outbound traffic

This is the forth and final installment of our series on how poorly the Chronicle’s Design Editor responds to criticism that he’s not done his homework. Air kisses for everyone from Big Z!
On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Sardar, Zahid wrote:

Thanks Tom,
appreciate your input, and be sure to continue to express your views always. It gets people informed about every point of view.
best
Zahid

To which I replied:

Zahid,

Not sure what you’re thanking me for, but if it’s for saying “the emperor has no clothes,” then you’re welcome. I still do wish you’d answer in a substantive way, but clearly that’s not something you seem inclined to do. Too bad.

And yes, I’ll be sure to continue to express my views, and I’m sure you won’t mind if, in that spirit, I blog about this informative email exchange.

And thanks, also, for giving me something new to look for in the Chronicle; I’ll be sure to read your columns with interest from now on.

Best,

Tom

Part three of the SF Chron Design Editor: Punk or Not? series

On Oct 24, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Sardar, Zahid wrote:

thanks tom…I think , as i said before , there is a public forum online where you can express your views.
For now, I think it is enough that we agree that Burning Man’s goals to be green were not met.
thanks and let’s see each other possibly next year on the playa where more resouces will be burned.
best
Zahid

From: price_tom@hotmail.com
Subject: Do you ever respond to feedback, or always insist on pointing at someone else instead?
Date: October 24, 2007 2:02:26 PM PDT
To: ZSardar@sfchronicle.com
Cc: mwhite@sfchronicle.comZahid,

Continuing to ignore a critique of your story won’t make it go away. And just saying something is true doesn’t make it so.

Burning Man’s environmental goals were met. I know, because it was my job to help define them. Your editor defines the goals for your job, by saying what’s due, and when. So you both know when you’ve gotten it done. Same with the people I work for.

Meanwhile, why aren’t you answering the very reasonable questions being asked about your story? Why aren’t you doing the same thing you’ve asked me, namely backing up my claims and responding to criticism? Why are you instead running away from answering a legitimate, thoughtful, well reasoned critique of your work?

A quick glance at your last several columns indicates you either receive no feedback at all, or derision as a shill for developers. If you’re so certain of your point of view, then take the same time you suggest someone else would to back up your claims, or admit they were a mistake. Either with do, neither would be a confirmation that you can’t.

Regards,

Tom Price

“Hi, I’m Zahid, and I’m beyond using mere facts.”
So he wrote back, almost right away. Well, sort of. I mean, there were words, but they didn’t say…anything, really. Is *this* really his reply? That art is something we can do without? I’m wondering how he got this job.

Then again, his replies and column taking together are actually fascinating examples of why he probably did get it–they combine seemingly savvy insights with implied wisdom and self referential nomenclature, but without the burden of quantifiable outcomes. Or, he talks a good game, but it’s done in a way that usually stands up to criticism because, when parsed, the implied strong POV isn’t really there.

The result? Like most design, and design literature, and fashion writing, it’s a simulacrum of analysis berift of substance. See? I just did it–the combo of those sentences would be read by most as a critique of him, but parsed, they’re not. Oh, clever, Zahid. You’ve got mad skills.
His reply, in toto, and mine below: (more…)

The design editor at the Chronicle, Zahid Sardar, wrote a story saying Burning Man was a failure at being green, and gave examples. I called to talk to him, but he didn’t call back. So I wrote with some feedback, and he wasn’t having any of it. Well, Zahid, back atcha: (more…)

Leaving Forrest Brady’s very cool, very eclectic IgniteSF event last night, Andie and I agreed that the most thought provoking presentation (admittedly, pregnant lady and I skipped out post Scubabot) was Brooke Blumenstein’s Web 2.0 Outside the Tech Scene.
Her partner Toby Segaran’s on datamining was also a kick, listen to both here. And I’m fascinated to see they’re experimenting with outsourcing their lives, since I’ve become enamored of the same idea after having the 4 hour workweek shoved down my throat by my friend Brian. I digress.
Setting aside the presentation form itself ( 15 slides, 5 minutes, which really keeps things moving along ), and Brooke’s nervousness ( a tip to a potentially otherwise great speaker: modulate your voice, and decide which part of you you’re going to let move, keep the rest still ), her talk about Katzenbach Partners Hub+ knowledge management system, which generates tags for saved documents, provoked an idea.

AG and I’ve both broken our heads against Burning Man’s extranet, which although well intentioned is a kludge, and so doesn’t inspire use. In fact, it actively discourages it. So coming to learn how to make one work was interesting.

But to the question: why can’t we embed publishing into the production platform itself? Why can’t Word or Excel or whatever have a button insterted into the menu bar that saves the document directly to the archiving architechture, automatically pulling key words from the title and headers, and suggesting tags, and suggesting which teams be allowed access?

It seems so simple to do, and of course I understand none of the technical implications. But given the amount of data increasing daily, why can’t we simplify the storage and retrieval of it just a wee bit?

I write a file which has the words “solar”, “gerlach,” and “DPW” in the title–surely that’s plenty to explain what teams of people aught to be interested in it, and where it should live? And from that, be able to infer and generate tags?

Like I said, I’m sure I’m missing something.