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
I'd been looking for something like this for a long time too.
For the past couple of months, I've been using an IFTTT recipe that takes anything I watch on YouTube, which I designate essentially with their thumbs up, and it creates a draft post on my site.
Some things I keep privately while others get posted publicly. You could write most of the format of your "like" within the IFTTT interface, including the u-like-of.
For a while I've been using the Post Kinds Plugin to parse the URL and pull in the meta-data as well as wrapping it with the u-like-of. Despite being more of a PESOS workflow, it's pretty quick and simple. Here's a recent "watch" post: http:/
Post Kinds Plugin is theme-able so you can modify things to display the way you'd like, though I generally find the default is pretty solid.
Alternately, Post Kinds also allows you to create a bookmarklet that imports the URL directly to quickly create a post (of almost any type). I've detailed how to do it here: https:/
Did @ifttt really turn off @twitter recipe that allowed one to add twits to a list automatically? #Fail http:/
@rikmende Rick, I can't speak to stripping out your prior history of past posts, but I have used a quirky hack in the past to get around Facebook's save-for-later functionality which seems to be designed to keep you in Facebook 24/7. It'll work for your "saved" articles moving forward.
You can use this IFTTT recipe: https:/
To have it work, instead of bookmarking with Facebook's native interface, just repost/share the link/article you want to save to your own Facebook feed. If you don't want to share it with everyone, just mark the reshare as shared only with yourself and then only you would be able to see it. The IFTTT recipe will then strip the URL out of your shared post and push it to Pocket.
Note that if you POSSE to Facebook, you'll also see shared URLs for your own posts appear in Pocket from then on, but you can delete/mark as read all of those quickly enough. Or you can favorite them and push them to your public-facing Pocket shares (which are also subscribable) and consider them a form of POSSE to Pocket! Win-Win!
@RikMende I'm curious about your #readlater and #readinglist hashtags. Do you revisit your site with a search for those and change them after you've read them? Do you have an alternate exterior workflow for reading later?
I usually use the "like/favorite" functionality on Twitter to "highlight" things I want to read with an IFTTT.com recipe to save the URLs from Twitter to my Pocket account for reading later. Pocket allows me to download the data from my account, so I can technically "own" it, but I'm always looking for a better workflow for this.
Curious what others use/do for this kind of work flow...
tl;dr: It's easy enough to support microformats v2 (and even backcompat for v1) and they don't/shouldn't create any conflicts so why not support them out of the box?
I think that a forward-looking platform like Auttomatic should definitely be supporting (and perhaps even iterating internally) on microformats2, particularly since they're simple added classes that give semantic meaning to the massive amounts of data that are put on the web via the platform. This makes them much more valuable to end users of the web (and doesn't mean they're simply a cut-and-dried SEO tool for Google's benefit.)
Though schema and microformats are meant for the same types of general functionality, their implementations and pros/cons are different. In part, Google controls the schema structure while microformats are more open and extensible, particularly if/when additional classes seem necessary in the wild. Additionally, Google, et al. certainly don't ding sites that use one or the other or even both.
I also know there were a few plugins in the repository that used to support microformats v1 that aren't actively supported anymore (see https:/
Kevin Marks does a pretty good job of laying out microformats vs. schema here: http:/
Amy Guy, part of the W3C Team and co-staff contact for the Social Web working group, also has some useful thoughts on the benefits of microformats (and comparison with linked data) as well: http:/
I'm doing some parsing related work on my suggested (pending) pull request to make sure that parsers will properly read the recipe data. It may require a tweak or two prior to pulling.
I've added mf2 classes to WordPress's [recipe] shortcode at: https:/
I've also opened an issue for the JetPack repository to see if they'll include it moving forward.
[Recipe] shortcode: add additional microformats support (v1 and v2) · Issue #4470 · Automattic/jetpack https:/
#### Steps to reproduce the issue
The current [recipe] shortcode appears to _only_ support the '[hrecipe](http:/
#### What I expected
I would have expected the additional dozen or so classes in hrecipe to be supported, or better yet, that it would have also supported the newer microformats2 [h-recipe](http:/
I'm anything but a github expert, but I took a crack at adding the additional classes (for both mf1 and mf2) on a forked branch, which also includes some additional detail:
I've got a copy of this patch running on a site with a recipe at: http:/
Support Post Kind: Recipe · Issue #57 · dshanske/indieweb-post-kinds https:/
I've been playing around with food recipes lately and thought this might be another worthwhile/relatively common post type (https:/
I'll also note that WordPress (via JetPack) just updated their recipe shortcode: https:/
gives some additional front end support (as well as mf1 mark up for hrecipe, though I'll see what I can do to inject mf2 as well)
Fontawesome: <i class="fa fa-cutlery" aria-hidden="true"></i>
Use case example: http:/
@WithKnown @ErinJo It looks like the URLs in the plugins list for Recipe and Review in the Known documentation have changed (it appears that en dashes have been substituted for em dashes). The new corrected ones should be:
This popped up a few weeks ago in my little free library, and expecting that it fell into a similar category as my friend P.M. Forni's works, I thought I'd give it a quick read. Given the title, it certainly wasn't being marketed to me directly, but I suspect the writer lost the battle with the publisher for giving it a more sophisticated subtitle.
In particular, it comes out in the category of books fashioned from tying together ideas from a commonplace book(s). It's well written and covers a broad variety of ideas and research, which most are unlikely to be aware.
It's a bit more prescriptive and accessible to most in comparison to [book:Thinking, Fast and Slow|11468377], though I prefer the later for its depth. I was somewhat disappointed that her references were primarily from writers living after the 1400's while I initially expected to see more material from 400 BCE to 500AD, but one can obtain many of these from the aforementioned [author:P.M. Forni|148299] references. I was disappointed that her one passing mention of <i>eudaimonia</i> was for its simple existence as a word rather than for its relation to the thesis of the overarching text.
Having read many of her references including having been a fan and proponent of Benjamin Franklin's system for several decades, I didn't learn too many ideas I wasn't previously aware of, though it did make for a relatively interesting biography, in great part because of a large overlap in my interests and the author's.
I ran across many poor reviews of the work which seemed to focus on the writer's privileged background and her choice to write on this particular topic. I find this generally disingenuous as I seriously doubt any of these critics would have leveled similar barbs at any of the better known philosophers from ancient Greece onward and every one of those authors also held positions of power, prestige, and/or wealth. The real difference between the groups of writers is that this is a meta-analysis and general recipe for a modern approach to happiness while prior efforts by the classical writers were generally of a more straightforward philosophical bent.
I wasn't a fan of the inserted comments from the author's blog as a general narrative construct, though they did serve to provide additional ideas outside of the direct sphere of the author's experience to give unimaginative readers ideas about how they could use the advice to structure their own program.
As very few are aware of and even fewer have tried to implement Franklin's system, I could easily recommend this to a variety of people, though given the title and the marketing viewpoint of the book, I'm not sure many would take the content as seriously as they ought. I would rarely read, much less recommend a "self-help" title, but though I wish the references to the science of happiness were more thorough here there is some great underlying scientific material, so I would recommend this to anyone who wants to contempalate how to live a happier life.