighs the stress.

“Big, fat, lazy” businesses SHOULD fail. Politics HAS become a dirty word. Let’s unplug the whole damn world and let it boot back up.

I’m extrapolating. But if you read Umair, you get that there’s room for interpretation.

Anyway, go read him. I have further extrapolation coming shortly. This will all make sense.

The article he links to explains the abandoned mine (also located in South Dakota) is ideal for experiments because it’s “shielded from cosmic rays” and will soon be used by scientists trying to prove the existence of dark matter.

Jason thinks it might be a cool place to build web things as well.

I’ll admit the prospect of setting up shop next to such an experiment in such a place has a certain allure. I mean, there has to be a greater than average chance the science will just go wrong resulting in superhuman mutation of nearby scientists and web developers alike.

But I’m not so sure the allure outweighs the very real possibility of being eaten by giant, subterranean creatures. Not to mention, it has to be a little unsettling coding so near the denizens of hell.

That, and I don’t imagine iPhones would ever work down there.

So, in short, I don’t think we’ll be moving. But thanks again for the suggestion, Jason. We’ll get you some kind of finder’s fee if a future suggestion pans out.

My point is that there are drawbacks to flexible layouts just as there are to fixed layouts. My specific issue with the former is that developers effectively need to produce larger sites than are being delivered. It strikes me as wasteful to increase the size of all requests for all users in the name of flexibility. My specific issue with the latter is that you can’t change the magnification at all without browser support.

I don’t think anyone has really picked a side, a team, or even a standard methodology regardless of the amount of skepticism voiced. If you’re interested in the topic, though, you should check out Drew Mclellan’s recent post. Be sure to follow the link through to Cameron Moll’s post as well.

So, today he mentioned a smashing magazine post written on the same topic. And I read.

I keep getting hung up on the same thing, though. Image resizing.

I’ve played with two options.

1. Test the browser width server side and deliver images at an exact size.
2. Deliver a larger image. Test width client-side and display smaller dimensions.

The first option is nice in that you aren’t asking site visitors to download a larger version of your site (in terms of filesize.) But the benefit goes to hell if the visitor resizes the window and you have to make that call again (thereby testing and delivering new versions of the images each time.) And, more importantly (to me,) the image quality is never as good as if you optimize them manually.

The second option ignores the idea of delivering images at the smallest possible filesize. It delivers (meaning the browser downloads) large images, with smaller height and width attributes. But, damn, it looks smart onscreen.

If it wasn’t clear, I have issues with both options. Loading larger images and/or writing more code feels like a slope to offering high-bandwidth / low-bandwidth options. You know, for people with slow connections. Or mobile devices.

I JUST THINK MAYBE THIS COULD ALL BE BETTER HANDLED BY A RENDERING ENGINE. Because as awesome as fluid layouts are, and as well documented as the method is becoming (thanks to some very smart people,) we’d still have to re-engineer the entire web to solve the issue with html and css alone. Whereas browsers… well, they could introduce (check) and enhance page zoom.

I AM JUST SAYIN’!

So, we do XHTML 1, or, more recently, HTML 4. Strict. o/

But sometimes, we’re aggregating feeds or hitting an API or integrating an ecommerce thing that spits out an ampersand that hasn’t been encoded and OMG THE SITE WON’T VALIDATE. So sometimes we switch to transitional, and I hope nobody is reading this.

Anyway, I’m glad to see more people stepping out to say it’s okay to do HTML 4. It seems incredibly pedestrian to still be using 4.01 in 2009, but it happens to be what works best. You know, for the users.

I still get a little paranoid that the time spent putting together project specifications and negotiating contracts will have me looking the other way when the proper geeks sprint off to the next, new thing. (<header> tags, in this case.)

Back when I used to blog, I think I mentioned how easy it is to run out of time. Maybe it was somewhere else, but the point is this: keep one eye on Cameron Moll. You don’t have to change your DOCTYPE ’til he does.

• Me: Hey. How’s it going?
• Them: Good. Staying busy.
• Me: Oh. Good.
• Them: How ’bout you? Busy?
• Me: Um, yeah.
• Them: Good.
• –pause for food–
• Me: Okay, well, good seeing you.
• Them: Yeah. You too.

I can have this conversation with my eyes shut now. Practice makes perfect and all. When I don’t lead it off, though, it can all go to hell. Like today:

• Them: Hey. How’s it going?
• Me: Oh hey. Good. It’s going well. I guess we’re busy. So, that’s good. I guess. Right? How about you? Busy?
• Them: Um, not really. Things aren’t going real well at work now that you mention it.
• Me: Oh. Shit.
• –pause for food–
• Me: Well, good seeing you.

Time to separate good and busy. (Especially when talking to people I barely know.)

Feed Rinse took 11 days from concept to launch, so you could say we haven’t invested much time. By now, the more significant cost has been ongoing maintenance. With 17,000 users and 75,000 filters, the service requires a fair amount of human response and server resources. But, we put in just enough effort to sustain it. Beyond that, the idea rots.

We have a small handful of these ideas out in the wild. Bearing our name. Dying.

Knowing that we go into these ideas with no expectations makes it hard to feel like they’ve failed, but when the emails come in from users asking of future plans or suggesting improvement, it’s hard not to feel like maybe it’s time to just pull the plug. Let the thing die with some dignity.

