Skip to main content

Biomedical and Electrical Engineer with interests in information theory, evolution, genetics, abstract mathematics, microbiology, big history, Indieweb, and the entertainment industry including: finance, distribution, representation







@realkimhansen be sure to push one or two other messages to take advantage of eyes paying more attention ;)


Sorry to hear that it took so much work, but the end result is pretty cool. I hope it has a useful advertising effect and would be curious to hear the numbers if you track them.


For the syndicated portfolio, you might want to take a peek at the PressForward plugin for WordPress []. While it is a stand-alone feed reader under the hood and could be used for creating an editorial flow, it will let you use a simple bookmarklet on your work published on another site to make a quick and complete copy of the post on your own site. Within the plugin settings you can set a "time to forward" (I use one second) such that people who visit that particular post will be automatically forwarded to the original (and canonical URL) on the commissioning outlet's site.

As an example, compare: (which is a bookmark with some commentary pointing to my post)
to (which is an exact copy of my post, which only I can see on my backend, that redirects the viewer to the original on AltPlatform).

This is beneficial as you can syndicate (POSSE) the post with your own URL to Facebook, Twitter, et al. and folks who click to read will be sent to your site for a moment before being forwarded on to the original. Thus you get a ping and the original outlet also gets a ping (as well as the advertising revenue for it.) And if, for any reason, the original outlet goes out of business, gets sold, or disappears, you've got a word-for-word copy of your original and can simply un-forward it so that it can appear on your site as it was originally published. Naturally if you prefer and the outlet doesn't stipulate otherwise, you could publish the original to your site and not forward it (or even forward it for an exclusivity window of time pre-agreed with the original publisher.)

Additionally, if you're using for backfeed, anyone who comments on your POSSE copies will have their commentary sent to your site. While others won't necessarily be able to see the commentary (if you're forwarding the URL to the publisher's original), at least you'll be aware of it and can reply to it and get your own replies in return. I suspect that in the future may be able to scrape commentary based on the syndicated URL so that your personal version aggregates commentary from the publisher's original as well as mentions of it on Facebook, Twitter, et al.

There are still some missing pieces I'd like to see in such a workflow for journalists, but it's slowly and surely getting somewhere.

(I've written about other parts of PressForward before at as I also have an off-label use-case to replace read it later apps like Pocket and InstaPaper.)


Bookmarklet chopping out NYTimes text · Issue #900 · PressForward/pressforward

When nominating/drafting from NYTimes stories, typically the first several graphs are excised or not copied over into the post.

Based on some quick experiments it appears that the portion of stories that appears before </div><!-- close story-body --> (typically followed by some advertising before the story resumes) are the ones being left out for some reason. From the bookmarklet's point of view NYT articles seem to begin with the portion <p id="story-continues-2" class="story-body-text story-content" rather than the true start of the article.

Given that the Mercury browser plugin doesn't exhibit this behavior, I suspect it's something to do with the bookmarklet's JS?

This is occurring in 4.2.2 and earlier versions of the bookmarklet. I'm seeing it in Chrome as well as Firefox, so it doesn't seem to be browser dependent.

If pre-highlighting text in the browser, one does get the typical blockquoted portion of a Press This bookmarklet output.


@eatpodcast, Jeremy, on the topic of affiliate links, it's not all too dissimilar from having a Patreon link on EatThisPodcast, especially if you have a small disclaimer somewhere, perhaps by your Patreon link. If you had affiliate links on your podcast (or in the notes) to products and services that fit within the realm of your "brand(s)" or related to the particular pieces you write/produce, I would think it to be not only appropriate, but would probably go out of my way to use them.

The problem with some who use affiliate links is that they use them to their detriment, are trying to put something over on their audience, begin over-advertising, or advertising for things outside their areas of expertise. So for example, if you had a section on Fornacalia with book reviews of some of the best books on bread, I'd probably go out of my way to use your affiliate links to purchase a few. (In fact, as a fan of bread, such a feature is one of the things I wish the site had.) It would be my simple way of paying it forward to you for sharing your years of experience with your audience, which you're not otherwise charging in any way. On the other hand, if you started promoting links to hiking equipment, it would probably leave me scratching my head or even scare me away.

