Progress on the New Blog
I just got off the phone with tech wizard Evariste, who says he can get my “The Jury Talks Back” site up and running in the next few days. Give me a week or so; if he can get it done faster, consider it a pleasant surprise.
In the meantime, a couple-three housekeeping notes:
- Who can sign up:
I probably should have been clearer about this one up front.
The response has been very, very strong. A lot of people want to be involved, which I think is great.
However, my vision for this site is that it be a limited group of posters, at least at first. I’m shooting for anywhere between five or six on the low end to twelve on the high end (think of it as in keeping with the “jury” theme). Anything more than that, and it will likely be chaos. As a result, I’m going to have to turn some people down, at least at first.
If I turn you down, please don’t take it personally. With rare exceptions, I will be looking first and foremost to long-time commenters, particularly those with a track record of good writing, as well as clear-eyed thought and expression. But if I don’t select you at first, that doesn’t mean I think you’d suck. I’m just looking for an interesting mix at first.
- WLS and Justin to blog there?
By e-mail, I’ve broached the idea with WLS and Justin Levine of having them post at the new site for the foreseeable future. The thinking here is that those of you who enjoy their posts, which I think is most of you, will have an added incentive to click on the new blog and check them out. Sure, the idea of a mix of viewpoints should be an attraction, but I think having people you’re used to reading posting there would be a nice transition and readership magnet. WLS and Justin may see this post before they check their e-mail, so I hope they will let me know if they’re willing to do this.
- Artwork:
The new site will likely have a very similar look to the main site, but I’d like the banner to look slightly different. Obviously, it should have the title of the site (“The Jury Talks Back”) and perhaps some other artwork to go with it that is compatible with the themes of both the main site and the new site. If anyone wants to volunteer a new banner, I’d love to see it.
I think this could be a lot of fun, and thanks for all the e-mails. I’ll try to reply to you over the coming days, as the launch date approaches.
…I will be looking first and foremost to long-time commenters, particularly those with a track record of good writing, as well as clear-eyed thought and expression…
Those requirements eliminate a certain physics major from Kentucky.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 11/14/2008 @ 1:03 amSounds good so far. Hoping Justin will allow comments.
Old Coot (8a493c) — 11/14/2008 @ 6:32 amThey eliminate a lot of his regular commentators, too. 🙂
Baby steps, Old Coot… Baby steps. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/14/2008 @ 6:52 amOT: Tech Support
Patterico, your site seems to be acting up. I’m getting offered an add-on to install every time I go to your home page today. A dialog box pops up every time, and I have to decline it every time, since I don’t know what the add-on is, and it’s a bummer. In addition, there’s a space with a little red x in the upper left corner of the space in the next post (“It’s Funny Because It’s True”) where, I assume, a video is supposed to be, but there’s no video.
Official Internet Data Office (8360fd) — 11/14/2008 @ 8:29 amOIDO,
Flash had an update in the last couple of days. That could be it.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/14/2008 @ 9:16 amI would love to participate, but only if my identity is protected. I don’t call myself L.N. Smithee for nothing. I learned the danger of being too open about oneself on the WWW (thankfully, from somebody else) over a decade ago.
Samuel J. Wurzelbacher didn’t even put himself online and his life has been changed forever because of YouTube (it remains to be seen whether for better or for worse).
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 11/14/2008 @ 12:29 pmI’m just going to feel rejected in advance of the actual rejection.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/14/2008 @ 2:57 pmI didn’t see a list of the writers who will be participating but hopefully the Jury will include a few women who can offer perhaps a bit of a different perspective. This is where DRJ will be missed.
Dana (79a78b) — 11/14/2008 @ 5:35 pm