We collaborated with Undercurrent on another site called Viral or Spiral a while back. After a few months watching it host only the traffic we actively pushed to it, we decided to shut it down. And when I say “we,” I mean one of the “others.”

Knowing when to kill an idea is tough. I’m not even sure I get there on my own. But looking at our ideas — those that went somewhere, those that died, those that are dying — we knew within 6 months if each was going to make it.

Maybe you can’t force the same six-month or one-year term on every idea you pursue, but think how motivating it could be to have a kill date on everything you do. I think it’s going to be my new thing.

Yeah, no. I’m kidding. Check this video out as prep for what I’m about to say.

I’m not sure I’ve ever been to a cooler conference. The facility (Kaneko) was awesome. The speakers were phenomenal. And the fact they put the whole thing on about 2 hours drive from my house makes me very, very happy. I had on a dumb smile from the minute Jason Fried took the stage til a few hours after Gary Vaynerchuk went off. Jeff Slobotski and Dusty Davidson (the event organizers) nailed it.

This was a first-time conference put on in a place not well known for such events, but you’d have never known. The whole town felt cool, starting with the opening party and open house (What Cheer / Secret Penguin) and continuing straight through.

I loved it. I really hope they do more.

(A very few pics from the event.)

In a nod to an earlier post by Keith Robinson of Blue Flavor advocating small businesses “stick together and keep and eye out for each other,” Martin gives positive and very specific praise to 9 agencies that could technically be considered competition to his own firm.

Both of these writings have hints of Greg Storey’s memo from a few months earlier that I hope everyone even remotely involved in this industry has read. If you haven’t, I’d suggest putting this post away and heading over there now. Link.

I have a huge amount of respect for those willing to leverage their own platform to help others, especially in tight times. I don’t think it comes naturally, but I do know it encourages more of the same.

I hate to flip the intent of this post, but the reverse is true as well. If you leverage your platform to disrespect your peers, everyone begins to draw swords.

I’m not sure if this is easier to spot in local markets or it’s just easier to spot in my local market, but I’ve noticed an uptake in shenanigans again — teams taking credit where it’s undue, agencies unwilling to mention others in the field, sales execs misleading prospects, etc. It all seems to plot in direct correlation to economic conditions. I think if we looked more closely, though, we’d find it more directly related to the community’s reaction to them.

In other words, if and when times get tough, you can handle it as per the examples at top, or you can piss in the village well and see what happens. I recommend the former. It’s healthier for everyone.

By the way, sorry for the metaphor. I get tired of the adolescent antics of mature individuals and agencies. As easy as it would be to ignore it all and go drink from the river, I think there’s a higher standard we can all measure ourselves against.

But the recent celebrity rush on top of the media nods has given twitter the kind of credibility that can suck in the unwilling. So we get these official accounts for celebrities and politicians keeping us up to date by way of a savvy intern.

Like U.S. Senator John Thune, Republican, South Dakota, whose account gave us the following blip earlier tonight:

Introduced bill to require admin to pay down debt using $ repaid by TARP recipients. Hope to prevent Pres from creating rolling slush fund.

I look at this and think: who wrote this? Was it the Senator himself or the savvy intern who convinced him of twitter’s credibility.

I’m going with the latter. I saw those twitpics last week. Noobs in suits don’t twitpic the first day they’re on twitter. Interns do. And you just let your ghostwriter define you in terms of that intangible event you hope to prevent when you’d have defined yourself in terms of what you actually do.

My point is this: do it yourself. Be genuine. You might be able to find a ghostwriter who understands or even shares your political views, but you’re going to struggle finding someone who shares your character.

As luck would have it, twitter has a million examples of genuine participants, beginning with Shaq and ending with the guy twittering with no regard to whether or not you know his full name.

So, apologies to all for the offstage lecture. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it’s announced that Mr. Thune will be attending the next twitter meetup. Maybe we’ll get new evidence. Maybe I’ll argue that ghostwriters have initials that can be typed in for the fake stuff.

We’ll see.

Take the same idea, ask the question “why?“, and you get answers like “Because it’s an awesome idea that won’t take much to implement.” It makes you want to go.

I don’t care if you roll your eyes when you spot reference to Web 2.0 or not, but a very specific characteristic of the shift was people dropping the gating question “why not?” and running with “why?” Great ideas — many of which made little to no business sense — began to hit at crazy pace.

And then it stopped. You see facebook apps now that make you scratch your head or even smile like you did when you still read techcrunch, and there’s definitely a lot of tying-on-to-twitter going on that does so without regard to profit. But it’s a minority thing again.

Unless we’re talking about mobile. In which case, absolutely nobody should be asking why not.

And, if you’re at all unsure of the intended audience of this post, you should know I sometimes refer to myself as absolutely nobody.

I used to care about such things, but now you’d have to take me out back and beat me just to get me to tell you what I do. And even then, I probably won’t give you much of a story.

It’s not that we aren’t looking for new clients, or business partners, or whatevers. It’s that we do it differently. And I completely abhor the idea of talking with people in casual settings in the hope we can someday work together. Maybe this means I’m crotchety, but I’d rather just hear what people are up to, sans pitch.

So, while I hear others saying they need to get better at networking, I’m pretty content to let it go. There are more productive ways to land work (full disclosure: we have brilliant project managers,) and there are definitely more comfortable ways to hang out at events.

Oh, and this, of course, has nothing to do with my performance at last night’s event.