I occasionally use affiliate links, but my audience is so small as for the income to be wholly negligible. At best it puts a small dent in web hosting on an annual basis. Given what you do in particular on Eat This Podcast and Fornacalia, it's a simple way of helping to defray some expenses, but might prevent you from taking other off-brand bulk advertising which would otherwise pull down the tremendous value of information you bring to your audiences. The quality of your content is certainly such that you ought to have paid advertising, but in lieu of that I can't imagine that anyone would object to a few affiliate links.


Jeremy, this seemed a little long for Loqi to handle, and seemed worth keeping for later, so my response is below:

I understand your situation and have been following some of the discussion about content ownership and reposting. I'm all about giving credit where it's due, and bend over backwards (as far as I'm technically able) to do so. (Wait until you see some of the chicanery I'm trying to pull of for simple bookmark posts...)

It's for that reason that I provided a direct link to the podcast itself in the post as well as a blockquote synopsis in an effort to advertise on your show's behalf. Embedding the mp3 directly on my page was done as a means of helping people easily "sample" the podcast to get them hooked, in which case they would need to subscribe directly to the source. (I also did it to make it easier for me to relisten to it later if I like.) I'm still trying to get Twitter Player Cards to work properly so that could be an additional avenue for sampling on POSSE copies.

Additionally, by embedding the mp3 (I could have scraped it and then hosted it myself, but really, what's the point of that? unless I really wanted to steal it and run advertising against it for myself), your hosting server gets pinged for the "listen" or for any potential downloads because it's being served directly from your site (and not mine), which presumably most podcasters are tracking for advertising purposes. (YouTube and other video hosters do this for embedded videos.)

What I did was not much different than what Huffduffer is doing in bookmarking audio from your podcast on its site. Huffduffer isn't hosting a separate audio file itself, it's hosting a pointer to your file on its site and also syndicating it via RSS and/or Apple iTunes to others who will ultimately stream it or download it directly from your server. In fact, given this, I'm just acting like a mini-Apple iTunes without as much functionality, but I'm only advertising your podcast and not hundreds of thousands of others.

If you did have sponsors, you would presumably also give them airtime in your podcast which would then be heard as well, and tracked by your own server as a stream start or download. I suspect if you had visual advertising on your site, I could/might also embed that so you get a ping for the page load on my site as well. :)

If you're not aware or need it for clients, WordPress gives you the ability to customize your site's ability to provide oEmbeds, so with/for advertisers, you could add text, media, and even a visual advertisement to the pages for your audio podcasts. Other WordPress sites (or sites that consume oEmbed data) that include your URL in their pages then re-render it as a "player card" which presumably pings your server with a "hit" thus giving you credit for the work. Here's an example of an oEmbed for another WordPress site at the top of this post: See videos for potentially setting this up at: This type of set up isn't far removed from publishers who embedded advertising directly into their RSS feeds so that those consuming content via RSS weren't taking a free ride.

Perhaps I'm mistaken about the process, and you may be far more knowledgeable than I given your experience in the space, but I'm pretty sure that by embedding and not copying and hosting it myself, you should be able to garner the lion's share of the credit while I'm just serving as free advertising on your behalf.

As an alternate example, things are somewhat different in Marty's case of creating a separate piece of audio and copying and embedding it into his podcast as aaronpk's music didn't register a ping of any sort (other than possibly a webmention which only happened once), so aaronpk couldn't have monetized his audio the way you could have with a sponsored podcast.


@christinahills Protecting or advertising? Or both? Watermarking shouldn't be so croppable if you're protecting.


An open letter to Otis Chandler (or the goon overlords at @Amazon) on the Goodreads Brand Equity

3 min read


First from your own Goodreads bio:

For me the value I get out of Goodreads is that it helps me read more. I have a theory that what gets a person excited to read a book is when they have a strong recommendation. Recommendations from friends are the best, but we don't always have the luxury of having those, so we've built a community of book readers and a top-notch algorithmic recommendation engine to help people find their next favorite read.

Next, I'll note that I've just started getting emails from Goodreads this week with headlines like "Chris, your Goodreads Deals for Saturday". I would probably care about the contents of these if they had ANY book I might actually begin to consider. Instead they appear to be cheap romance thrillers that I would never consider reading. Where did the top-notch algorithmic recommendation engine go?!

Because the "recommendations" in these emails don't appear to actually use any data you have on me at all, they're completely useless to me, and--I suspect--to everyone else.  These books aren't anything I'd be interested in, instead they're just cheap books that you (or perhaps Amazon is forcing your hand for some base profit motive) are advertising, likely on someone else's behalf to get higher margin.  This completely goes against the Goodreads value proposition and is thus killing your brand equity in the market place--it's certainly hurting it in my mind. I really love Goodreads, and these emails border on making me want to quit.

Instead of getting one of these completely useless emails every day, I'd far prefer you mined my "want to read" list or use the "if you liked this, you'll love this" functionality against my active lists for discount possibilities and send me just one email a week or even per month. You'll also be far more likely to get any kind of conversion. 

Given the data they have on me, my Amazon Kindle Paperwhite already does a horrific job of recommending some of the worst looking novels on the planet. It's so bad I actually want to pay the fee to make the ads go away. Please don't let Goodreads follow suit. Let Bookbub continue to be the bookspam in my email account that I don't read or pay attention to and allow the emails from Goodreads that I always open keep their Tiffany place in my heart.

Warmest regards,



Replied to a post on :

UX/UI enhancement: Blank syndication links being syndicated · Issue #23 · dshanske/syndication-links


I've seen blank versions of syndicated links appear on various platforms, the one above is a capture from the reader I've also noticed it when syndicating to and Facebook (though I've removed it programatically since). I'm not sure if I've seen them display on other sources (in most cases I choose to use the icon versions rather than text, but could do a quick test to see if the text at least appears.) Since I'm sure there are others, I'm curious if there's a way to either fix how these show up (or not) or simply move them for POSSEd copies?

Thoughts on UX/UI:
I'm presuming that they're hooked onto the end of the_content(), which then means that they're being syndicated out as part of the body of the content. I would suggest that on most platforms, most people don't/won't care about the fact that there are syndicated copies (though for the near term of advertising the concept for the IndieWeb, keeping them may be valuable), particularly when they can view the primary source which ought to presumably have all the commentary and webmentions (by backfeed or other means).

Interestingly, I occasionally see, though not as often, the "Share This" data flow through in the same manner. In my case the share this appears _above_ the list of syndicated links: viz:
![share this](
Is there some type of processing that Jetpack is doing to prevent this from syndicating as "content"?

The way I typically think about it, knowing about syndicated copies is mostly useful as a function of commenting rather than content, so that if someone comments in Facebook, for example, I go back to that silo to post a response, so their chosen platform can send notifications/emails etc about the interaction, and rely on webmentions to backport my own comment onto my site and to keep the flow of conversation on the original post rather than a separate post on my own site that points back to another. Perhaps then, the best default location for syndication links is within the comments section? This then solves the problem of syndicating out blank versions, but more closely associates the syndicated copies with the "conversation" about the post. Potentially putting them at the top of the comments section could also keep them relatively close to where they currently live as a default.

I pose most of this as ideas/potential suggestions, but I'm curious what others think in terms of what/how they use this functionality.


Replied to a post on :

This sounds fairly reminiscent of the algorithmic issues Amazon is facing with their Kindle Unlimited program, except there, spammers are being paid cash directly for gaming the system without having to spend the effort that click-baiters do in also playing the advertising game.